President Obama: What's next?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

While I agree with Silver that it is unlikely that the Republicans will be able to muster 41 votes to maintain a fillibuster, I also note that he admits that (like me) he "didn't think the GOP would manage unanimous opposition to the recovery bill in the House." I think predictions are difficult to make at this point. That having been said, I predict that the bill that the Senate eventually votes on will be quite different than the one that the House passed.

[Primula Baggins]

And the one Obama signs will be different from both, as Ax has pointed out.

[Inanna]

And the house won't get a chance to vote again? I mean, what if they put in x things and remove y things that make it unacceptable to the house?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, the House will vote again. Assuming the Senate passes a version of the bill, representative of the houses will meet and devise a compromise between the two versions. Then both houses will vote on that.

[sauronsfinger]

Is there anyone here who believes that the Republicans in the Senate will vote as a group the way the House Republicans did to kill the Stimulus Bill regardless of its contents?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There is no reason to assume that all of the House Republicans voted against the bill to kill it "regardless of its contents". It certainly is possible that that was a motivation for some of them, but in all likelihood, many of them voted against it because the genuinely did not like its contents. Certainly there was much that was included that they could have found objectionable.

Kindly avoid make such blanket generalizations.

And no, I don't think it is likely that all of the Senate Republicans will vote against the version of the bill that goes up for a vote in the Senate. As I have already stated.

[sauronsfinger]

Voronwë - The House Republicans never did have the power to kill the bill. The Senate Republicans could have that power. Maybe I am not stating the question clearly. I will try again.

Let us say that the objections of the Senate Republicans are not taken care of and the contents of the Stimulus Bill are not to their liking. They insist on the procedures according to Rule 22 and Harry Reed agrees to abide by the vote.

Do you or anyone else here believe that the Senate Republicans would vote as a block and kill that bill?

[Ellienor]

I'm impressed by by the scrappiness of the House and Senate Republicans. They are down but not out! They are managing to gain much control and momentum by their tactics, over Obama and the Democrats.

This isn't meant to be pejorative.

edit for crappy English.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That doesn't sound pejorative at all to me, Ellie.

I think that most of the Senate Republicans will vote against any stimulus package that comes to a vote, because I don't think there is any chance that a package to their liking will be voted on. Most of them will vote against a closure motion, if one is brought to a vote, since that is the only way that they would be able to prevent passage of a measure that they disagree with. There are a handful of Republicans that probably are on the fence. Some of these might vote for closure, even if they would not go so far as voting for the bill. So might vote for the bill itself. It depends on what the bill looks like when it goes up for a vote. If it is loaded with spending measures that aren't directly related to stimulating the economy, it is possible that all of the Republicans will vote against it, and even against closure, not because they are voting as a block to kill the measure, but rather because they don't agree that it is in the best interests of the country. It's even possible that some Democrats will vote against it, or even possibly against closure, though I doubt that Reed will allow a closure vote to go forward unless he is sure that he has 60 votes lined up.

[Ellienor]

OK, we've lost two nominees including Daschle over tax issues, after Geithner did get confirmed despite his.'

OK, warning: venting follows.

What's wrong with these people? Geez! When I was in law school, I had a BABYSITTER who because we paid her more than whatever it was allowed per quarter, I went through the nasty annoying hoops of getting an employer tax id number, a state tax id number, and paid payroll taxes and medicare and reported her pay to the social security administration. And I was just a lowly law student paying peanuts to a babysitter.

I'm disgusted with these tax scofflaws. How rotten is it? I thought our elected representatives (who will have far more scrutiny than lowly, nothing me) would take care of their dang TAXES.

[axordil]

Did you have significant investment income when you were a law student? Tax-sheltered income? Dividends?

I'm shocked that EVERYONE who has to file something other than the EZ isn't in IRS trouble.

[Padme]

I often wonder if they just don't have accountants that they trust to do their taxes and just sign on the dotted line. I know most of the people I know with significant money don't do their own taxes and only sign, especially if the CPA is a good friend.

[axordil]

CPAs make mistakes too. Evidently that was part (but not all!) of both Geitner and Daschle's problems: they got bad tax advice.

[Padme]

I have no idea how anyone could keep all the tax laws straight to begin with.

[River]

It's a lawyer specialty.

[Cerin]

For heaven's sake, sf, no important legistlation ever passes the Senate without 60 votes. That's the way the system is designed. It would be foolish for the Republican leadership not to require that the administration/Democratic leadership garner sixty votes to allow it to pass.

If President Obama can't muster 60 votes, the bill shouldn't pass.

I'm really shocked to see this erroneous idea put forward. A bill passes the Senate by a simple majority. This last term, Republicans abused the power of the filibuster in an unprecedented fashion to block all legislation, and it seems that this is now regarded as normal procedure? It isn't. It's a perversion of the process. sf has explained it very well.

Many Republicans were outraged by the many Democratic filibusters of Bush's court nominees between 2002 and 2006.

There were not 'many' filibusters of Bush court nominees, there was a well-considered handful against extremists, and that is not comparable to the constant misuse of the filibuster that Republicans engaged in in the last session. This is not what the filibuster was designed for, and they would not be able to accomplish it without a majority leader who caved every time there was the mere threat of a filibuster. If they believe in their position enough to filibuster, then make them do it. This is a perversion of the Constitution. Legislation does not and should not require a super majority to pass!

Is there anyone here who believes that the Republicans in the Senate will vote as a group the way the House Republicans did to kill the Stimulus Bill regardless of its contents?

I believe they will do whatever Rush Limbaugh tells them to do, since his listeners are the only solid constituency they have left (speaking of the current disarray in the party), and he is directing their actions with respect to calls and letters to Republican lawmakers. There isn't even a Republican who dares find fault with Limbaugh's remark that he wants Obama to fail. Had a Democrat said that about Pres. Bush's attempts to take action in a national emergency, it would have rightfully been decried as treasonous.

I hope Pres. Obama has the guts to accept a defeat on the legislation rather than allowing the abuse of the filibuster to shape the bill. And can we please get rid of the appallingly ineffectual Harry Reid?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Hi Cerin; nice to see you here again.

I'm really shocked to see this erroneous idea put forward. A bill passes the Senate by a simple majority. This last term, Republicans abused the power of the filibuster in an unprecedented fashion to block all legislation, and it seems that this is now regarded as normal procedure? It isn't. It's a perversion of the process. sf has explained it very well.

It's not an "erroneous idea"; it is reality. Yes, it is quite true that a bill passes the Senate by a simple majority, as I have already acknowledged. But it is also true that it requires 3/5 of all sitting Senators to pass a motion for closure and allow a vote to go forward. Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, and for all practical purposes a minority party has been able to block passage of bills if the majority cannot muster 60 votes without engaging in endless floor speeches long, long before Harry Reid (who I agree is an ineffectual leader) became majority leader. You may not like it, but it is the reality as it now exists (as acknowledged by, among others, The New York Times).

There were not 'many' filibusters of Bush court nominees, there was a well-considered handful against extremists, and that is not comparable to the constant misuse of the filibuster that Republicans engaged in in the last session. This is not what the filibuster was designed for, and they would not be able to accomplish it without a majority leader who caved every time there was the mere threat of a filibuster. If they believe in their position enough to filibuster, then make them do it. This is a perversion of the Constitution. Legislation does not and should not require a super majority to pass!

The irony here is that, while there is a long history of blocking legislation where a closure vote cannot muster the requisite super-majority, using that tactic to block judicial appointments was virtually unheard of. Moreover, the Democratic Senators were using the same exact tactic that the Republicans have used; there was no question of engaging in endless floor speeches, the Democrats were simply going to invoke a closure motion to ensure that the nominees did not come up for an up-or-down vote. Traditional filibusters are a thing of the past, and have been for a while. I am puzzled as to why you think this more modern tactic was okay when used by Democrats to block judicial nominees (even though such an action had no precedent), but not okay when used by Republicans to block major legislation (even though such an action has lots of precedent).

I believe they will do whatever Rush Limbaugh tells them to do, since his listeners are the only solid constituency they have left (speaking of the current disarray in the party), and he is directing their actions with respect to calls and letters to Republican lawmakers. There isn't even a Republican who dares find fault with Limbaugh's remark that he wants Obama to fail. Had a Democrat said that about Pres. Bush's attempts to take action in a national emergency, it would have rightfully been decried as treasonous.

I think most Republican Senators will do what they believe is right, just as most Democratic Senators will. And it simply isn't true that no Republicans dared to find fault with Limbaugh's remark that he wanted Obama to fail (which of course was ridiculous statement. For instance, conservative Republican commentary Bill Bennett did so (as acknowledged by the highly liberal Huffington Post):

Bennett: Limbaugh Wrong To Say He Hopes Obama Fails

I hope Pres. Obama has the guts to accept a defeat on the legislation rather than allowing the abuse of the filibuster to shape the bill.

I want to make sure that I am correctly understanding what you are saying here, so bear with me. President Obama has stated in no uncertain terms how important he believes it is that a stimulus package be passed quickly. He is indicated that failing to do so risks allowing the economic quagmire to deepen to even more dangerous depths. He has also said that the differences between the two sides on the package are minor. With this as the background, are you saying that you hope that he is willing to risk allowing the economic meltdown to worsen unnecessarily, rather than agree to any compromises with the Republican minority? That's what it sounds like to me, but I think I must be missing something. I hope you can clarify this for me.

[sauronsfinger]

The fact here is a simple one and no amount of taking the "high road" will obscure it:

Harry Reed has the power to demand that the Republicans conduct a reall all out filibuster. And he does not. For some reason known only to Reed, he will allow the Republicans to win a procedural vote, and then kill a bill.

Whatever you want to say about bipartisanship, reaching across the aisle or anything else, Reed has allowed this to happen.

I am disgusted by it.

Somebody with more fortidude than Harry Reed must come along and say loudly and clearly "YOU LOST THE DAMN ELECTION".

[Faramond]

There were not 'many' filibusters of Bush court nominees, there was a well-considered handful against extremists, and that is not comparable to the constant misuse of the filibuster that Republicans engaged in in the last session.

Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III, Janice Rogers Brown.

Ten nominees filibustered.

I have heard that to a cat, any number higher than two is many.

We're not cats around here, so the many threshold is likely higher, but I've never heard of ten not being considered many.

And --- of course is was well considered. It better have been, since filibustering was almost never used previously on court appointees. I am sure that most filibusters in history have been well considered. Even the bad ones, like the filibusters of civil rights legislation in the 60's. They had their reasons, their convictions, they thought about the consequences, and at the last they fought the horrible danger they saw before them with the filibuster. "Well considered" is not a passport to a moral path. It is only to say that they felt they were justified by their own standards. Which is saying almost nothing at all.

Have the Republicans ever initiated a filibuster that was not misuse, by your understanding? What is the standard for calling a filibuster misuse?

Legislation does not and should not require a super majority to pass!

Legislation has always required something more than a simple majority to pass. It must get out of committee and survive amending and survive alternate version between chambers --- there are so many ways for a bill to die that don't involve that final vote. Most bills die without ever being voted on. This is the way it is, even though the Constitution makes no provision for all these other methods of killing a bill.

Those barriers to passage that have nothing to do with obtaining the majority vote are a curse. And a blessing. It depends, you know?

The upshot of all this is --- Republicans are still bedeviling Democrats and the other good people of this country. Such power the Republicans have, even from beyond the metaphorical grave. 41 Senators and one Rush Limbaugh, and they have vexed all!

I would instead suggest that Republicans are irrelevant here. It is the bill that matters. The bill is bad. It is bloated. It is filled with bad spending and unaffordable tax cuts. Obama would do well to spend less time trying to be bipartisan and more time trying to hammer out a good bill. One with efficient, targeted spending that clobbers the deficit to the minimum extent possible. Until that happens I hope this bill fails. I hope Obama fails, even. Until he starts attempting to do the right thing. And I think he might. Or at least get closer.

Had a Democrat said that about Pres. Bush's attempts to take action in a national emergency, it would have rightfully been decried as treasonous.

Did you never agree with Bush's actions in a national emergency? Did you never hope that some of his proposes solutions during that emergency might fail? That he might fail, in effect? Gitmo was a response to the national emergency of 911. Was it treasonous to hope Bush failed to open and maintain it?

When is opposition to a president treason? When does speech become treasonous and not protected?

[sauronsfinger]

The bill is bad? Do you think anyone - Democrats, Republicans, half and half, could craft a bill that spends hundreds of billions of dollars on many many different programs without anyone being able to cherry pick a portion to mock and ridicule?

If perfection is the new standard of acceptability - we all fail. But of course, that is indeed the goal of some of the opposition. When you cannot advance the ball down the field beacuse your own offense has proven to be inept and incompetent, the only thing you can hope for is your defense capitalizes on the other teams mistakes.

The USA Today has a good interactive map which shows the impact of the Stimulus Bill on each state:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2 ... ulus_N.htm

On the other hand, this was very encouraging on Tuesday:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/0 ... 63697.html

And Maureen Dowd of the Times has a good column in which she shows that the criticism is justified (to some extent), errors are being rectified (in some quarters) and the hypocrisy continues (in other quarters).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/opini ... .html?_r=2

from Cerin

I believe they will do whatever Rush Limbaugh tells them to do, since his listeners are the only solid constituency they have left (speaking of the current disarray in the party), and he is directing their actions with respect to calls and letters to Republican lawmakers. There isn't even a Republican who dares find fault with Limbaugh's remark that he wants Obama to fail.

from Voronwë

For instance, conservative Republican commentary Bill Bennett did so (as acknowledged by the highly liberal Huffington Post):

Bennett: Limbaugh Wrong To Say He Hopes Obama Fails

Yes, Bennett did say that and he is a Republican. Obviously, with millions of Republicans, there are some who would differ. When Cerin made her statement, I took it in the context of her discussion about Republicans in the Congress, especially the House which voted to the last man and woman seeming to take their marching orders from Limbaugh. The pathetic thing was the Congressman from Georgia- Phil Gingrey - who dared to say Rush could be wrong on some things, then crawled onto his radio show and did public penance for his transgressions like Henry IV at Canossa in a hair shirt. It was truly pitiful. Rush Limbaugh is a radio entertainer. He is not Pope Gregory VII who has to be catered to by doing public penance.

Is it any wonder that people look at this scene and come to the conclusion that the real leader of the Republican Party is not the newly elected Mr. Steele from Maryland from Rush Limbaugh from Florida?