A split Senate (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    wardorican

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 14, 2019
    Messages
    3,861
    Reaction score
    4,374
    Age
    43
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Offline
    They still haven't worked out their rules. This is just grinding the Senate to a halt.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...19e512-5cf3-11eb-b8bd-ee36b1cd18bf_story.html

    When President Biden took office last week, he promised sweeping, bipartisan legislation to solve the coronavirus pandemic, fix the economy and overhaul immigration.
    Just days later, the Senate ground to a halt, with Democrats and Republicans unable to agree on even basic rules for how the evenly divided body should operate.

    Meanwhile, key Republicans have quickly signaled discomfort with — or outright dismissal of — the cornerstone of Biden’s early legislative agenda, a $1.9 trillion pandemic relief plan that includes measures such as $1,400 stimulus checks, vaccine distribution funding and a $15 minimum wage.
    On top of that, senators are preparing for a wrenching second impeachment trial for former president Donald Trump, set to begin Feb. 9, which could mire all other Senate business and further obliterate any hopes of cross-party cooperation.


    ....

    But most of those Democrats — who watched McConnell exempt Republican nominees from filibuster rules where he saw fit under Trump, after using them to the GOP’s advantage for six years before that to block Obama’s legislation and nominees — now find his early power move to be infuriating.
     
    Has McConnell publicly stated yet that his only job is to make Biden a one term President (like he did with Obama), or is he actually keeping the quiet part quiet this time?

    Here's the problem. People who voted for a Democratic majority--particularly people in Georgia, who were told that votes for Ossoff and Warnock were votes to give everyone $2k, etc.--don't care about arcane Senate rules. All they care about, as they should, is whether the Senate gets things done that help them. If the Democrats control a majority and can't accomplish anything, it's on them for not understanding how to use power. McConnell, for all his faults, understood how to wield power. He blocked an Obama Supreme Court nominee and then rammed through a final Trump nominee in eight days after it was pretty clear that Trump was already on the outs. He passed a ridiculous tax cut with pretty much zero debate or public discussion before the vote. Maybe the Democrats see how hated McConnell is for stuff like that, and they don't want to be hated like he is or whatever. But they're going to be hated by certain people no matter what, so they might as well get shirt done.
     
    I think it's often overstated how awful it would be without the filibuster when Republicans take control again. Republicans aren't really about passing major pieces of legislation to address serious problems. They mostly pass tax cuts for wealthy and business, which they always accomplish under budget reconciliation anyway. Other than that, it's judges, which again they already only need a majority. Possibly pass draconian immigration laws, but their moderate members might balk at anything to drastic.

    Democrats are the ones how pass major pieces of legislation. Having the filibuster mostly affects what they want to accomplish. And McConnell knows that. The worst that we'll get without the filibuster is a lot of 180's on legislation Republicans are opposed to. We already have that same effect with executive orders.
    I'm not a fan of eliminating the filibuster completely, but it has to be modified, because the minority games the system to stall or even freeze everything. I think there will be some consequences that may not be apparent yet, but the Senate should not be allowed to ignore legislation passed by the House indefinitely. Maybe the filibuster rules could be left largely intact for new Senate legislation, but the Senate needs to act on legislation that has already been passed by the House, or vote on the House bill as written. I'd be cool with requiring a 60 vote Senate majority to pass an existing House bill, in lieu of a filibuster that prevents a vote. Sitting on bills indefinitely is wrong because it is like disenfranchising the House and its constituents. I believe there were several House bills that had almost super majority support in the Senate that McConnell wouldn't even allow to come to the floor, so they probably would've gotten at least 60 votes.

     
    I'm not a fan of eliminating the filibuster completely, but it has to be modified, because the minority games the system to stall or even freeze everything. I think there will be some consequences that may not be apparent yet, but the Senate should not be allowed to ignore legislation passed by the House indefinitely. Maybe the filibuster rules could be left largely intact for new Senate legislation, but the Senate needs to act on legislation that has already been passed by the House, or vote on the House bill as written. I'd be cool with requiring a 60 vote Senate majority to pass an existing House bill, in lieu of a filibuster that prevents a vote. Sitting on bills indefinitely is wrong because it is like disenfranchising the House and its constituents. I believe there were several House bills that had almost super majority support in the Senate that McConnell wouldn't even allow to come to the floor, so they probably would've gotten at least 60 votes.

    Man, 116th Congress was busy!!! Seem like those guys can use a break from all that meaningful legislation.

    To quote Hancock when he flew in to help LAPD during a bank robbery, "Good Job!!!".
     
    I’ve sat and watched a Supreme Court justice not get filled, then one rammed through. I’ve seen Mitch sit on everything which the Democrats wanted and played power broker. I didn’t vote down ballot democrat to let Mitch continue his game. I wanted things done. Let’s do it.
     
    McConnell has caved, just heard it on TV, so no link yet.

    They will do what Schumer wants, which is the same power structure as the last time the Senate was 50-50.
     
    Hmm... in regards to Bidens 'Pandemic relief bill', what has an increase in the minimum wage got to do with fighting Covid-19 ?

    A lot of people have seen lost/reduced wages as businesses have either folded or reduced payrolls due to the pandemic. The $15 minimum wage will help those working at entry level positions make a little more. Their hours are already squeezed and the minimum wage has lagged behind inflation for decades. It's relevant and I hope will ultimately be a part of the relief bill. The minimum wage needs to be indexed to inflation. There's really no reason why that shouldn't be the case.
     
    A lot of people have seen lost/reduced wages as businesses have either folded or reduced payrolls due to the pandemic. The $15 minimum wage will help those working at entry level positions make a little more. Their hours are already squeezed and the minimum wage has lagged behind inflation for decades. It's relevant and I hope will ultimately be a part of the relief bill. The minimum wage needs to be indexed to inflation. There's really no reason why that shouldn't be the case.
    Hmm.. it sounds a bit to me like Biden is trying to shoehorn unrelated (or quasi-related) social issues into this bill ??
     
    Hmm.. it sounds a bit to me like Biden is trying to shoehorn unrelated (or quasi-related) social issues into this bill ??

    It's called politics. "Never let a crisis go to waste."

    If you're going to play the game, playing it to help poor people make more money is a good way to play it. I'm not a fan of a $15 minimum wage, but at least the intent of it is to help people who need help.
     
    It's called politics. "Never let a crisis go to waste."

    If you're going to play the game, playing it to help poor people make more money is a good way to play it. I'm not a fan of a $15 minimum wage, but at least the intent of it is to help people who need help.
    Hmm.. I guess that in the USA such 'loading' is RealPolitik. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when an urgent aid bill is corrupted to promote other social issues.

    If Biden wanted a hike in minimum wage, why not present it as a separate bill, to be duly debated by congress, instead of trying to 'smuggle' it in like this ?
     
    Hmm.. I guess that in the USA such 'loading' is RealPolitik. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when an urgent aid bill is corrupted to promote other social issues.

    If Biden wanted a hike in minimum wage, why not present it as a separate bill, to be duly debated by congress, instead of trying to 'smuggle' it in like this ?

    A large portion of people designated as essential workers make less than $15/hr. It's not politics, it's not "smuggling," it's trying to do the bare minimum to help people who have no choice but to expose themselves to the virus. And even if it was, I fail to see how that's a bad thing unless you're just heartless and think grocery store workers shouldn't be allowed to make a semi-living wage without working multiple jobs.
     
    A large portion of people designated as essential workers make less than $15/hr. It's not politics, it's not "smuggling," it's trying to do the bare minimum to help people who have no choice but to expose themselves to the virus. And even if it was, I fail to see how that's a bad thing unless you're just heartless and think grocery store workers shouldn't be allowed to make a semi-living wage without working multiple jobs.
    Hmmm.. not really. I somehow doubt your statement that 'a large portion.. designated as essential workers'. I have no doubt that some of the people earning less than $15/hour ARE 'essential workers', but I don't see how they form anything even approaching a majority.

    Sorry.. this just smacks of a social agenda being pushed into a bill intended for emergency relief ?
     
    Hmmm.. not really. I somehow doubt your statement that 'a large portion.. designated as essential workers'. I have no doubt that some of the people earning less than $15/hour ARE 'essential workers', but I don't see how they form anything even approaching a majority.

    Sorry.. this just smacks of a social agenda being pushed into a bill intended for emergency relief ?

    Then you really know nothing about working in the US. Our workers are woefully underpaid.
     
    Then you really know nothing about working in the US. Our workers are woefully underpaid.

    And have been for years. Not only underpaid, but also underemployed. A lot of companies refuse to give more than 30 hours/week to a large percentage of their entry level employees because they don't want to be on the hook for employee benefits that kick in at 30 and up.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom