Can Progressive MAJORITY in Congress Play HARDBALL?

[yurbud]

I've never had many kind words to say about Harry Reid, but the fourth paragraph I've excerpted says that read found Max Baucus's version of the jobs bill so pathetic and contemptible, that he turned the rewrite over to Dorgan and Durbin, guys who should be in leadership positions instead of the profoundly corrupt moral filth like Baucus.

I salute Harry Reid for doing that and wish he took more action like that. If he did, maybe his seat wouldn't be in jeopardy.

Kuttner mentions two ways for the Democrats to make Congress actually work, and the second method had actually been done before. Maybe it's time for the Democrats to switch to voting for committee chairs instead of awarding them based on seniority. Those jobs are just too important to leave to the oldest fart who hasn't kicked over yet.

And if Democrats STILL gave them to their most corrupt members, then those who voted for the corrupt could be held accountable instead of hiding behind an impersonal ''rules are rules'' defense.

Robert Kuttner
Co-Founder and Co-Editor of The American Prospect
Posted: February 14, 2010 10:23 PM

Progressive Hardball

If Democrats can start sounding like Democrats again, they'll have a better shot at holding onto their majority in Congress next November. And if they do keep their majority, they should do two things to turn themselves into a legislative party that can actually do the people's business.

First, scrap the filibuster rule. It isn't written into the Constitution, and in its modern form it only dates to 1975, when the Senate changed the rules to permit a single senator to require a supermajority of 60 votes on a given measure simply by threatening to hold the floor indefinitely, even if the senator couldn't be bothered to show up...

And second, dump committee chairmen who are laws unto themselves. One good candidate would be Max Baucus, who just did it again, with a pitiful bipartisan $85 billion "jobs" bill, which is mainly a tax cut bill that will produce scarcely any new jobs. Its proposed $15 billion payroll tax holiday for newly created positions would create precious few new jobs because the incentive is too small. Employers would mainly get a tax break for jobs they planned to fill anyway.

Baucus had asserted his prerogative that the Senate Finance Committee should take the lead in the Senate's response to the House, which narrowly passed a $154 billion jobs bill in December. But so feeble was Baucus's handiwork that last week Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid refused to accept most of it, and turned the project of fashioning an actual jobs bill (as opposed to tax cuts) back to senators Dick Durban and Byron Dorgan.

***
House Blue Dogs and pro-Wall Street "New Democrats" in the House, as well as individual turncoats in the Senate like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, and Tim Johnson, have demonstrated that they can play hardball. Progressive Democrats are actually a majority of the Democratic caucus in both houses. It's time they played a little hardball, too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/progressive-hardball_b_462108.html">FULL TEXT

[laughingliberal]

1. Outstanding! Dorgan and Duban are two of the best! nt

[DeadEyeDyck]

2. Sadly, this article should have been written a year ago...

it is too late now. The tide has strongly turned and any attempt to pull off the above would cost even more seats in November. I screamed for an iron fist months ago. Check my few posts. I stated that Obama could have passed anything he wanted a year ago, using executive order if he must, and by now it would be "settled law". But he pissed in the wind and told congress to sing "kumbyyum", reach across the isle and please everyone. And here we are. A party of Eunuchs.

I day-trade at present. For anyone that does, they understand waves. The forces are against us at the moment but the tide will turn again. Our best bet is to lay low, strengthen our position and get ready to strike when the iron is hot. Now is not the time. We have missrd the best opportunity in a hundred years, but having said that, when you miss, you close out your position and plan for a new one and never look back.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Kutner does'nt seem to understand that the Senate and the House work differently..

It is not as easy to change the rules in the Senate.

[yurbud]

4. actually the rules of the Senate can be changed with a simple majority

but having the will to do so and lose an excuse to capitulate to corporate interests may not be as easy to come by.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. An excellent discussion of this would be found here...

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Volume 28

Where there is, clearly, a constitutional option, there are not 51 Senators who are willing to pull that trigger and take the minority to the Supreme Court. To demand a constitutional option it will be necessary to either force the Right to capitulate or to go to the people who determine exactly what the Constitution means, and that would be the Roberts Court.

Byrd had a different court in 1975, and a majority of the Senate willing to change the rules no matter what. The article is clear that he would be able to pass the rule changes whether the minority liked it or not.

Unless you can show me a majority in the Senate willing to do this, and a court that will likely rule in their favor, the current rule requiring 66 votes to change Senate rules stands.

This is not a problem with Harry Reid, who is quite capable of getting a whip count and can probably read the SCOTUS as easily as he can read the wrinkles on his cock. You need 51 Senators and a court that will likely be friendly to making such changes, rather than simply saying that forcing a change of the Senate Rules is an inherent violation of the separation of powers. That would be the easiest way out by the Roberts Court, because they would not have to actually make a ruling, just refuse on the grounds that they can not and refuse the case.

Until we have 51 Senators on our side with balls (or ovaries) as big as bowling balls calling for a rule change is not the same things as getting one. It would be a change with enormous political ramifications in an election year and I don't think Harry Reid, or anyone else in power, has that type of courage. The House does not have to take the minority party to the Supreme Court to change procedural rules. So observation stands that change the Senate Rules is not as easy as changing the House rules.

***Edited to fx a link***

[yurbud]

6. yeah, there's no way COURAGE could help you in an election year...

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Courage will win the progressive left...

But Park Avenue is this incredible place that can and will make whatever they do look bad.

But courage isn't what will be necessary to win this year. I think the economy will trump everything. If the general public is feeling good about the direction in November, Democrats will do OK. If not, Republicans will come back to power on the promise to keep Health Care in corporate hands and then move to impeach Obama.

The Senate should do this because it is the right thing to do in order to make a system that works. But doing the right thing takes more courage than moving to win an election.

[yurbud]

8. I think the public has changed a bit and are paying more attention to the details

The Democrats drew attention to health care reform only to proceed to go about it in the most corrupt way possible.

The only thing insurance and pharma execs should have had to do with the process was be placed in stocks on the steps of the capitol so citizens could throw rotten fruit and feces at them. They should not have been writing the bill.

If Democrats had not drawn attention to the issue, they would not have shot themselves in the nuts if they did nothing or quietly passed more modest (not moderate, that's a bullshit term) reforms.