« Warning To Those Who Twitter
The Netherlands Switching to English at its Universities—a Good Thing? »
The Big Casino
I’m a regular follower of Chris Matthews’ “Hardball” show on MSNBC and learned over the years that he occasionally zeroes in on a political concept that deserves merit.
On Thursday’s show Matthews outlined a tactic to bypass the Senate’s filibuster rules in which the Obama administration could present its entire domestic programs under the umbrella of a budget resolution.
He calls it “The Big Casino.”
Think about it. All of Obama’s programs on energy, health care, climate control, the economy and defense offered in one package for a simple majority up or down vote. The president describes it as his “three-legged stool” for economic recovery.
Senate rules allow such a procedure for budget considerations. It bypasses the cloister rule in which one senator can invoke forcing the threat of a filibuster. When this happens, the Senate must pass legislation by a super majority 60 votes.
This daring “all your eggs in one basket” gamble is being floated by Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, according to Matthews.
From a raw political perspective, the concept makes practical sense. Here’s why:
The window of opportunity for new administrations to pass legislation of their liking is limited, usually to the first year. To deliberate all of Obama’s programs separately may take several years.
The current reality of politics is that the Senate has 58 (59 when Al Franken is seated) Democrats, a hugely popular president and an Electoral College mandate from the last election.
The power of the filibuster rule in recent years has been abused by both political parties in the minority. In the past two decades, it has been invoked from as few as 12 times to 68 in 2008.
Recent passage of the $787 billion stimulus is a classic example how the Senate’s 60-vote rule works. Three moderate Republicans held it hostage, insisting their cuts and additions prevail. I’m uncertain whether they improved or weakened the bill. Doesn’t matter. What does matter is that one or two senators of a minority party can dictate the terms of legislation despite the will of a simple majority plus one to break the logjam.
In it’s infinite wisdom the Senate over the years developed the rules they now abide. Certainly, they recognized a 60-vote rule for budget resolutions was impractical in order to transact the chamber’s business without stripping the minority’s rights.
The inherent problem with the “Big Casino” approach is political. What is a senator to do when he passionately objects to a budget reform of the health care system, for example, but favors all the other measures in the package? It conjures images of the much maligned Sen. John Kerry who voted in favor of an Iraq war spending resolution and then voted against it.
Another problem in the current political climate is how much input can Republicans offer that would be seriously considered by the majority of Democrats. If the minority is cut out of the equation as House Republicans claim on the stimulus bill ramrodded on a fast track by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then the whole process turns into a sham.
From my perch, I doubt Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has either the clout or the cojones to follow Rahm Emanuel’s lead of sidestepping the 60-vote rule. I think moderate Democrats will want to consider the three-leg stool separately and not as a single budget package.
Either way, it makes good discussion among political junkies such as Mr. Matthews and myself.
Cross posted onThe Remmers Report
8 Responses to “The Big Casino”
This reminds me of the Compromise of 1850. Congress had to handle a whole bunch of issues at once following the Mexican War, including whether or not to do these things at the same time. An elderly Henry Clay stood up and proposed that each of the compromise measures – on the DC slave trade, extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, accepting California as a free state, strengthening the fugitive slave act – be passed separately in immediately successive votes. What spurred this last move was the death of President Zachary Taylor and the uncertain opinions of the new President Millard Fillmore.
Perhaps the Senate will want to follow a similar procedure. Instead of rolling all of these measures into one vote, split it up into successive votes. And make sure Reid has the votes for each before hand. That way individual Senators can vote their conscience on each bill without jeopardizing the whole process.
But is Harry Reid a Henry Clay? I doubt it.
It is amazing how now those who railed against the Imperial President and a Congress that ruled by Tyranny of the Majority now seem to find these concepts just dandy.
Eastasia is our enemy; Eurasia is our friend. Eurasia has always been our friend; Eastasia has always been our enemy.
If Dems actually had the biological capability of growing gonads, it might be worth discussing. It might even prove to be another event which would make Matthews “tear up”.
I suspect rather they will hem and haw and have their blogging minions post up articles about needing more bipartisanship.
The inherent problem with the “Big Casino” approach is political. What is a senator to do when he passionately objects to a budget reform of the health care system, for example, but favors all the other measures in the package? It conjures images of the much maligned Sen. John Kerry who voted in favor of an Iraq war spending resolution and then voted against it.
It seems to me that there is another problem, which is are the issues placed in the budget resolution there appropriately? The implication of the article is that these are issues normally subject to filibuster. If so, then this is an inappropriate overreach by Obama and he has an ethical problem.
Austin Roth–
Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
Part of the reason Congressional Republicans have lost so much credibility is because they voted for everything their guy wanted and now they're voting against everything the other guy wants.
They were irresponsible then, they're irresponsible now.
They haven't changed.
Ignorance is strength.
How, exactly, is that different than the Democrats now voting for everything their guy wants, and voting against everything the other guys wanted?
Your 'argument', and I use that term very loosely in this case, is self-defeating, as it applies to both sides of the equation.
You in fact proved my point exactly. You are saying when 'we' do it, it is righteous; when they do it, it is venal.
And damn, you must be the strongest person on the planet.
Austin Roth–
I'm sure you're not referring to the war in Iraq, since many Democrats who eventually came to oppose it originally accepted the argument that it was vital to protect the United States.
Maybe we could contrast that to the stimulus bill, which got zero Republican votes in the House of Representatives and 3 of 41 possible Republican votes in the Senate.
Of course, maybe they voted against the stimulus bill because they were concerned about the deficit. And that that would explain why the voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit in 2003…only…wait…Republicans voted for that one. Well, Austin Roth, I'm sure you can point me to all the spending Republicans voted against while Bush was President. Be sure to highlight the ones they voted against in a block!!
So go ahead, point me to the case where all the Democrats voted as a block against anything. Cuz I'd like to know when it was 'we' did it. And then everyone out here can judge the righteous-osity.
Cuz I'm sure you can do more that just say it applies to both sides of the equation. You can back it up. Right?
NGMxQ9 bnlebssimlbt, [url=http://fitialgzmwev.com/]fitialgzmwev[/url], [link=http://szguonywskxb.com/]szguonywskxb[/link], http://mlyodiyrtwuv.com/