blah blah blah blah yes, Republicans are 100% to blame for all problems in Washington blah blah blah it would be Utopia without Republicans blah blah blah Democrats never play politics with the nation blah blah blah Republicans want to eat your babies blah blah blah

I get it Stackybabe...Republicans are to blame for *everything*, and no Democrat has ever functioned in a less-than-ethical manner while representing this nation.

I get it, I get it. I'm sure we *alllllllll* get it. You are right, I am wrong. Democrats are perfection. Republicans want to eat your babies. Democrats represent all Utopian perfection. Republicans think that fancy Feast represents fine dining. Democrats have the secret to free eternal energy, but the Republicans keep stealing it and destroying it.

Does that about sum up your stance, Stackybabe?

@ StackelbergFollower

Republican obstructionism isn't exactly unprovoked. Obama is ruling like a feudal king.

a feudal king? seriously?

no he's not. he's ruling like a removed and dismissive academic who doesn't know what happens in the real world (and I voted for him)

"YJ, since these are Senate rules (and not legislation) being changed in mid-session, I am pretty sure that they can only change rules for the current session of Congress (ie the 113th Congress)."

Can anybody confirm this?

Surely there is a way to prevent this type of abuse in the future? How does congress determine the rules? By year? How do they every compromise then on what the rules are to be?

I can understand why Reid did this, but I think it was a tremendous mistake that will have a very unfortunate impact on the country. Having declared the filibuster in a limited case unconstitutional, there is nothing to stop others from doing the same in other cases. The filibuster has been dramatically and permanently weakened, and Reid has damaged the institution of the Senate in a possibly profound way.

@YJ -- if the requirement receded, then the filibuster would be completely pointless.

Pointless for its current use, Semck, which seems to be that everything now requires a 60% majority.

It would not be pointless for forcing further dialogue. It gives a window whereby compromises may be suggested. I do agree that if the controlling party wishes to pass legislation unilaterally, softening the filibuster removes an obstacle to that. But in a two-party system isn't that what often happens anyways?

I don't like it when the republicans get filibustered either. Let 'em pass their laws. Some of 'em are even good! Usually not, and then they lose next year and it gets repealed... you know.. democracy.

" Pointless for its current use, Semck, which seems to be that everything now requires a 60% majority.

"It would not be pointless for forcing further dialogue. "

Its intended use is not to force further dialog, but to give the minority bargaining power.

The change that should be made to the filibuster is to eliminate the "two-track" system in the Senate. Back in the old days, if you filibustered something, the Senate ground to a complete halt. Since the 1970s (I think), a rule change made it so that the Senate could work on other things while the minority filibustered something. This made it much lower-cost, in terms of public relations, to filibuster something. You don't actually have to stop the work in the nation's upper chamber.

This should be eliminated so that minorities reserve the filibuster for issues they can get the public to care about (though the suggestion isn't without its problems), but the filibuster should not be eviscerated.

"I don't like it when the republicans get filibustered either. Let 'em pass their laws. Some of 'em are even good! Usually not, and then they lose next year and it gets repealed... you know.. democracy. "

No, that almost never, ever happens. That's the problem. If you get a piece of sweeping legislation through, it's almost impossible to repeal. Tell me the last time one party repealed another party's big piece of legislation.

We need a two year span when Congress cleans house. Repeal repeal repeal

Good points I think. I honestly don't know. So you think the system is good as-is?

Well, I think so, except that I'd make the change I mentioned in order to discourage the use of the filibuster (without actually weakening it otherwise).

This was a long time coming. Thank goodness. The filibuster on appointments needed to go. Too much abuse.

@semck

Nothing about the filibuster was declared unconstitutional, it has no basis in the constitution and is essentially just a parliamentary rule, which is to say it just determines the rules by which the Senate conducts it's business, most of which is determined by the Senate themselves rather than the constitution.

I actually agree with Putin - the filibuster on appointments was ridiculous. If you don't want someone making appointments, win the election..but a President should have the right to have his appointments brought to a vote.

Of course...by the same token, it would be nice if the same principle applied to things like...ohhhhh, I don't know....maybe when the House of Representatives passes a bill, maybe it would be nice if the Senate would take said bill up for debate and vote on it, too. You know...silly things like budgets and whatnot....


Or am I just talking crazy talk now?!!??!

Krellin, the Senate Democrats were in favor of going to conference on the budget to hammer out a compromise between the Senate and House budgets passed in the spring. The Republicans in the House rejected 18 such attempts between the spring and the shutdown. You really don't have a leg to stand on when you say the Senate refused to consider the House budget.

Stackybabe, you keep repeating yourself. You pretend as if that is the only issue that has ever been in the Senate, ever. Get a grip, man, and quit being so disingenuous. The Republicans in the House have passed how many bills that the Democrats in the Senate never even acknowledged?

I get it...you have a big old hard on for Democrats and in your demented view, they can do no wrong.

YOU are part of the problem.

Hey, you're the one that brought up the budget when you know it's not true. I'm just pointing out the facts.

Stackybabe - How many budgets has Harry Reid and the Democrats brought to the floor? I wonder if you have any idea how the government is supposed to work? I appreciate that you keep on bringing up your Democrat talking points...bravo for you, you make a fine sheep, and everyone is very impressed with your bleating.

Now then...back to reality...how many Republican passed bills - both budgets, and otherwise - have been passed by Congress and ignored by Harry Reid.

and please don't tell me about some fantastical 18 attempts to go to conference on an imaginary bill that was never passed. See, in a normally functioning government the House of Representatives passes a budget, which the Senate can either vote on and reject, or pass, possibly with amendments. If passed with amendments, THEN they go to conference. THAT is how the process works.

Your 18 imaginary calls for conference are outside of this process, and have no relevance. The Senate, generally speaking, refuses to take a vote on anything passed by House Republicans...they won't even bring stuff up for debate...

But you feel free to stick your head wherever you stick it and hide yourself from reality in the name of being a good sheep from your party, but the only one you're fooling is yourself.

YOU are part of the problem.

Krellin, conference committee are the *normal* way of resolving differences between the House and the Senate on the budget. You're just plain obfuscating out of your ass.

Sorry Stackbabe, the operation of the Congress is actually clearly spelled out: the HOUSE passes a budget..that is where budgets start. The bill then goes to the Senate, which can either pass it or not. If they pass it as is, it goes to the President to sign or veto. If it is passed with Amendments, then the House and the Senate come together in conference to hammer out a compromise, which compromise bill then goes to both houses for approval again, and if both pass it, it's off to the President.

What is *NOT* the normal process is for the Democrats to demand to go to conference without even taking up a bill. what the fuck are they going to negotiate with the House about, when they don't even have a bill agreed upon by the Senate?

What you are the victim of is the wort form of politicla theater - the moron Harry Reid nobly calling for a conference to hammer our a negotiation on nothing...you actually have to have something in hand to negotiate *about*.

But process be damned...you stick to your guns, and support your party come hell or high water like any good sheep would. The actual defined process of government really doesn't matter, does it?

YOU are part of the problem.

"Krellin, conference committee are the *normal* way of resolving differences between the House and the Senate on the budget. "

You really are too dense to see the error of your thinkging, aren't you? If the Senate refuses to first pass a bill, there ARE NO DIFFERENCES TO HAMMER OUT.

Yeah, but... the Senate passed a budget for FY2013 a long time ago.

dif·fer·ence
ˈdif(ə)rəns/
noun
noun: difference; plural noun: differences
1. a point or way in which people or things are not the same.

If Reid does not have a bill in hand passed by the Senate to compare to the Republican passed budget bill, then there is no basis for comparison to say at what point two things are not the same...

You are simply delusional, Stackybabe.

March 23rd, to be specific, I guess.

Here you go: the Senate passed on a budget on March 23. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324103504578377843045138904

OK...yes, understood, the Democrats passed a budget - the first in ****4**** years. And the House Republicans have a committee chaired by Paul Ryan, and the Democrats have a committee chaired by Patty Mauray or soemthing like that, I think.

So.....

No....tell me why it took Harry Reid **4** years to pass a budget? and yet you want to claim that all the problems in Washington belong to the Republicans?

Senate Democrats preferred extending the 2009 budget via continuing resolution versus accepting Republicans demands for bills that cut the deficit 100% with spending cuts -- Republicans refused to negotiate on a budget that included revenue increases. Pretty simply stuff, really.

And then Republicans said they'd compromise early in 2013, oh if only the Democrats would pass a budget because woe is them, the Senate won't pass a budget - but the Republicans miscalculated. They were bluffing and never thought the Senate would pass a budget, so they'd never actually have to go to conference. Senate Democrats actually jumped at what seemed to be an opening for negotiation and compromise. But we know how that ended... the Republicans refused to go to conference until after taking a shellacking in the polls during the shutdown.

You are not worth discussing this with anymore. You linked to your own noose - the one that made my point - the Harry Reid didn't try to pass a budget for 4 years, after we've been listening to you bleeting like a sheep endlessly about how bad the Republicans are, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

Harry Reid, in any of those 4 years, could have passed a budget and gone to conference....at any time....as is his obligation.

But patsies like you make excuses for them not doing their job.

YOU are part of the problem.

Stackybabe....just tell me, in your perverse view of the world, is there anything the Democrats do wrong, ever? Just how deeply has the sheep dna infected your soul?

They didn't pass budgets in 2010 and 2011 additionally because of the so-called supercommittees, and the consequences of the Budget Control Act (remember how the super committee and the sequester were both supposed to force a compromise? Yeah that went well.). I agree that regular order broke down and that was bad, and I'd fault Democrats for going along with super committees instead of going through regular order in 2010 and 2011. I'd also fault everyone for ever passing the travesty that is the Budget Control Act in the first place.

But I do believe we're mostly in this situation because (a) Republicans routinely filibuster legislation (more than twice as many in five years as Bush saw in 8), (b) Republicans blanket filibustered nominees that they conceded were qualified just because they didn't want Obama to be able to fill vacancies (again, in 5 years, more than twice as many filibusters than Bush faced in 8 years), and (c) Republicans will only do a budget deal that cuts spending on the poor and doesn't raise taxes one bit (unless there's a sunset provision forcing their hand). There's no getting around that, and I'd be willing to bet you agree with most of the Republican priorities and really perfectly okay with the consequence being that government has been grinded to a hault for years.