Should the Senate change the filibuster rules? It's an idea worth discussing. After all, the House of Representatives had a very productive 2009 which included the passage of a jobs bill and a clean energy bill. The Senate, on the other hand, had a very dismal year, hampered by the obstructionist strategy taken by the Republicans. It seems absurd that it would take a 60 vote super-majority to get anything done, but that's exactly what happened in 2009 with one party hell-bent on stopping all progress just to spite the other party, (and to the detriment of the American people).
So, this may be an idea worth looking at.Should the Senate change the filibuster rules? It's an idea worth discussing.... more
On Thursday afternoon, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) pulled out a rarely-used Congressional tool in an attempt to keep the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon and other greenhouse gasses. Sen. Murkowski offered a “resolution of disapproval” of the EPA’s impending action, which would limit companies’ carbon emissions.
The resolution would overturn the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide is harmful to the public health. Three Democrats—Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)—joined Sen. Murkowski and 35 Republicans in sponsoring the resolution.
“Ms. Murkowski’s Mischief‘”
“This command and control approach is our worst option for reducing the gasses associated with climate change,” said Sen. Murkowski on the floor of the Senate yesterday. She called the EPA’s actions “backdoor climate regulations with no input from Congress” and said they would damage the country’s flailing economy.
The EPA first announced in April 2009 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses posed a threat to the public health. The agency formalized that finding last month, giving itself the power to regulate emissions of greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act. In March 2010, for instance, the agency is expected to announce carbon emissions rules for the auto industry that would match California’s higher standards. Sen. Murkowski’s resolution would derail that process.
Sen. Murkowski argued that she wants to give Congress room to come up with a legislative solution to climate change, but her critics see a more dangerous tilt to her resolution. “It’s a radical attempt by the legislative branch to interfere with executive branch scientists,” writes David Roberts at Grist.
Responding to “Ms. Murskowski’s mischief” on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called the resolution an “unprecedented effort to overturn scientific decision” and “a direct assault on the health of the American people.”
Resolution of disapproval
What is a “resolution of disapproval?” Grist’s Roberts called it “the nuclear option.”
“It would rescind the EPA’s endangerment finding entirely and thereby eliminate its authority over both mobile and stationary sources,” Roberts explains. “Furthermore, the administration would be prohibited from passing a regulation “substantially the same” as the one overruled, so the constraint on the EPA would effectively be permanent.”
This type of resolution was created by the Clinton-era Congressional Reform Act. The resolution has one big advantage: It cannot be filibustered. Passage requires only a majority in both houses of Congress. Members have tried using it in the past to delay the Dubai Ports World deal, derail FCC regulations on new media, and stop the flow of bailout funds.
Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones has been following Sen. Murkowski’s actions closely. She reports that “Senate supporters of climate action say Murkowski could obtain the votes of moderate Democrats from coal, oil, and manufacturing states. However, a resolution would still need to be approved by the House and signed by the president—both long shots, to put it mildly. ‘I think we’re a little worried about [Murkowski’s resolution] winning. I’m not sure we’re worried about it becoming law,’ a Senate Democratic staffer says.”
But Grist’s Roberts argues that passage in the Senate alone would be a problem. “Even if blocked by the House or vetoed by the president, such a public, bipartisan slap at the administration would be highly embarrassing and demoralizing,” Roberts writes. “It would mean at least ten conservative Democrats washing their hands of the administration’s initiative.”
Climate change and Congress
Sen. Murkowski insists that she’s still ready to work with her colleagues on climate change and that it’s better to approach the problem of climate change via legislation, not regulation.
But no one in Washington believes that climateBy Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium Blogger
On Thursday afternoon, Sen. Lisa... more
WASHINGTON — Reeling from the loss of a long-held Massachusetts Senate seat, Democrats are rethinking the lessons of Barack Obama’s 2008 election, with the GOP cheerfully suggesting they scale back their ambitions and agenda.
Republican Scott Brown’s win in a liberal state will do more than vastly complicate Obama’s bid to overhaul the U.S. health care system. It will send his party into a painful re-examination of voters’ anger and desires ahead of the November elections for Congress, governorships and state legislatures.
The health care "reform" bill passed by the Senate last month has begun to stink up the hallowed halls of Congress. Rather than subject their sodden mass of capitulation to the scrutiny of the full Senate, the Democrats will slide it under the door of "Budget Reconciliation," saying, in effect, "We couldn't come up with real change, but isn't this a great looking stack of paper?!"
Rather than construct a bill which will protect the health and economic interests of the voters, the Congress will then attempt to claim victory. The whole pathetic spectacle reminds me of used car dealers fobbing off junk piles onto little old ladies. Jump start them, get the old bags into the driver's seats, and get them off the lot; Happy motoring, Grandma!The health care "reform" bill passed by the Senate last month has begun to... more
STOP REID , PELOSI AND OBAMA – Help Scott Brown (R) win back Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat on Jan 19th
Click here to find full story and How To help Stop Healthcare Reform...
The Massachusetts special US senate election is Jan 19th. This is the key vote #41 that gives back the power to the Republicans and allows them to finally filibuster and block cloture.STOP HEALTHCARE “REFORM”
STOP REID , PELOSI AND OBAMA – Help... more
Thanks to the GOP, the filibuster has not become routine in Washington DC. Everything has to have 60 votes or nothing gets done. There is effectively no more majority rule in the Senate. It is time the rules are changed. We need to have legislation to make our Senators more accountable to the American People.
It is utterly ridiculous that what was once an occaisional thing, to prevent something really serious from going to law, now has become the normal routine behavior in the Senate.
Also there was an interesting discussion with Ralph Nader about changing to a Parliamentary system instead of what we have now; two party control of all public offices and government agencies. We need more political diversity in this country or we are going to suffocate our democracy. What do you think?Thanks to the GOP, the filibuster has not become routine in Washington DC. Everything... more
Stupid political question of the day: Should Joe Lieberman be “punished” for his role in obstructing the democratic agenda? ”HELL YES!” Moreover, the next heads to roll ought to be the democratic leadership and The Messiah for enabling the dopily grinning weasel as he causes no end to trouble.Stupid political question of the day: Should Joe Lieberman be “punished”... more
Continuing his policy of preventing decent medical treatment for anyone but himself, Senator Joe Lieberman (also known as "Sniveling Joe") has once again threatened to filibuster a health care bill that actually reforms our corrupt and dangerous health care system. Naturally, the gutless wonders who surround him in the Senate are quaking in their fur-lined slippers as they try to find evidence that any of them possesses a testicle.Continuing his policy of preventing decent medical treatment for anyone but himself,... more
The Democratic-controlled Senate on Saturday cleared away a Republican filibuster of a huge end-of-year spending bill that rewards most federal agencies with generous budget boosts.
The $1.1 trillion measure combines much of the year's unfinished budget work — only a $626 billion Pentagon spending measure would remain — into a 1,000-plus-page spending bill that would give the Education Department, the State Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and others increases far exceeding inflation.
The 60-34 vote met the minimum threshold to end the GOP filibuster. A final vote was set for Sunday afternoon to send the measure to President Barack Obama.The Democratic-controlled Senate on Saturday cleared away a Republican filibuster of a... more
The Senate’s health care bill that would expand health insurance coverage to 30 million more Americans at an estimated cost of $849 billion over 10 years. http://renovomedia.com/politics/senate-health-care-nears-debate/The Senate’s health care bill that would expand health insurance coverage to 30... more
A leading Senate Independent on Monday stressed he would support using reconciliation to break a filibuster and bring healthcare reform to a conclusive vote.
That affirmation, offered Monday night by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), slightly assauges Democratic leaders' concerns, but it leaves open the possibility that the Vermont lawmaker could still buck the majority party on a vote to end debate, complicating the healthcare bill's passage.
"I think the role that [Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)] is now attempting to play on healthcare is very, very unfortunate," Sanders told MSNBC in an interview, noting Lieberman's intended filibuster is precisely why he wanted his fellow Independent sanctioned last year for stumping with GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).
"The American people overwhelmingly want a public option for a variety of reasons," he added. "Correctly, they want a choice between a private insurance company and a Medicare-type plan. And they should have that choice."
And when asked whether he would support reconciliation in the event Lieberman and other Democrats blocked consideration of the bill, Sanders said: "Absolutely. Look, the trick here is to do the best that we can for the American people.
"And that is quality, affordable healthcare for all of our people," he added. "If we can't do it because we don't get 60 votes, then there are other ways that we have to proceed. And I would strongly support those other ways."
As Joe Lieberman threatens—again—to filibuster health care, Benjamin Sarlin and Samuel P. Jacobs report on Capitol Hill’s most ornery No Men. Plus, a gallery of the Senate’s all-time biggest troublemakers.
Two sources say that Sen. Joe Lieberman has privately agreed with Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid that he will not block a final vote on health care, The Hill reports. Last week, Lieberman said he would join Republicans in filibustering the bill if it included a government insurance option. His spokesman said Monday that nothing had changed since his statement last week, but Reid has been assuring liberal interest groups that Lieberman has said he will vote with the Democrats to end debate.
Lieberman's vote is crucial to obtaining the 60-vote majority the Democrats will need to break an expected filibuster of the health care bill. Without him, Reid would be forced to persuade a Republican to break ranks, and even Sen. Olympia Snowe, who voted to send the bill out of committee, has said she will likely join her party in filibustering the final version.
When he was seeking reelection in 2006, Joe Lieberman campaigned as a supporter of healthcare reform and expressed his support for “universal healthcare.” When the rubber hit the road, however, Lieberman emerged as a frontline warrior for the healthcare industry in its efforts to block reform. Yesterday, he not only noted his opposition to the very modest public option contained in the legislation that Majority Leader Harry Reid put forward, he also stated that he would cross the aisles to support a Republican filibuster. Should we be surprised? No. Lieberman has long been one of the industry’s favorite players on the hill, accepting more than $1 million in campaign contributions from the insurance industry and more than $600,000 from pharmaceuticals and related healthcare-products companies. But his ties run deeper than that. His wife Hadassah previously worked for two lobbying firms, Hill & Knowlton and APCO, handling matters for their healthcare and pharmaceuticals clients. Throughout the 2006 campaign, Lieberman pointedly refused to discuss the scope of his wife’s engagement for the healthcare industry or even the specific clients for whom she was working. But there seems to have been plenty of opportunity for synergy with Lieberman’s work in Congress. Joe Conason noted:
Among Hill & Knowlton’s clients when Mrs. Lieberman signed on with the firm last year was GlaxoSmithKline, the huge British-based drug company that makes vaccines along with many other drugs. As I noted in July, Sen. Lieberman introduced a bill in April 2005 (the month after his wife joined Hill & Knowlton) that would award billions of dollars in new “incentives” to companies like GlaxoSmithKline to persuade them to make more new vaccines. Under the legislation, known as Bioshield II, the cost to consumers and governments would be astronomical, but for Lieberman and his Republican cosponsors, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., the results would be worth every penny. Using the war on terror as their ideological backdrop, the pharma-friendly senators sought to win patent extensions on products that have nothing to do with preparations against terrorist attack or natural disaster.
As the New Haven Register, Lieberman’s hometown newspaper, noted in an editorial headlined “Lieberman Crafts Drug Company Perk,” that bill is even more generous to the pharmaceutical industry than a similar proposal by the Senate Republican leadership. “The government can offer incentives and guarantees for needed public health measures,” it said. “But it should not write a blank check, as these bills do, to the pharmaceutical industry that has such a large cost to the public with what may be an uncertain or dubious return.” What the editorial didn’t mention was that the Lieberman bill had also been written by Chuck Ludlam, a former pharmaceutical industry lobbyist who then worked on the Connecticut senator’s staff. From his office to his bedroom, Lieberman was totally surrounded by current and former employees of Big Pharma. Ludlam has since retired, and Mrs. Lieberman has quit her job too — but Lieberman still looks like a politician wholly owned by one of the nation’s most troublesome special interests. And while his campaign may not believe that the moralizing senator should he held accountable for those dubious relationships, the press and the public may think otherwise.When he was seeking reelection in 2006, Joe Lieberman campaigned as a supporter of... more
Douche Bag Lieberman stab Dem's in the back again as he Plans to oppose Public option his nearly 19,000,000 $$* campaign was barely enough to beat Ned Lamont in 2006 amid a climate of political apathy (that still manage to garner 17,000,000 in individual donations for Lamont
) even though he out spent the average senatorial campaign by nearly 14 million dollars.
Most will remember that Lieberman was until 2005 ,a democrat, he jumped ship during the bush administration and has since been a pawn of the republicans... apparently he doesn't want reelection in Connecticut
I am a young democrat from CT, and if there one thing we hate...it's Joesph Lieberman...
In the 2008 presidential elections when we(well most of us) banded together to vote for Obama, Connecticut had a turnout of 2,691,354 votes most of whom where not old enough to oust Lieberman in 06, who in 2006 won with only 564,095 votes...so in short good bye Lieberman!!!
Even still contact joe blow and tell to suport a public option
706 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-4041
Fax: 202-224-9750
Excerpts from the article:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman says while he's "strongly inclined" to vote to move Sen. Harry Reid's health care plan to the Senate floor for debate, he would ultimately oppose the measure because it includes a public option.Douche Bag Lieberman stab Dem's in the back again as he Plans to oppose Public... more
President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.
The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama's presidential campaign. The man who ran on the "Audacity of Hope" has now taken a more conservative stand than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving progressives with a mix of confusion and outrage. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have battled conservatives in their own party in an effort to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Now tantalizingly close, they are calling for Obama to step up.
"The leadership understands that this is a somewhat risky strategy, but we may be within striking distance. A signal from the president could be enough to put us over the top," said one Senate Democratic leadership aide. Such pleading is exceedingly rare on Capitol Hill and comes only after Senate leaders exhausted every effort to encourage Obama to engage.
(Continued at Link)President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to... more
President Barack Obama faces great challenges in getting his 2.5 trillion dollar health care plan through Congress, from both Conservatives and centrist Democrats who are on the fence. The proposal is expensive and controversial, and is meeting a lot of obstacles on its way to becoming law - even with the Democrats having a Senate majority. Time will tell if the bill passes, and also, even if it does, how much of it will have to be compromised.President Barack Obama faces great challenges in getting his 2.5 trillion dollar... more
"I think it’s a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform, health care reform plan that the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about,” Lieberman recently said."I think it’s a real mistake to try to jam through the total health... more
WASHINGTON - The Senate's No. 2 Republican on Sunday refused to rule out a filibuster if President Barack Obama seeks a Supreme Court justice who decides cases based on "emotions or feelings or preconceived ideas."
Sen. Jon Kyl made clear he would use the procedural delay if Obama follows through on his pledge to nominate someone who takes into account human suffering and employs empathy from the bench. The Arizona Republican acknowledged that his party likely does not have enough votes to sustain a filibuster, but he said nonetheless he would try to delay or derail the nomination if Obama ventures outside what Kyl called the mainstream.
"We will distinguish between a liberal judge on one side and one who doesn't decide cases on the merits but, rather, on the basis of his or her preconceived ideas," Kyl said.
The White House is preparing to announce Obama's pick to replace Justice David Souter, who plans to retire back to his beloved New Hampshire when the court's term ends. Obama has already interviewed at least two candidates for the position and is expected to announce a nominee this week, perhaps as early as Tuesday.
Obama has offered hints into what he wants in a justice.
"You have to have not only the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you," Obama said in an interview carried Saturday on C-SPAN television. "But you have to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living."
Obama also has said he wants someone who employs empathy, "understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles," when arriving at decisions that could influence the nation for decades.WASHINGTON - The Senate's No. 2 Republican on Sunday refused to rule out a... more
