Banality and deficit boogeymen kill economic bills.

[SirNitram]

Link

It was a Democrat -- James Carville -- who coined the phrase "it's the economy, stupid." And to this day, leading Democrats understand that Carville was correct. They get it all the way down to their trembling bones. They'd love to take dramatic steps to improve the economy, but Republicans are using every tool at their disposal to prevent that. It's led Democrats to blame Republicans explicitly for causing Americans economic pain for short-term political gain, but it also means we're not going to see much in the way of economy-improving legislation in the months ahead.

"They think the worse the economy is come November, the better they're going to do election wise," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at a press conference this morning.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) echoed that analysis last month on a conference call with reporters.

"If [the GOP] can stop the recovery from occurring, if they can create as much pain as possible, people will be angry and will not vote at all or will vote against those in the majority," she implored.

With Republicans pushing for tax cuts for the rich and blocking unemployment benefits, you can see where they're coming from. And yet, with unemployment hovering near 10 percent, and a midterm election threatening to sweep them out of power on Capitol Hill, Democrats are trapped and running out of time.

They can't pass anything other than modest stimulative measures without running into obstruction, mostly from Republicans -- but they face similar obstacles within their own party. Compounding matters is the fact that the Senate schedule is packed to the brim with other must-pass initiatives and that the White House is divided over whether the President should press Congress to spend more money (stimulus) or to retreat into deficit reduction mode (anti-stimulus).

With leadership like that nobody (particularly at the White House) is picking up a megaphone and demanding Congress (particularly Republicans) do something significant to reduce unemployment. And they're not gonna.

"Look at what we had to go through for the last eight weeks," said Reid's spokesman Jim Manley. "The fact is that we have a Republican party that's betting on this President to fail. We'll continue to look at additional efforts to provide help for the economy but the fact is in this heavily polarized Senate, it's very difficult to get stuff done."

Checkmate. Suddenly, a picture has emerged of Democrats stumbling toward November with nothing to show the unemployed, only to feel the full wrath of a disenchanted electorate.

"I think Americans are angry," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at his weekly press availability yesterday. "They were angry in 2006. They were angry in 2008. They changed leadership. They are still angry. Their economy is still not working the way it ought to work.... Unfortunately their anger, which should be focused on not returning to the Bush-Hastert-Boehner-McCain policies," is now redirected at Democrats.

The problem is that, to counter that perception, Democrats would have to take significant legislative steps right now to lower unemployment (let alone to keep it from growing). But there's no easy way for them to do that, so instead, with a double-dip recession threatening, they're taking an incremental route.

"President Obama will continue to press Congress to extend unemployment benefits and pass commonsense measures to strengthen our economic recovery - like extending unemployment insurance and COBRA, supporting our clean energy economy, providing aid to state and local governments, and saving the jobs of thousands of teachers," reads a statement from Obama's top economic adviser Larry Summer's today.

Contrast that with the assessment of Obama's chief political adviser, David Axelrod, who this weekend shrugged off the idea that we'll be seeing much, if any, job-growth legislation this year.

"Well, I think it's true that there's not a great -- there's not a great desire [on Capitol Hill], even though there's some argument for additional spending, in the short-run, to continue to generate economic activity," Axelrod sighed. "There's not a great appetite for it."

Axelrod urged Republicans to support two measures headed to the Senate floor shortly: an unemployment benefits extension bill and small business lending package. But those are the only passable remnants of what was once a much more significant spending package-- one which has had to be whittled down time and again to win support, first from conservative Democrats, and then from moderate Republicans.

Dems will finally be able to make some headway next week. Currently they're one vote shy of the 60 they need to overcome a filibuster and pass the unemployment extension bill, which would extend benefits to long-term unemployed people into the fall. They'll get that vote when West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin appoints a senator to replace Robert Byrd (though currently a lone Democrat -- Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) -- is joining the Republicans to block the Democrats from doing something now).

The near-impasse in the Senate, and the mixed messages from the White House make House Democrats, who've passed several jobs bills, furious -- but no less concerned for their own electoral prospects. What the House does, Hoyer said is "contingent to some degree on what the Senate does with unemployment insurance and the supplemental, both of which we have sent over to the Senate."

Nancy Pelosi, according to recent reports, was livid this week after White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs suggested on Sunday that Democrats might lose the House. Underlying that anger, though, is the fact that Pelosi has done her part to address the bleak economy and now, in a cruel irony, the relative inaction of the White House and Senate is leaving House Dems disproportionately vulnerable to big losses in the fall.

It's true, of course, that the Senate rules are stacked against the Democrats, and allow the GOP to block almost everything. But still: This is not the sort of infighting you see when a party's on stable footing ahead of an election.

Pretty perfect setup for the GOP. As long as they can muster 41 votes between their party and their fellow arch-conservatives in the Senate, there's nothing but gridlock. And who will people blame? The White House, as if some stirring speech and even more meetings would dislodge votes from a group committed to crashing Obama's presidency. Throw in that the Dems still have plenty of people who can't handle the sheer banality of votes being blocked for eight weeks at a time, and you've got a perfect storm for the GOP.

[KrauserKrauser]

it wouldn't be so easy to paint the Dems in a bad light if Obama wasn't such a wishy washy pushover.

Blaiming the Republicans and ignoring the fact that Obama is giving them so many fronts to attack on is just a bit disengenious and walking with blinders on.

[Coyote]

Blaiming the Republicans and ignoring the fact that Obama is giving them so many fronts to attack on is just a bit disengenious and walking with blinders on.

So, the Rethugs attack Obama, and it's his fault?

The last thing the GOP wants is a successful United States right now. Why? Because a successful United States will mean that Obama looks successful.

If the Republicans could burn down every building in the USA and find a way to blame Obama and get away with it, they would. In a heartbeat. Because a successful USA is a secondary goal for them; only once the GOP is in power does a successful USA become a priority. Until that happens, they will do everything they can to sabotage recovery. They have a vested interest in making this country --and it's people-- as miserable as possible in the short term.

So they'll continue to filibuster, they'll continue to offer up "budgets" with no actual numbers printed in them, they'll continue to subtly encourage Birthers and 'Baggers, and their loudmouth pundits on TV and radio will do what they can to maintain pressure as well, with "socialism" billboards and so on. If Obama cures Cancer and negotiates MidEast Peace, they'll still do everything in their power to ruin him.

[Stravo]

This situation is a lack of leadership on all fronts. The president for not being able to build a consensus or at least lead an attack of rhetoric against Republican tactics from the biggest bully pulpit in the country - the oval office. The congressional leadership for not challenging the Republicans. They talk about a filibuster proof majority is needed - WHY??All it takes is a challenge that there will be a filibuster and they back down. I say every time there is a vote that they threaten to filibuster MAKE THEM DO IT. Make those assholes march up there, read from the phone book, try to explain to the American public why they are blocking extension of unemployment benefits. Make them actually carry it out every single time and we'll see how long this lasts.

Right now the way things work Democrats are threatened with a filibuster and they back down. The stupid barely paying attention public sees a do nothing DEMOCRATIC Congress. When you make these right wing cock suckers stand up there and drone on for days the public will see an obstructionist REPUBLICAN minority. Why is it that we can see that and these geniuses in Washington refuse to?

The lack of leaderhsip from the president is particularly galling because Bush was able to pass just about anything he wanted and he was the most reviled president in polling history. This guy comes in as Black Jesus with a Democratic majority in both houses and can only get watered down shit passed if anything passes at all. Frankly they deserve what they get.

You can only whine so much "It's those dirty Republicans." before you have to ask yourself, "What have you done about it?" Whine. That's not leadership. George Bush sent in a troop surge against all public opinion and Congressional outcry and he did it. I fucking hate the man to my core but he got his stuff done. Democrats are busy pointing to the Republicans and saying "They're blocking us" Well get off your fucking asses and do something about it!

Republicans deserve every iota of hate and rebuke sent their way for their naked political grab for power but Democrats are worse in my opinion for an complete and utter lack of leadership. Obama has pissed away all the good will he had, the bastard was virtually a living saint walking into DC on his inaugeration and now he's a black Jimmy Carter. The Congress pissed away a majority in both houses and after these midterms I'm sure Obama is definitely fucked as the do nothing Congress will only get worse with more Republicans added to the roster.

Just when this country needed vision and leadership in its darkest economic hour we get a fucking clown car pulling up.

[Mr Bean]

Stravo hit the nail on the head. The Democratic party is so spineless as to not even force the Republicans to physically filibuster. The unanimous consent clause requires someone to be in the room and there has been dozens of times the Democrats could have held a majority in the senate and forced at least one Republican to stand their and read from the phone book. Had Harry Reid even the slightly incilation he could force them to sit there day in and day out to filibuster. The longer they filibuster and the democrats don't fold the stronger the Democrats look at the end. However such a thing won't happen because Reid has accepted that every bill is filibustered and simply won't go to that stage in the process but stops short until he knows he has 60 votes. Thus the Republicans can filibuster at will without having to physically be on the floor and do something.

[Zixinus]

Am I wrong to see that the whole decision-making level of the government of the USA has been locked into inaction by self-serving politics? Because it seems to me, that the whole thing is just moving for the sake of itself, rather than the sake of the country?

Democrats don't want a filibuster, because they want to get a vote passed for their bill that will help them for their elections. Republicans meanwhile will threaten to filibuster every and any bill, to waste time and to prevent any measure to go trough that would help either the economy or the people because it would help the Democrat's cause? Meanwhile, the economy is still going down the shitter, what's effects reaches all the way to even here, Hungary, and nothing gets done.

[Crossroads Inc.]

You know what gets me... Democrats never EVER filibuster, EVER they consider it a horrible terrible thing to do, Simply too despicable to contemplate!

Yet when the Republicans 'threaten' to filibuster, rather then ever react and say "Shameful! terrible!" they just shuffle their feet and give in to any demands.

And yet... I am still going to vote and campaign for every Democrat I know of, because a group of spineless people who water down initially good bills, is infinitely preferable to the country being ruled by Republicans. And that is not Sarcasm.

[Stravo]

You know what gets me... Democrats never EVER filibuster, EVER they consider it a horrible terrible thing to do, Simply too despicable to contemplate!

Yet when the Republicans 'threaten' to filibuster, rather then ever react and say "Shameful! terrible!" they just shuffle their feet and give in to any demands.

And yet... I am still going to vote and campaign for every Democrat I know of, because a group of spineless people who water down initially good bills, is infinitely preferable to the country being ruled by Republicans. And that is not Sarcasm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

The Democrats NEVER EVER fillibuster? Seriously this only happened a few years back.

[Coyote]

Yeah, the Democrats have the virtue of being "the Party that is slowest and least effective at leading the USA to utter ruin". And... yes, that does, in fact, make them better than the Republicans. [sob... ]

[JME2]

I'm equally angry at both parties. We're in a crisis, people are suffering, and now is not the time for a lack of a spine or a self-serving power grab.

[WesFox13]

I'm equally angry at both parties. We're in a crisis, people are suffering, and now is not the time for a lack of a spine or a self-serving power grab.

I agree with you JME, I really think that both parties are at fault and unfortunately our system is also at fault, because all of these senators, Democrat AND Republican are caring more about their jobs than what's good for the nation. and I think the time that a Senator is in congress should be extended slightly so short-term thinking won't be as powerful as it is now.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Presidentialism sucks. Let's just admit it, my fellow Americans, the Framers did a shit job, and we have never had the balls or brains to fix it.

They at least had the excuse they were pretty much playing in the dark, with no experience to guide them. We have no such excuse.

[Patrick Degan]

Presidentialism sucks. Let's just admit it, my fellow Americans, the Framers did a shit job, and we have never had the balls or brains to fix it.

They at least had the excuse they were pretty much playing in the dark, with no experience to guide them. We have no such excuse.

It seems the problem in American governance these days has less to do with the executive branch and more to do with the Senate. Our upper legislative house has an inordinate degree of power compared to that of other countries with bicameral legislatures: in which such a body has the power to offer amendments to proposed laws and power of first veto, but can be overridden by absolute majority in the popular house, after which the measure goes right to the prime minister or president for his signature (depending upon the particular arrangement in a given national constitution). By contrast, in our system, the assent of both houses is required for the passage of any money bill for every vote. This is the American constitutional quirk which ensures gridlock in times when the two parties are at extreme odds with one another, to the point where compromise and effective action becomes impossible despite the clear wishes of the American public on any given issue, such as with healthcare reform, to name one example.

[SirNitram]

The Democratic party is so spineless as to not even force the Republicans to physically filibuster.

How, precisely? All the Republicans have to do is have someone object to the normal unanimous consent to bring a bill for a vote. Then, there is only a singular way to put a timetable on it, a cloture vote.

That's what's happening. Every rule is pushed. Yes, it's called a filibuster when the rule for that is different. This IS new, because unanimous consent used to be a given. It's integral to the Senate just dealing with it's business. But as Coyote said, the GOP is happy to crash the whole thing to portray themselves as better. But what you want from this new breed of filibuster isn't there.

As for the bully pulpit and rhetoric from the President. Whitehouse.gov's page for the weekly video address has them. Every week, in fact, often bashing the GOP for it's inaction. Not entirely though; there is more to him than complaining about the GOP.

So... Here's where we are. Can we operate in the unfortunate reality and not what we wish it was?

[Mr Bean]

The Democratic party is so spineless as to not even force the Republicans to physically filibuster.

How, precisely? All the Republicans have to do is have someone object to the normal unanimous consent to bring a bill for a vote. Then, there is only a singular way to put a timetable on it, a cloture vote.

They still have to be physically present in order to object to unanimous consent. As when Senator James inhofe was pulling that shit earlier this year they could have simply waited until he went to the bathroom, or fell asleep or ducked outside and simply called for unanimous consent. It's a filibuster by another name and Harry Reid can sit there for the six hours it takes for Inhofe to get off the floor and if another Senator objects in his place then it becomes a filibuster in all but name and then you simply need to get 50 people on the floor rotate a few out at a time to win any vote when they finally fold.

[SirNitram]

The Democratic party is so spineless as to not even force the Republicans to physically filibuster.

How, precisely? All the Republicans have to do is have someone object to the normal unanimous consent to bring a bill for a vote. Then, there is only a singular way to put a timetable on it, a cloture vote.

They still have to be physically present in order to object to unanimous consent. As when Senator James inhofe was pulling that shit earlier this year they could have simply waited until he went to the bathroom, or fell asleep or ducked outside and simply called for unanimous consent. It's a filibuster by another name and Harry Reid can sit there for the six hours it takes for Inhofe to get off the floor and if another Senator objects in his place then it becomes a filibuster in all but name and then you simply need to get 50 people on the floor rotate a few out at a time to win any vote when they finally fold.

You forget that when asking for unanimous consent, any member of the opposition can simply indicate their isn't a quorum. Even a dissenting Blue Dog can do it, technically.

[Crossroads Inc.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

The Democrats NEVER EVER fillibuster? Seriously this only happened a few years back.

Ah thank you for the correction, I was sure they had done so, but couldn't remember the situation. That said, the point remains that the way they seem to cowtow to the republicans mere threat of Filibuster is absurd.

Yeah, the Democrats have the virtue of being "the Party that is slowest and least effective at leading the USA to utter ruin". And... yes, that does, in fact, make them better than the Republicans. [sob... ]

It is sad but try, which harkens back to my statement I will be trying to get all of my currently disheartened and unmotivated liberal friends to still get out and vote.

But as others have said, I think we are starting to see the beginning of the end of the American political machine in terms of effectiveness. The government as it exists now simply cannot function properly with the people current in charge.

If the Republicans got off thier high horse and decided to not be bastards, or, if the Democrats actually grew backbones and challenged every filibusters, things might change. But as it is now, the government doesn't work.

So we are left with the only option available, making sure it doesn't get any Worse by keeping Republicans out of power.

[Mr Bean]

You forget that when asking for unanimous consent, any member of the opposition can simply indicate their isn't a quorum. Even a dissenting Blue Dog can do it, technically.

Yes but they must be physically present to do so
In order words if you keep asking for unanimous consent votes, if they ever don't say "no" then you can pass right along. It's identical to a filibuster except you don't have to stand their talking/reading the phone book you can simply say you object when unanimous consent is asked for. If your not there to object then unanimous consent is achieved.

For that matter during a filibuster you can if you have other senators on your side have them step in for you and keep the filibuster going while you eat/drink/sleep/relieve yourself. It's called something different but in essence the unanimous consent & filibuster rules achieve the same goal. Letting one setting derail the process unless a super majority overrules them.

[SirNitram]

Ask for unanimous consent.
ANY Senator may 'Suggest the absense of a quorum'.
The Clerk must now read a call of names of everyone present, slowly. No other business can be conducted until done. A unanimous consent will stop the call. A 'Live Quorum' may be asked for, and the names are read quicker.
Under cloture, the Clerk isn't required.
Now, if you can't form a quorum, you still can't do anything! The best you can do is order the Sergeant At Arms to go find people and haul them in.

All it takes is a single dissenter present.

[Mr Bean]

Ask for unanimous consent.
ANY Senator may 'Suggest the absense of a quorum'.
The Clerk must now read a call of names of everyone present, slowly. No other business can be conducted until done. A unanimous consent will stop the call. A 'Live Quorum' may be asked for, and the names are read quicker.
Under cloture, the Clerk isn't required.
Now, if you can't form a quorum, you still can't do anything! The best you can do is order the Sergeant At Arms to go find people and haul them in.

All it takes is a single dissenter present.

They still have to be physically present to do so What part of they must be physically present to do so don't you understand? Reid never makes them keep on senator in the chamber to object 24/7. Senator Inhofe objects? Reid packs it in and goes home. Senator Brown objects? Reid packs it in and goes home.

Nitram please understand. If Reid wanted he could keep the Senate open and running until unanimous consent is reached. You keep providing me more facts backing up my central point as if your disagree with me. I frankly don't understand it. My point is and my point remains yes one senator can stop the process. But only if the Senate Majority leader lets him get away with it.As proven back then during the first time unemployment extensions were called for, the Senator can simply keep objecting to unanimous consent. And the Majority Leader can keep calling for new Unanimous consent votes. If that Senator leaves and there is no one to object in his place they win. If Reid were willing to play any kind of hard-ball and stop the Senate dead he might just win, instead of losing time after time.

I keep repeating this and you keep providing me more evidence of it. Thank you Nitram but are you in fact sure your saying what you think your saying?

[SirNitram]

I understand what you are trying to say. But you are running headlong into the fact that you also are subscribing to the idea that there is no cost to this endless repetition. No cost to repeating this over and over, until there are no dissentors are present. You don't think anyone would be upset if they had to wait until this happened? You wouldn't shed a single supporter? And you also propose a group self-described as out to break Obama would not work out a 24 hour rotation?

[Mr Bean]

I understand what you are trying to say. But you are running headlong into the fact that you also are subscribing to the idea that there is no cost to this endless repetition. No cost to repeating this over and over, until there are no dissentors are present. You don't think anyone would be upset if they had to wait until this happened? You wouldn't shed a single supporter? And you also propose a group self-described as out to break Obama would not work out a 24 hour rotation?

Is that any different from losing people over a filibuster? Why is it you'd only lose supporters on your side? Why not see how many Republicans are willing to pack it in so they can go home for the July 4th weekend?

[D.Turtle]

The problem is that the Democrats need 51 votes present to continue on, while the Republicans need one Senator present to stop it from going forward.

You can not physically win that fight.

[Simon_Jester]

...Was it simply not realized that this was possible before?

Because this is a fairly new development, this seeming impossibility of passing anything in the Senate without the unanimous consent. Did previous generations of Senators simply not know or care that they could do this? Were they never motivated enough to try, even when faced with bills that they strongly opposed?

Why is such a God weapon not something we've seen over and over throughout the history of the nation?

[Zixinus]

Why is such a God weapon not something we've seen over and over throughout the history of the nation?

Perhaps because before, politicians were interested in actually running the country as opposed to running their political carrier they have made the moment they graduated? The parties were there to serve the nation, rather than themselves?

Because that's what I see here: this thing never appeared before because beforehand this was not an issue and this policity was not abused for the sake of party politics. Now they are.