[[link removed]]

WILL THE SENATE TAKE OFF THE HANDCUFFS?  
[[link removed]]


 

David Dayen
August 22, 2024
The American Prospect
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The Harris-Walz ticket and every Democrat are promising big things.
But the filibuster makes that agenda impossible. Will they finally
remove that barrier? _

Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris and
running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz arrive at a campaign rally,
August 7, 2024, in Romulus, Michigan., Carlos Osorio/AP Photo

 

CHICAGO – In the Democratic National Convention hall, in side events
in hotel ballrooms and conference centers, and on the campaign trail,
lawmakers and candidates are promising big change. They have promised
to codify _Roe v. Wade_ and end the assault on reproductive rights.
They have promised to end gerrymandering and voter suppression in a
pair of consequential voting rights bills, the For the People Act and
the John Lewis Freedom to Vote Act. They want to address affordable
housing, and child care, and paid family and medical leave, and child
poverty; they want to transform the tax code; and so on.

To accomplish all of this, or at least to make it unencumbered by
artificial constraints and rules and processes, they need to end the
circumstance whereby a minority of members in the U.S. Senate get a
veto over everything the chamber does. At the heart of the entire
agenda that this convention’s pitch is predicated upon is the
imperative to reform the filibuster.

Republicans will not vote for abortion rights or voting rights; under
a 60-vote Senate, those bills will fail. You could technically get tax
reform and care economy investments done the way it was done in 2022
in the Inflation Reduction Act, by using budget reconciliation. But
that carries with it complicated rules about spending limitations
within the ten-year budget window.

Because Kamala Harris’s tax plans would raise trillions of dollars
[[link removed]],
by eliminating Trump-era tax cuts for the rich, along with raising the
corporate tax rate to 28 percent, that would seem like no problem. But
with the Child Tax Credit expansion costing over $1 trillion
[[link removed]]
within that same ten-year window, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer
(D-NY) promising to repeal the cap on state and local tax deductions
[[link removed]]
costing hundreds of billions more, the no taxes on tips proposal
[[link removed]]
hundreds of billions more, and a drive to devote some portion of the
proceeds to deficit reduction even more, those dollars won’t stretch
as much as people expect. The only way to ensure the full agenda can
be passed without constraints is by ending the filibuster.

There has never been a time when the Senate is closer to unshackling
itself from this tyranny of the minority than right now. After decades
of talk, Democrats decided in unprecedented fashion to carve the two
voting rights bills out of the filibuster and use a different process
for them that would have required the minority to actually get on the
floor and object, repeatedly, with a vote all but guaranteed at the
end. This so-called “talking filibuster,” pioneered by Sen. Jeff
Merkley
[[link removed]]
(D-OR), was the culmination of a 15-year odyssey to break the minority
veto. But two of the 50 members of the Democratic caucus, Sens. Joe
Manchin (I-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), opposed the reform. All 48
other sitting senators supported it, but without a majority, it lost.

That is, in theory, no longer a problem. “The two folks who have
been most opposed to filibuster reform are Manchin and Sinema, and
both are retiring from the Senate,” said Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI),
chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), at a pen
and pad briefing on the sidelines of the DNC. The inference is that,
with Manchin and Sinema out of the way, the Senate can get on with
doing the people’s business.

But that comment aside, senators asked about filibuster reform by the
_Prospect _at the DSCC event were remarkably reticent to come out and
say that they would remove the main impediment to the promises they
are boisterously announcing to the nation. “Senators and candidates
have a variety of views on filibuster reform,” Peters followed up
quickly after saying that the main obstructors of reform are now gone.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) added that on the campaign trail,
“the issues that matter are the kitchen-table issues … access to
health care, affordable housing, how do we keep communities safe.”
The implication is that process stuff like the filibuster doesn’t
come up. But _of course_ it doesn’t come up; no process issue has
headed campaign rhetoric in American history! The point is that none
of those kitchen-table issues can actually be realized without dealing
with process.

This reticence by senators to say clearly to a reporter who wants to
know that the Senate will not handcuff itself on the popular agenda
Democrats are presenting to the public perhaps speaks to the fact that
Manchin and Sinema were convenient scapegoats, able to take all the
heat for blocking things that other senators may not want to see
passed. Maybe some other senator will step up in their absence, and
the cycle will repeat.

But to the extent that there is a plan, related to me by other
senators at the DNC, it goes like this. The first item on the agenda
will be restoring _Roe_, and I’ve been assured there are 50 votes
(provided Democrats win all the Senate battlegrounds) for that.
Democrats will carve out an exception from the filibuster for that.
Then, nearly all Democratic senators are already on the record for
carving out the voting rights bills from the filibuster. Rep. Ruben
Gallego, the House member running to replace Sinema in the Senate in
Arizona and one of the few who wasn’t in the Senate for that 2022
vote, has come out squarely for killing the filibuster
[[link removed]],
as did Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) last cycle.

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) was clear that he is “deeply
interested” in getting the voting rights bills passed outside of a
filibuster. “The problem now is that the filibuster doesn’t cost
you anything,” said Warnock. “I call it a latte filibuster, you
can go across the street and have a latte, it’s not painful.”

So if successful, that’s two carve-outs. Once you’ve done that,
how can you tell other advocates who have been working on their issues
for years that the Senate’s hands are tied? Suppose the PRO Act,
which would make it easier to join a union, came up for a vote. After
saying yes to women and saying yes to voters of color, how could
Democrats get away with saying no to unions without paying an
electoral price?

Of course, this depends on the advocates knowing the score. As my
colleague Harold Meyerson mentioned
[[link removed]],
I participated in a roundtable discussion that UAW president Shawn
Fain had with reporters. I asked Fain if he would expect the Senate to
get the PRO Act done, and to abolish or limit the filibuster if they
have to in order to do it. “I expect the PRO Act to pass for
sure,” he said. “As far as the filibuster goes, I don’t know
where that goes right now.” I replied that if the filibuster isn’t
broken, the PRO Act cannot pass. “I would say we hope so, we’d
like to see that for sure.”

I asked if Fain had talked to senators personally about filibuster
reform. “We’ve talked to a lot of representatives about the PRO
Act and our expectations … It’s one of the reasons why when it
came to the selection for vice president, we didn’t consider the
senator from Arizona for that reason, because he didn’t support the
PRO Act,” he said, referring to Sen. Mark Kelly.

It’s worth remembering that Fain is very new on the political scene,
having only been elected in the last year. But he didn’t quite seem
to grasp that filibuster reform underlies any successful legislative
agenda for Democrats, particularly on issues with thin Republican
support like unions.

I do think that once you start carving out exceptions to the
filibuster on legislation, it’s functionally dead, just as we saw on
nominations. So the strategy of carve-outs followed by enough
browbeating to whittle away more and more until you no longer have a
stick does have some logic. But advocates have to play their part in
that too, knowing their role in not allowing senators to make any
excuses anymore once they’ve shown they have the power to pass
things by majority vote.

There will still be a lot of momentum to revert back to mythologizing
bipartisanship, however. After the briefing, I caught up with Sen.
Warnock again and asked about the filibuster. Despite his insistence
on exempting voting rights bills from the minority veto, he started
talking about how on the Child Tax Credit expansion, there could be 60
votes in the Senate. But that deal is on the table now, having passed
the House, in a way that was very favorable to Republican interests
(there are three times as many business tax cuts, in terms of value,
as there are Child Tax Credit expansions in that bill). Yet Senate
Republicans have blocked it, using the filibuster.

I asked Warnock about that. If you can’t even get a right-leaning
CTC expansion done, why would you think a bipartisan solution could be
forged? “Because the closer you get to the election the more people
start to play games,” he said, intimating that cooler heads would
prevail outside of an election cycle.

But the entire Mitch McConnell era in the Senate is a testament to the
fact that cooler heads often do not prevail, and that it’s always an
election cycle. The filibuster has evolved into a constant block on
progress. Democrats are promising to change the world, but will they
change the Senate rules to make that happen?

Warnock concluded, “I am singularly focused on winning this election
because there’s so much at stake.”

David Dayen is the Prospect’s executive editor. His work has
appeared in The Intercept, The New Republic, HuffPost, The Washington
Post, the Los Angeles Times, and more. His most recent book is
‘Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power.’

YOU CAN COUNT ON THE _PROSPECT_, CAN WE COUNT ON YOU?

THERE'S NO PAYWALL HERE. Your donations power our newsroom as we
report on ideas, politics and power — and what’s really at stake
as we navigate another presidential election year. Please, BECOME A
MEMBER [[link removed]], or MAKE A ONE-TIME DONATION
[[link removed]], today. Thank you!

* filibuster
[[link removed]]
* Senate
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]