Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktA couple of years ago as part of my master’s program I took a parliamentary procedures course. It was taught by a guy who works for the Congressional Research Service, which is part of the Library of Congress. The staff there does policy and analysis work on behalf of individual members. It’s kind of an odd little shop in that they don’t post their reports publicly. They kind of become the property of the requesting member of Congress, who then can release them publicly. There’s a site, Open CRS, that posts the reports that it’s able to obtain. CRS believes its mandate is to serve members of Congress and not the public, so it has fought effort to publicly release it’s data.
So, the next time you’re looking for what GAO or CBO are saying about an issue, head over to Open CRS to see what they’ve done.
The other thing about CRS, is that quite a few staffers are parliamentarians. They know every procedure and rule inside and out and the history behind it. The class I took on procedure was fascinating, as was the man who taught it. I think he’s retired now, but he had been with the CRS since at least LBJ’s time in the senate.
I missed whatever happened on the senate floor last night with the so-called “nuclear” option so I can’t comment on that, other than I don’t think you can abuse the filibuster as a rule and I think minority rights are paramount.
But I’m positive each side had CRS whispering in its ear, like the offensive coordinator calling plays into to quarterback.
I’ll close with a little tidbit from the procedure’s class prof on getting legislation through Congress. “You take policy and I’ll take procedure. And I’ll kick your ass. every. single. time.”
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
""You take policy and I'll take procedure. And I'll kick your ass. every. single. time.""Yup. That sounds about right.
LikeLike
NoVA:You betcha there were parlimentarians on either side calling the shots.A link for you:Nuke 'em!
LikeLike
OT: may have just snagged willows. Keep your fingers crossed!
LikeLike
Mike, I read that piece at The Hill earlier but I'm still not sure I understand it. It seems odd to me that Reid used this now. They're claiming it was in order to prevent embarrassment to the President? I find that doubtful and if true it seems like a drastic response.
LikeLike
I don't think Reid has 51 D's to vote for the bill. It would destroy his Republicans are the obstructionists.But, now we know that a simple majority can change the rules.
LikeLike
lms:My understanding of the situation is that the Senate voted for cloture of the China currency bill, then the Republicans wanted to suspend the rules and offer several amendments to the bill, including one about BHO's original jobs bill. As Troll says, Reid certainly doesn't have enough votes to pass BHO's original jobs bill, and McConnell knows it. So the insertion of that amendment to the China currency bill is only to make the Ds and BHO look bad. I think Reid just lost his cool, after the last couple of years of Rs adding non-germane amendments for consideration, filibustering relatively non-controversial judicial nominees. I do think that the Rs have intentionally been obstructionists because it is good politics when you are in the minority. Though I am a bit dismayed at the extent to which the Senate Rs have taken it.
LikeLike
Says a lot about what Senate D's think about Obama's bill that they would significantly impair their ability to influence the process once they return to the minority.
LikeLike
Makes me wonder what their internal polling is indicating.
LikeLike
Agree re the R's being obstructionists, especially on judicial nominees. I guess what I don't understand is this only for this situation or does it mean a rule change going forward on everything. I'm always confused by the somewhat archaic Senate rules. It's not the first time we've seen the "nuclear option" used so I assume it's just this bill? Why wouldn't the majority always use it? Is it just a gentleman's agreement that prevents them?
LikeLike
I think the Ds had problems with BHO's jobs bill from the left, specifically taxes on millionaires, because that was written into the Senate D version of the jobs bill. That bill, even if it gets out of the Senate, will go nowhere since Boehner won't even let it sniff the House floor.
LikeLike
I haven't checked out the Plumline since this morning but just went over there and Jon Bernstein has a pretty good piece up on yesterday's move by Reid.Remember: Throughout Senate history up until Bill Clinton, filibusters were rare and reserved for major issues. Republicans led by Bob Dole in 1993 extended the use of the filibuster to all major legislation, and then in 2009 Republicans established a true 60 vote Senate for the first time, in which all legislation and nominations were “required” to have 60 votes to pass. Democrats have fought back by finding ways to limit minority-party amendments offered.It’s not a stable situation. Senators have always been eager to protect the rights of individual Senators, which are preserved by the filibuster and other procedural rigamarole, such as “holds.” But at this point, it’s clear that there’s no way that a solid majority will allow itself to be repeatedly “out-voted” by the minority for much longer. The only question is how long reform will take, and what kinds of reforms will happen. Perhaps the Senate will wind up simply under majority-party centralized rule like the House. Or perhaps new rules can restore some majority power while preserving the rights of individual Senators — one of the upper chamber’s strengths.
LikeLike
Mike, I'm not sure McKaskill, Tester and Nelson are all that comfortable with any tax increases. They need to House to vote first. If they don't, it's going to get ugly for Reid.
LikeLike
Yeah, it's pretty hard for the more conservative Dems to face voters if they've voted to raise taxes on anyone. I think Reid was trying to change it to just be a true tax on Millionaires and Billionaires and leave the $250k up to a million out of it, but I don't know what the status on that is. People, voters and politicians, seem to conveniently forget that the Bush tax cuts were designed to be "temporary".
LikeLike
I put another James Kwak link over in the Link Dump. It covers different scenarios out to 2035. Essentially if we just end the Bush Tax Cuts altogether, things look better. Of course, we still need to solve our health care problems, and IMO it's not a Medicare problem, it's system wide and it's still an emergency.
LikeLike
Great post and good conversation. Glad I got to read it. Don't have time for more, but thanks all.
LikeLike
Troll:I agree about the moderate Ds and taxes. I'll point out that Nelson was allowed to vote against the rules change. Whether that will help him politically back home remains to be seen.
LikeLike