The Myth of the Democratic Super Majority--FYI

[Skidmore]

I keep seeing grousing about why the President/Dems didn't get everything done when there was a "majority". I posted this article on another thread but decided to break it out to stand on its own. You may want some detailed analysis into this Republican canard to understand why this is not the case and to be able to present accurate responses to those who use it.

http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/

Written on January 31, 2012 at 3:25 am by elfish
The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.
Filed under Congress, Politics, Recommended10 comments
One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:

To define terms, a Filibuster-Proof Majority or Super Majority is the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. According to current Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster.

Here is a time-line of the events after the 2008 election:

more

[Leme]

1. and, and, and

many Dems are getting money from entities opposed to "Democratic" initiatives.
-
That's why the ACA is so complicated....just one example.
-
They are there to represent the American people when it suits them.

[Laelth]

2. k&r for the truth. n/t

-Laelth

[Johonny]

3. I see the democratic party as the liberal, morderate, and conservative party of governance

A conservative democrat in the USA would be a conservative in most countries in the world. The problem is the US lately only gets about 60% if we're lucky of all kinds of politicians interested in actual governance. The Republican party is the party of graft. They don't care about governance they only care about profiting off their office. The country simply doesn't work with one completely broken political party that the American people keep giving significant influential numbers in office. Indeed many Americans still love the boat anchor that is party Republican until they find something they need blocked by it. Until the political stalemate bites them in the ass they scream less government. I'm not shocked barely at times 60% of the legislature working for any type of governance that Obama couldn't push through more of an agenda.

[freshwest]

14. Yup, there it is.

[FSogol]

4. K & R. n/t

[bluestateguy]

5. We put a bunch of DLC Blue Dogs in office in 2006 and 2008

And there were consequences for that. In the end, they cared about appeasing their red state constituents, not helping Obama, not advancing progressive goals. You combine them with a unified GOP minority, and suddenly the math of getting progressive legislation passed becomes a lot more challenging.

[smokey nj]

6. Democrats could have changed the filibuster rules.

[jeff47]

9. Who, specifically, would vote for that change?

The folks who eventually did push through the recent changes claimed there was about 20 votes for changing the rules in 2009.

So how, specifically, do you switch 31 of those "no" votes in 2009?

[smokey nj]

16. First of all, post a link to that claim. My point was Democrats had it within their power

to do something to stop Republican obstruction and they chose not to. I'm so sick of the myth that Democrat were helpless when their helplessness was self-imposed.

[bvar22]

7. "Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days"

..SO?
What did they do with it?

24 working days is a LOT of time.
They should have crammed as much through as possible,
INCLUDING a Public Option.

So,
What happened during these 24 DAYS with a Filibuster proof Super Majority.

I would have hit the ground RUNNING,
and kept the Congress & Senate open at night and over the weekends.

[tblue37]

15. Some Dems/Independents caucusing with Dems in the majority were people

like anti-progressive Lieberdweeb, turncoat DINO Arlen Specter, and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, who more often than not proudly voted against Dem initiatives (or threatened to do so).

There were too many in the Dem caucus who simply were not cooperative on most of the initiatives the liberal Dems were trying to accomplish.

I think Reid could have pushed the Dem caucus harder, but even the nuclear option was a no-go when at the time he had only 20 Dem votes in favor of it.

[bvar22]

18. Obama could have pushed the Democrats harder too,

but he didn't.
Wonder why?

24 working days is a lot of time.
Most of the "obstructionist" "Democrats" have been rewarded by the Obama Administration.
Baucus...remember him?
He's the guy that arrested anyone pushing for a Medicare expansion at HIS committee meetings.
He got a REAL PEACH reward.
Obama appointed him Ambassador to CHINA!

Remember Blanche Lincoln?
The Wicked Witch that killed the Public Option?
The Obama Administration (and Obama himself) rescued her failing primary campaign against a Democrat who would vote FOR health care.
Here is what the Obama Administration did for her:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4990896

The 24 Working Day EXCUSE actually points to the REAL problem which is NOT the Republicans,
but the Conservatives INSIDE our own Party keeping anything from getting done.
Until we get rid of them,
the Status Quo will prevail.

[eomer]

8. Congressional Democrats could have done more with the reconciliation process.

Or at least they could have tried.

Anything that could fit into the budget reconciliation rules required only a simple majority. Much of the major legislation over the last several decades was done that way but Democrats didn't do much with it. The health insurance reform (ACA) and some student loan legislation were all they did.

Specifically, they could likely have created a public option with just a simple majority. For this one they merely had to tack it onto the reconciliation bill that was the final ACA bill and that passed with only a simple majority.

[jeff47]

10. Make sure you leave out the sunset clause.

A public option that expires in 2018 is probably not a good idea....not to mention it would be difficult to claim a new agency is only an appropriation.

You'd have a much better chance making Medicare-for-all fit as a reconciliation bill, but you'd still have the sunset problem.

[eomer]

11. No, there is no requirement that things passed by reconciliation must sunset. n/t

[jeff47]

13. It's called the Byrd rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_and_the_Byrd_Rule

Importantly for sunset provisions, the Byrd Rule also defines as extraneous provisions that "...would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure." Since the Budget Act says the budget resolution covers at least the four years following the budget year, which is typically the year following the year it was adopted, that is the usual period of time. However, budget resolutions have covered periods as long as ten years, so a reconciliation measure may cover the ten years.

[eomer]

17. As you can see in your excerpt, that only applies if you increase the deficit.

There's no reason a public option would need to increase the deficit and so no sunset would be required by Byrd.

[jeff47]

20. You need to read that again.

It appears you stopped at

"...would increase the deficit

But this part:

for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure.

still matters.

It's going to cost money to set up a public option. That money isn't going to be covered by premiums, if you want the public option to be affordable. Which means deficit spending, and triggering the Byrd rule.

Not to mention any forecast will include rising medical costs, which probably will mean foretasted deficit spending.

[eomer]

22. No, the sunset really only applies if the legislation would increase the deficit as I said.

And of course it's possible to write a public option in a way that doesn't increase the deficit. If there is some spending that is required then you just have to write the legislation to fund that spending. This is exactly how the final changes to ACA were handled. They were done in such a way that any spending had a funding source, and they do not sunset even though they were done in a reconciliation bill. Under the Byrd rule the final ACA bill did not increase the deficit and therefore it did not have to sunset. The public option could have been done in exactly the same way.

Edit to add: and you're making my point perfectly - Democrats ought to be fighting to make these things happen and spending their energy on figuring out how they can be made to happen. Instead they spend their time figuring out excuses for them not getting done, and the excuses aren't even true.

[freshwest]

12. But it's easier than working locally to get that supermajority. It's unpopular to some.

Meanwhile, as they were 'bored':



That'll make life interesting.

[davidpdx]

21. It seems to be a popular talking point among DUers as well

Whoda thought!