Tag: Senate Democrats

Sinema’s Defense of the Interest Tax Provision

Senate Democrats were on edge last week when Sen. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) reportedly had to study the entire 755-page Inflation Reduction Act before committing to providing the final necessary vote to pass the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation package. Sinema held out until Democrats removed the bill’s carried interest tax provision and tweaked the 15% minimum corporate tax. 

While fighting for the rights of hedge fund managers once was considered a “Republican” sort of thing, that is easily disproved by how bi-partisan investment professionals are when they contribute to political campaigns. 

According to Open Secrets, Sinema received $2,257,315 in campaign contributions from securities and investment individuals and political action committees, between 2017 and 2022 ($318,000 of that was from PACs, the rest from individual investment managers).

In the end it worked out for the bill, as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) dropped the new tax for hedge fund managers from the bill, costing $580 million, according to The Hill, and replaced it with a new tax on corporate buybacks to bring in an additional $1.3 billion. 

--TL

•••

Hope for Democrats This November? ...

Last week, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) predicted the November midterm elections could go either way for the Senate, with his fellow Republicans taking a slight majority, or Democrats taking a slight majority. No one is predicting either party will win a filibuster-proof edge. 

Will the Senate’s passage of the Inflation Reduction Act help stem the traditional midterm sweep by the president’s opposing party? What do you think of the bill’s provisions?

Enter your opinion in the Comment box in this or the right column, or email editors@thehustings.news (subject to editing for length and clarity, but not civilly stated content). 

_____

Founding Fathers Rejected the Filibuster

By Chase Wheaton

The legislative filibuster in the Senate is probably one of the least understood aspects of our government, especially in a historical context, but is simultaneously the most significant obstacle to tangible governance and progress that currently exists in our legislative branch. And now that Senate Democrats are being forced to pass President Biden’s American Rescue Plan through budget reconciliation so that Republicans don’t use the filibuster to stonewall COVID relief for millions of Americans during a national crisis, it’s time we have a better understanding of the thing that’s been responsible for so much gridlock in Washington over the last 50 years.

In the original iteration of the Senate, there was no such thing as a legislative filibuster, and for good reason. On its surface, the legislative filibuster might sound like a tool to allow for sufficient debate before legislation is voted on, or even as a tool to prevent a majority party from simply ramming their agenda through Congress. Upon closer inspection, however, you’d see that the legislative filibuster creates a Congress that our founders explicitly wanted to avoid when they formed our government. The existence of this filibuster essentially means that, while passing most legislation only requires a simple majority of 51 votes, ending the debate on legislation to actually vote on it requires a super-majority of 60 votes. The way our Senate currently operates, you need more votes to end debate about a piece of legislation than you do to actually pass it. The result? A seemingly endless stalemate that hurts the working-class American voter more than anyone else. 

This form of legislation is precisely what James Madison, one of the principle authors of the Constitution, warned against in The Federalist Papers, when he said that if super-majority voting requirements became routine in our legislative body, “the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.” Sadly, this is exactly how the filibuster has been used more and more frequently since its inception in the early 1800s. It has allowed legislators representing a minority percentage of the country to halt legislation from being passed by the majority party, and for no other reason than because they care more about power and their own party than they do about progress and our democratic institution. And while this procedural component of the Senate may feel like an unavoidable truth of legislating to some, the wonderful truth of the matter is that it doesn’t have to be.

One of the fundamental rules of both legislative bodies of Congress is that each gets to determine its own rules and operating procedures at the start of each term. This means that, if Senate Democrats so chose, they could end the legislative filibuster and open the doors to sweeping change and progress for our country, arguably at a time in our history where it’s needed now more than ever. Now is the time for bold and progressive legislation and governance, and to fulfill the campaign promises that Biden and the rest of the Democratic party made to the American people last year, and there’s no way to do that with the filibuster in place. Even if Republicans were to retake control of the Senate in two years and use the absence of the filibuster to their own legislative advantage, at least we’d know that Senate Democrats did absolutely everything in their power to help and serve the American people during this time of widespread tragedy and devastation, rather than simply roll over and accept an otherwise avoidable fate.

_____
Click on Forum for a new commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Kill the Legislative Filibuster?

By Todd Lassa

Before last November’s election, Joseph R. Biden punted on the question of whether he supports killing the Senate legislative filibuster. It’s a move Senate Democrats have been considering at least since it won a majority by the slimmest of margins, with Vice President Harris the tie-breaker for when legislation is split down party lines 

The issue is not the first priority with Senate Democrats, who are moving President Biden’s $1.9-trillion coronavirus relief package via the arcane reconciliation process, which requires a simple majority vote rather than the 60 votes – including 10 Republican senators – necessary when the potential of a filibuster is involved. 

The question is, how much legislation can Biden’s Democratic allies in the Senate pass in the next two years without eliminating the legislative filibuster, which means most bills will require those 10 Republican votes? After January 2023, Democrats either will lose their wafer-thin Senate majority, or will build on it, though it is unlikely either party will gain at least 10 senators in the November 8, 2022 mid-terms. 

Filibuster reformation seems to come up every four years with the presidential election, if not every two years. 

In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, rallied Democrats to end the filibuster for federal judicial nominees and executive office appointments. Spiking the filibuster, called “the nuclear option,” requires only a simple majority vote. 

Republicans warned that triggering the nuclear option on appointing federal judges would come back to bite Democrats whenever they inevitably lost the Senate majority. 

And they were right. In 2017, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, led a majority of his party to end the judicial filibuster for U.S. Supreme Court nominees, paving the way for President Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch as replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Adding hard-core partisanship to injury, Gorsuch’s Senate approval came the year after McConnell prevented a vote on Obama’s nominee late in his term to replace Scalia, Merrick Garland, who now is Biden’s nominee for attorney general.

In the end, Trump saw his three Supreme Court associate justice nominees get Senate approval in his four years in office, compared with Obama’s two associate justices in eight years. 

The question for Democratic senators now is, how much more of Biden’s agenda could the Senate pass in the next 23 months if just 51 votes were needed? And would it be worth weathering the inevitable Senate and White House flip somewhere off in the future?

_____
Click on Forum for a new commentary by Stephen Macaulay
Email editors@thehustings.news with reader comments.