For further reading I recommend this Ezra Klein interview with Adam Jentleson the author of Kill Switch
A lot of my left wing friends have been skeptical about Biden from day 1, but between his cabinet picks, executive orders, and platform priorities there was a lot to like about this president on his first few weeks. Now I’m beginning to worry that his reluctance to play hardball and seek bipartisan solutions is as sincere and as naive as the very same qualities in President Obama.
I have no doubt that a President Trump, Speaker McCarthy, and Majority Leader McConnell fresh off a close re-election would have been immediately aggressive at passing radical right wing legislation by any means necessary. Biden is not doing this. He is letting the $15 minimum wage die rather than use Vice President Harris to overrule the Senate parliamentarian. While it’s great he’s willing to pass the stimulus via reconciliation and not wait for a Republican epiphany, he is still unwilling to kill the filibuster which will prevent anything else he wants to get done from happening.
Absent that reform, we will not get HR1 which will prevent the retrenchment of voting rights in key swing states like Georgia. We will not get the Equality Act which will finally amend Title VII to cover sexuality and gender identity. We will not get a Freedom if Choice Act which will codify Roe v Wade and overturn the Hyde Amendment. We will not get a public option, DC statehood, student loan forgiveness, or any action on immigration and climate change. A host of Biden promises aborted by a procedure that is neither traditional nor constitutional. President Biden has to kill it and he has to kill it now.
The irony is the filibuster itself is arguably unconstitutional since only impeachment, treaties, and amendments require a supermajority. Strict constructionists and textualists would be hard pressed to find it anywhere in the Constitution. Originalists would be hard pressed to ignore Federalist #22 where Hamilton clearly states his opposition to requiring supermajorities to pass legislation:
But this is not all: what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the minority…This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.
I guarantee that if Biden does not eliminate the filibuster his administration will not only repeat the mistakes of the Obama era, but possibly lead to a resurgence of an emboldened and extremist Republican Party in the 2022 midterms which in turn, will be ready to do all in its power to elect Donald Trump on 2024 no matter what precedent or tradition it needs to break to regain power. You can’t negotiate with political hostage takers who egg on real word violent mobs. There is a clear mandate from the people for President Biden and the Democratic majorities in both houses to govern. It is unifying for his administration to follow that mandate and fulfill its promises to a clear majority of Americans.
You understand the President does not make Senate rules, right? Plus parliamentary games might not be worth it as long as Manchin and Synema deprive Dems of a working majority. The filibuster per se is constitutionally fine. The Senate makes its own rules and it is as reasonable for them to require 3/5 to close debate as it is for Robert’s Rules to require 2/3. What needs to happen is to adopt other Robert’s-like rules such as requiring actual germane debate.
I’m aware of that but his word would carry weight with the Democratic Senate and as a former Senator with his former colleagues. We forget major bills like Medicare used to pass with 55 votes. Filibusters were talking ones and used almost exclusively u the Southern bloc to to torpedo civil rights legislation. Imagine how much better off we’d be today if we had been able to pass anti-lynching laws and civil rights laws in the 30’s with simple majorities? How many lives could have been saved?
The only recent event I can think of where a filibuster could have been helpful is delaying the Kavanaugh nomination long enough to allow for a real investigation to take place. It’s instructive that Mitch McConnell was the one who nuked this “sacred Senate tradition” to put a credibly accused sex assaulter on the high court. No shame in their hypocrisy, I don’t see why we’re fighting to keep up appearances of maintaining them on our side. Other than the 3-D chess Tom lays out below.
As long as they are talking filibusters I’m fine with them. Roberts has a higher threshold and they bodies that use that eventually move along. Even the Civil Rights Act was ultimately only slightly delayed.
I’m not too concerned yet.
I expect the $15/hr minimum wage will be attached to a must-pass item like the annual Defense appropriation. That’s the kind of hardball that the GOP played, and I expect Mr. Biden to do the same.
I think that Mr. Manchin’s opposition to both the $15/hr minimum wage and the Tanden nomination have been known to Mr. Biden and his staff for a very long time. I think this is a path that has been negotiated between Mr. Manchin and the White House. I think the goal is to give Mr. Manchin tangible evidence of his willingness to “stand up to the liberals” while preserving a path to pass the minimum wage increase later in this congressional term.
I note that Mr. Manchin has been very explicit that his objection is procedural — he doesn’t want the minimum wage bill passed under the reconciliation process. That’s a hole that Mr. Biden and Nancy Pelosi can drive a truck through.
I think Mr. Biden will follow the advice of several influential advisors to former Democratic presidents and work with Mr. Schumer to pass a change to the Senate rules so that, for example, an in-person vote of 40 supporters is needed to continue a filibuster after the majority has asked for a cloture vote.
The effect is to allow actual filibusters — which almost never occur — to continue while eliminating the “virtual filibuster” that has been used only recently to require a supermajority on virtually every issue.
We Democrats must maintain or expand our majority in both the House and Senate in order to accomplish our agenda. We need EVERY Democrat that we currently have.
The kind of hardball that I very much expect from Mr. Biden will come after 911-style investigation of the January 6 insurrection returns a report detailing the pervasive, knowing, and intentional participation of Donald Trump, his cabinet, and key elected GOP officials. I expect Attorney General Merrick Garland to initiate aggressive and tough criminal prosecutions of essentially the entire leadership of the GOP. I think the GOP will whine “foul” and “hoax” — and I expect Mr. Garland to have the full and enthusiastic support of the White House in pursuing those prosecutions.
The media will join the GOP in claiming that “America must look to the future and let go of the past”. I expect Mr. Biden, the White House, and Democrats will hold a tough line.
I think that will end up turning the tide in 2022, 2024, and for long time after.
I hope you’re right. I also agree that inverting the procedural process could be a way to reform the filibuster while leaving it theoretically intact in a way to satisfy Manchin and Sinema. I’m also cautiously optimistic about PA and WI in 22’ turning our way. I don’t see AZGOP recruiting any good candidates to take on Sen. Kelly and it looks like GAGOP is having similar struggles against Sen: Warnock. Although this is why it’s essential to pass HR1. Not just morally, but politically too.
Democrats have less than two years to make big changes. The filibuster is stopping them from doing so. Mitch McConnell is still in control.
There are only seven states that have no have no minimum-wage law or a minimum wage below the federal minimum wage. The federal minimum wage applies in all of these states. There are 29 states and D.C. that have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. The effective minimum wage has increased in these 29 states and D.C. since January 2014.
If Democrats can’t manage to pass a $15 Minimum Wage, it is because the ones we elected do not have the political will.
On Fox News this past weekend. Lawrence Kudlow proudly proclaimed that the Republican Party is “The Party of the Blue Collar Worker while the Democratic Party is the Party of Silicon Valley, and the Elitists”
Of course there is no proof that the Republicans are the party of the blue collar worker, but without actual results that the Democratic Party is, Republicans have an equal right to claim that status.
If Democrats give us two years of “Obama II” we, once again will receive “a shellacking”, as Obama admitted, we will lose the House, the Senate, and Trump will run and win in 2024.
“The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.” – Winston Churchill
Or, for a more contemporary quote From Breaking Bad’s retried police officer Mike Ehrmantraut:
“The moral of the story is: I chose a half measure, when I should have gone all the way. I’ll never make that mistake again. No more half measures, Walter.”
I basically agree with all of these points. The vaunted fiscally conservative/socially liberal swing voter is largely a product of the Washington press corps. The real swing voter is economically liberal/socially conservative to some degree. They like unions, hate globalization, and want a fair shake. I’ll also remind people that Sen Warren’s wealth tax is supported by 3/5ths of registered Republicans. On bread and butter issues the wind is at our backs and Democrats should go big or they will be sent home.
Yes, let’s hope that a majority of Americans want a fair shake. We don’t like cheaters, ask Pete Rose. I think that’s where Trump picks up a lot of independents with his “American First” slogan. That sound fair.
I’m in contact with a guy who is mechanic, belongs to a union, voted for Scott Brown and voted for Trump, twice. I’ve known him for many years and he’s a good guy. He’s not a racist, not even a closet racist. He works a second job to help pay the bills. He’s upset that his taxes will be helping some kid pay off a college loan and then that same kid is going to be paid more for his job because he’s got a college degree, meanwhile my mechanic friend gets nothing. That does not sound fair to him. It does not sound fair to me either, in context.
Yes, of course, if his kids want to go to college, this sort of legislation will help them and maybe that makes it fair, but still, what if they do not want to go to college and be a stay-at-home mom like their mother and a mechanic like their father?
A $15 minimum wage is at least a start. President Biden’s recent support of the workers right to join a union in Alabama is a start. If neither gets accomplished in the next two years, we may be finished.
Sorry, no sale. It is not possible to both vote for Donald Trump in 2020 and not be racist. The most charitable thing that might be said is that your friend may be unaware of his own racism.
These feelings have little do with fairness and everything to do with greed. Where does individual responsibility enter the picture you are trying to paint?
It sounds as though you are asserting that it is “not fair” for a mechanic to be paid less than any other person regardless of education and credentials — an engineer, doctor, or for that matter chef.
Perhaps you want lifesaving surgery on your children done by a mechanic — I don’t. There is a reason why surgeons make more money than mechanics.
I also don’t want my car to worked on by a mechanic that hasn’t completed a certain level of training and demonstrated skill — that is required for membership in virtually every union. There is a reason why mechanics make more money than cashiers at Dunkin.
The “American dream” is for every American to have an equal opportunity to fulfil their own destiny. It is NOT that every American be paid the same.
It sounds as if your vision for America is very different from the vision of our founders, our party, and lifelong Democrats like me.
What is the “reason” that cashiers at Dunkin don’t make enough in wages to support a family?
That’s a different discussion. Each of us has supported a $15/hr minimum wage for years now.
Your assertion is that it is unfair that mechanics make less than “some kid” with a degree and a college loan.
Are you really going to continue to defend that claim?
Sorry Tom, get out your scythe, that straw man needs to be taken down. That was not my assertion.
I wrote He’s upset that his taxes will be helping some kid pay off a college loan and then that same kid is going to be paid more for his job because he’s got a college degree, meanwhile my mechanic friend gets nothing.
He is not upset that a kid with a college degree makes more money. I am not upset that the kid with the college degree makes more money. What he and I are upset with is a world where the mechanic has to pay for the kid’s college while the government facilitating this is not providing him with equivalent financial support.
It takes training and a period as a lower-paid apprentice to become a mechanic. I agree with you that our government should facilitate training for mechanics.
Any young man or woman who wants to become a mechanic should be able to receive government assistance for doing so. Such assistance is already available (see http://www.collegescholarships.org/loans/trade.htm).
It appears to me that the concern shared by you and your friend has already been addressed.
This response highlights another distinction between Republican and Democratic values. Republican values say “End education subsidies”. Democratic values say “Expand education subsidies”.
Which approach do you prefer?
Where did I say our government should facilitate training for mechanics?
False dichotomy. That’s what I say. Subsidies are a dangerous tool and should be used sparingly, and with a goal in mind that once achieved, the subsidy ends.
You didn’t. That’s my point.
A venerable talking point of the GOP, for decades.
Stipulated that loan forgiveness doesn’t help everyone, but rather than begrudge those who it does help, what do you propose to help others that is not already strongly supported on the left? This is not a zero sum game.
Fair enough. Loan forgiveness is fraught with problems. Why is college so damn expensive? Why do so many kids feel that the must have a college degree to make it to the “middle class”? If we keep forgiving loans, the problem will only get worse.
I’d like to start with a political party that does not think that the only way to be in the middle class is with college credentials. By the way, a majority of Republicans feel that a high school diploma should be a ticket to the middle class, a feeling not shared by a majority of Democrats.
From there, a political party that can bring the minimum wage to $25 today, not ten years from now. Heck, we can’t even get it to $15! We have a long way to go.
Opposing government help in obtaining higher education is not the same as wanting a high-school diploma to be a “ticket to the middle class”.
Whatever those Republicans claim to feel, the party they support has been doing all in its power to absolutely destroy the middle class for decades.
The Middle Class has been in free fall since 1973 according to many economists. Have Republicans been in full control of the economy for the past 47 years?
We’ve already beaten this horse to death.
The Democratic Party has been trying improve conditions for working-class Americans ever since FDR. The GOP has been trying to plunder the working-class in order to enrich the already-wealthy for that same period.
Since the 1970s, no party has had “full control” of the economy. As influence has passed back and forth between the two parties, the Democrats have used that influence — when they dominate — to improve conditions for the working-class. During the same time, the GOP has been using their influence to enrich the already-wealthy at the expense of the working-class.
The free-fall of the middle class is a direct result of unrestricted accumulation of wealth by the wealthy. The result of that unrestricted accumulation has been the extreme wealth concentration that we see today.
A major change since the 1970s has been the role of the gift/estate tax. The gift/estate tax has been slashed since the 1970s.
Which party has been responsible for that change?
The effect of slashing income tax rates — especially the higher brackets — while demanding a balanced budget is to reduce the goods and services provided by the federal government. The result was a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the ultra-wealthy.
Which party has driven tax decreases to the very wealthy?
The best proposal on the table today for addressing today’s obscene wealth concentration is Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal.
Which party does Elizabeth Warren affiliate with?
Your relentlessly hostile commentary towards the Democratic Party gaslights this community about the reality of what the two parties have been doing for the past fifty years.
As we said in the days of Soapblox, 6 6s for the above comment by SomervilleTom!
This isn’t a what should be question; it’s a what is question. College opens many doors that high school on its own does not. Therefore public policy should be designed to assist everyone who wishes to go through those doors and whose only obstacle is financial means.
Indeed. Credentialism is alive and well in the USA. One of the last accepted “ism”s
Are there really any jobs that currently generally require a college degree that you don’t think should?
Anecdotally. I know of jobs that require a “college degree” – and do not specify what that degree needs to be. I was considered for a job promotion when I was working for Kraft Foods and I asked a co-worker who had far more experience than I did why he did not apply. He showed me on the application that it required a “college degree”. My degree was a BA in History from 1978. One wonders how valuable that was in 2001 as a food rep for Kraft covering the New England Walmart stores. I think most of us can recall similar experiences in our past.
According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics, (2014) “22% of jobs will require a bachelor’s or higher by 2022”.
A more ambiguous category of jobs that require some postsecondary education, whether an associate’s degree or some kind of specialized training certificate or simply some college.” But they are required for only about 11% of jobs now, and are projected to provide about 12% of job openings going forward.
And there is this: Men with bachelor’s degrees earn approximately $900,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with bachelor’s degrees earn $630,000 more.
If they are going to make almost a million dollars more, why do I, as a taxpayer, have to subsidize their choice to attend college?
That chip on your shoulder seems to be an increasingly heavy burden for you.
Let me know when you’re ready to go under the knife of a “surgeon” with no credentials.
Time to sharpen that scythe Tom, there’s another one….
How is any of this related to killing the filibuster? Interested in commentary about that. I’m becoming more optimistic that the stimulus will pass via reconciliation and they’ll use HR1 as the vehicle for filibuster reform.
Excellent question. The cynic in me thinks that there are more Democrats who agree with the Republicans and they hide behind the filibuster and do want to lose that hideout. “Gee, I’d love to pay you $15 but those rascally Republicans and the filibuster won’t allow it”…..”I’d love to give more rights to the working class and raise taxes on my largest donors,….but those rascally Republicans have my hands tied”…..
It isn’t, and I appreciate your reminder.
It isn’t necessary to kill the filibuster. I expect the 1975 rule change to be revised so that 40 votes of senators present in the chamber are needed to continue a filibuster. A similar change is to allow a filibuster to be ended with a 3/5 vote of senators present in the chamber.
These or similar rule changes will encourage members of the Senate to talk and negotiate with each other while preserving the ability of a minority to delay truly divisive legislation — so long as they are willing to actually be present and active during the debate that an actual filibuster encourages.
I’m under the impression that Mr. Manchin is already on board with a rule change like this.