Winning Progressive

(By The Pragmatic Pundit)

In the last four years, Republicans have used the filibuster to prevent legislation from reaching the floor,  shattering previous records for filibuster use, bill passage reached an all-time low.  According to the Brennan Center, as of October 2012, the current Congress has enacted the lowest output of any Congress since World War II, passing a record-low 2.8 percent of bills introduced in that chamber.  Use of the filibuster has paralyzed and broken the Senate today in a way no one could have envisioned.

This session, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., has become a leading advocate for filibuster reform. Merkley is proposing changes to the rules of the Senate that would allow bills to at least reach the floor for debate before being filibustered. The rules changes would require senators to take the floor and address their colleagues in order to block action on a piece of legislation. Right now, senators can simply obstruct bills silently, without explanation.

The proposed changes, are endorsed by at least 51 senators, many Constitutional scholars, as well as the public. A YouGov poll found that 65% of Americans favor changing the rules to require senators to debate a bill on the floor if they wish to block it from proceeding.

A hybrid of the filibuster is a procedure called the “hold”.  While many argue that they are one in the same, I can’t be sure.  Even a veteran Senator could offer no clarity.  All I know is, this secretive procedure seems to be used mostly to stop presidential appointments.  Since the act is secretive, it is difficult to count the number of holds, but in 2010 Senators had placed a record number of holds on 69 executive and judicial nominees.  

If, in fact, they are the same thing…so what!  I say, error on the side of caution…leave no loopholes and cover all the bases.  Because to demonstrate the power just one Senator can wield using the “hold” procedure, once Sen. Jim DeMint warned that he would place a hold on all legislation that had not been cleared by his office; a move that could have literally stopped all legislative activity in the government.

In 2010, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR.) proposed the “Secret Holds Elimination Act,” legislation that would force those who use secret holds out of the shadows. A bipartisan group of 68 senators endorsed the proposal, but the Senators instead made a gentlemen’s agreement that Republicans seemingly never honored.

Despite the damage caused by these blocking tactics, some Democrats worry they may be voted out as the majority party and are therefore afraid of chipping away at minority rights.  There’s one thing we can be sure of, if the Republicans controlled Congress, the first thing they would do is get rid of the filibuster and that ridiculous procedure known as the “hold” so it would not be available to the Democratic minority.  In fact, they wouldn’t even leave the fig leaf Democrats are proposing to leave.  Republicans believe in obstruction, while Democrats believe in governing.

Call, write, email, tweet, fax or visit your Senators and remind them of what Gov. Deval Patrick said at the Democratic National Convention,

“It’s time for Democrats to grow a backbone …”!

Click to go to petition

With Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), publicly pushing to reform the filibuster rules in the 113th Congress, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to the floor of the Senate earlier this week to loudly proclaim that filibuster reform would “poison” party relations and “undermine the very purpose of the Senate.”  These comments set off an unusually personal feud between Senators Reid and McConnell on the Senate floor that carried over into a second day.  But Senator McConnell’s complaints about filibuster reform epitomize the term “crocodile tears,” as it is the Senate GOP caucus, under McConnell’s leadership, that have taken abuse of the filibuster so far that they virtually ground the Senate to a halt.  It is beyond time to reform the filibuster so that the U.S. Senate can become a functioning governing body again.

As explained in this informative report on the filibuster from the Congressional Research Service, filibusters stem from the fact that Senate rules place very few limits on the ability of any Senator to speak on an issue. The majority cannot force Senate action on a particular bill to proceed in the face of a Senator’s decision to filibuster it.  Instead, the only real option is to invoke cloture under Senate Rule XXII.  Once cloture is invoked, a 30 hour waiting period is triggered, after which time 60 Senators can vote to end debate on the matter being filibustered.  And because current Senate rules allow a filibuster on both a motion to proceed to a floor vote, and on the floor vote itself, the Congressional Research Service has estimated that even legislation that has supermajority support can take 11 session days to get passed if opponents threaten a filibuster on both the motion to proceed and the floor vote.

Realizing that such delay can be useful for keeping the Senate from passing progressive legislation, the GOP has sought to use the lengthy process for halting a filibuster in order to undermine the ability of the Senate to take action on even the most non-controversial matters.  Over the past six years of Democratic control of the Senate, 386 cloture motions have had to be filed, which is far higher than in any previous Congress and represents 28% of all cloture motions filed since 1917.  As a result of such obstructionism, the 112th Congress had the lowest productivity since World War II, a record low 2.8% of bills submitted in the 112th Congress were passed, and the Senate has taken an average of 188 days  to confirm judicial nominees for seats that are currently empty.

Given the serious impact that the GOP’s out-of-control abuse of the filibuster has caused, Winning Progressive believes that filibuster reform is an absolute necessity.  We believe that such reform should be guided by four principles:

* Mend It, Don’t End It: We do think it is appropriate to have a properly-limited super-majority requirement for legislation in the Senate.  The 60-vote filibuster requirement helps ensure some long term policy stability, which is an important value for a functioning democracy.  Such a super-majority requirement can also be  good for protecting progressive gains.  Most progressive policy change at the national level has come in short bursts – a few years during the New Deal, a two-year period after JFK’s assassination, and the past two years under President Obama – followed by long periods of time in which there are unsuccessful efforts to turn those gains back.  In some cases, those efforts to overturn progressive gains have been turned back by relying on the filibuster.  Eliminating the filibuster completely would make it much harder to protect our gains over time.

* No Filibustering Presidential Nominations: While a limited super-majority requirement makes sense for legislation, it does not for President appointments.   For one thing, a President should have some leeway with who he or she wants to carry out the duties the President was elected to perform, and the filibuster interferes with that.  In addition, the Constitution limits the Senate’s role over Presidential nominations to “advise and consent,” which does suggests that super-majority requirements may not be appropriate.  Finally, the ability of the Senate to undermine the ability of our federal judiciary and agencies to operate is effectively is highly detrimental to our country, especially in times of economic crisis like we have had over the past couple years.  As such, Senators should not be able to filibuster judicial nominees and nominees by the President for members of his or her Administration.

* Shift the Burden to Those Who Are Filibustering: Currently, any single Senator can invoke and maintain a filibuster by objecting, even secretly.  This means that there is little direct political cost for filibustering, and it is the Senators who want to break the filibuster who have to spend their time on the Senator floor trying to break the filibuster.  This burden should be shifted to the filibusters, by requiring that they have 40 votes at all times to maintain a filibuster.

* Speed Up the Process: The 30-hour waiting period on cloture votes just encourages the minority to filibuster everything in order to throw sand into the gears of the Senate.  The ability to filibuster at two separate points – both on the motion to proceed and during the floor vote – allows for further delays.  These steps should be eliminated or significantly limited in order to ensure that filibusters are based on legitimate policy concerns, not just trying to delay everything.  Specific reforms could include eliminating the ability to filibuster on motions to proceed, and shortening the 30-hour cloture waiting period.

The incoming Senate has a short window of opportunity to reform the filibuster on the first day of the 113th Congress in January, as the Senators are able to change the rules by a simple majority vote, rather than the 67% vote it takes to change the rules at other times.  And Democratic Senators, led by Harry Reid and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), have begun crafting a reform proposal that would likely involve both a provision requiring a filibustering Senator do actually take to the Senate floor and maintain his or her filibuster, and elimination of filibusters on motions to proceed.   While those proposals are a good start, as we laid out in the four points made above, more is needed to return the Senate to being a fully functioning political body, and to allow a President to be able to properly staff federal agencies and the judiciary.  And, of course, we still have to convince 51 Democratic Senators to vote for reform, despite concerns they might have about changing the Senate rules on a simple majority vote and their worries about what a reformed filibuster would mean if and when there is a Republican Senate majority in the future (that latter concern seems not very significant to us, as experience shows that the GOP would almost certainly weaken the filibuster if they were in the majority regardless of what the Democrats do now).

As such, it is important that we all do three things to make sure that filibuster reform occurs and that the public understands that such reform is the right thing to do:

1. Call your Democratic Senators and urge them to reform the filibuster when they are setting the rules for the new Senate.

2. Support Fix the Senate Now, a coalition of organizations pushing for filibuster reform.  Follow them on Facebook and Twitter.

Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper in favor of filibuster reform that follows the principles laid out above.

3. Sign Senator Merkley’s petition in favor of filibuster reform, and urge everyone you know to do the same.

 (By Brian Frederking of the Toward the Common Good blog)

Dear undecided voters,

You are not really deciding whether to vote for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. You are deciding whether or not to vote for the Republican Party.

Please do not reward the Republican Party. They have lost their way. They do not deserve your vote.

Republicans are systematically trying to prevent the poor, the elderly, and racial minorities from voting in key swing states. There is one documented case of widespread voter fraud this year – committed by a Republican group.

Republicans have fueled the birther movement with routine references to birth certificates, including the presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Not one Republican leader has publicly criticized this obviously racist movement.

Republicans are lying about the Obama administration changing welfare rules in order to stoke white racial resentment.

Republicans have an explicitly racial strategy to win the election – deny voting rights to minorities and make racist appeals to whites.

Please do not reward the Republican Party. They have lost their way. They do not deserve your vote.

Republicans have shattered all the records for filibusters in the Senate. They say no to everything, even to their own ideas when they are embraced by the president. They are more interested in denying the president any political victories than they are in solving the country’s problems. Republicans have killed numerous jobs bills, including one for returning veterans.

Republicans in Congress have the most conservative voting record in the history of the party. Repealing Obamacare is only the start. They want to roll back much legislation passed in the 20th century. House Republicans have passed bills that would outlaw abortion and contraception. They are against equal pay for equal work. They are against enforcing the Voting Rights Act. They want to privatize Social Security, voucherize Medicare, and pulverize Medicaid. Say goodbye to student loans, consumer protection laws, and food safety.

Republicans have turned the word ‘freedom’ to mean that everyone is on their own. Congratulations – you are free! Now try and find some affordable health insurance.

Please do not reward the Republican Party. They have lost their way. They do not deserve your vote.

Republicans peddle an ideology that is completely in the economic interests of the 1%. But that ideology does nothing to solve our everyday problems. Limited government does not lead to a better education for our children. Limited government does not lead to energy independence; or deal with climate change; or prevent the next financial crisis; or make sure everyone has access to medicine; or prevent jobs from going overseas. It simply enables the rich to get richer. It enables corporations to pay more in CEO compensation than taxes.

Please consider the last 20 years. Where were we when Bill Clinton left office? Where were we when George W. Bush left office? Obama is offering us Clinton policies, and Romney is offering us Bush policies. It is as simple as that.

Please do not reward the Republican Party. They have lost their way. They do not deserve your vote.

(Crossposted from Blogistan Polytechnic Institute (BPICampus.com))

(By The Pragmatic Pundit)

I first shared this information in October, 2010 in a post I called “Occupy the Media” (no longer available) then later in a post entitled President Obama DID NOT Control Congress for Two Years.

Without fail, everyday I am either challenged or questioned about the information I presented.  So in an attempt to further clarify the information and hopefully address the many questions, I am presenting it once again. More importantly,  commenters, journalists, reporters, political pundits, Republicans and even some Democrats continue to repeat the same falsehood:

“The president controlled Congress for two years, and had the opportunity to do everything he wanted to do.” 

The statement simply isn’t true.

How did so many people get this so wrong?

I’m guessing that after the election, the media made such a big deal of the fact that Democrats had captured the majority in the Senate (obviously referring to a 51+ majority), I think people became confused.  Just as many things changed once Barack Obama became elected,  the “new filibuster-proof majority” totaled 60 and somehow, the fact Democrats only captured 59 seats got lost in all the excitement.

Everyone also apparently forgot that Ted Kennedy Collapsed At The Obama Inaugural Luncheon and returned to his home in Massachusetts to recuperate. While the Minnesota seat remained outstanding, because the election results were contested.

When Arlen Spector switched parties, in April, 2009 the media announced that the switch gave  “Democrats a filibuster-proof majority”.  The statement was only technically true;  it was an assessment that assigned the still-contested Minnesota seat (between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken) to Democrats.  Perhaps the media did so because Republicans openly admitted contesting the election was a stalling tactic.

Even the swearing-in of Al Franken did not seal the majority of sitting senators because Senator Kennedy was still at home ill, but paid a surprise visit to the Senate to cast a healthcare vote on June 29.  Senator Byrd was hospitalized in Mid-May and did not return to the Senate until July 21.

Many emailed to ask why the President had not accomplished more, though I don’t think most people know what the President has accomplished.

Republicans wanted the President to fail

Despite the fact that the President was democratically elected, Republicans launched an all-out attack against the presidency.

Ten days before the inauguration, Rush Limbaugh declared, “I hope he fails.”  After the inauguration he would add,  

“The dirty little secret … is that every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it”

In nothing else, the revelations that Republicans formulated a strategy to cripple the newly-elected President undermines claims that Obama is to blame for the partisan deadlock in Washington.

From the guardian:

A detailed account of  January 20   and the plan Republicans worked out to bring down Obama (one hour after the inauguration) is provided by Robert Draper in ‘Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the US House of Representatives’…..

Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Others present were Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, .

Kevin McCarthy, was quoted as saying,

“We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign.” 

And that’s exactly what they did.  It is unconscionable that legislators elected to govern and move the country forward chose to allow the economy and Americans to suffer, other than work with the opposition party.  And just think, one of the saboteurs is slated to be Vice President of the United States.

Is it me?  Millions of Americans remained jobless, while those employed by voters not only refused to work, but lampooned government workers.  They work for the government.  They are the government!  They complain about the President’s failures as if they have no vested interest in or responsibility to the public at large…and the public continues to employ these high-paid, benefit-rich deadbeats.  Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, of course, insist that Democrats employ the same tactics, but I challenge anyone to point to a Republican administration that has been completely denied the right to govern for their entire tenure by the Democrats.  Every single one of them should be voted out of office.

Guantanamo 

In a blatant show of disconnect, many express disappointment that Guantanamo remains opened.  In January, 2009 President Obama signed an order to shut down Guantanamo. On May 20, 2009, the Senate passed an amendment (H.R. 2346) by a 90-6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay.

Any disappointment should be with Congress, not to mention that in my own view, people ought to be more concerned about the 2 million Americans who languish in prisons in their own backyard.

The Stimulus

A group of Senators, Republicans and Democrats,  led by Republican Sen. Susan Collins who  cut billions from the original stimulus.  In the interest of bipartisanship (another promise) job-stimulating measures were traded for tax cuts.  Despite their public protestations, over a hundred Republicans happily handed out enormous checks.

People behaved as if President Obama was the first president to employ a bailout or a stimulus.  When in fact, bailouts and stimulus programs have been employed by one administration after another, Republicans and Democrats, to combat the effects of an economic downturn.  Governors across the nation cut public employment rolls when in the past the practice has always been to expand federal employment,  

About those Government employees, the debt and the deficit

We emerged from the Great Depression because of a series of public works projects; roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings that created employment.  Republicans love to tell how Reagan delivered the country from a depressed economy by implementing the largest tax-cuts in history. What they don’t tell is that the following year, Reagan enacted the largest single tax increase in history, followed by ten additional tax increases.   What they don’t tell is that Reagan expanded the federal workforce by nearly a million more employees than President Obama has today.

Under Reagan, the size of the federal government grew by 7% and the federal deficit ballooned to the largest peacetime deficit in history and for all that ballyhoo about the debt ceiling,under Reagan, the debt ceiling was raised 17 times!

According to David Stockman,  director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan:

“The plan was to have a strategic deficit that would give.. an argument for cutting back the programs that weren’t desired….one creates deficits so large that absolutely everyone becomes convinced that no more money can be spent….persuade Congress of the necessity of spending reductions by means of an immense deficit….”

The idea that the country will implode because the debt is 100% of GDP is sheer poppycock.  That isn’t to say the debt should be ignored, but to instill fear and anxiety in the public is a republican strategy.  The debt to GDP was 122% in 1946.  We’re still here.

The Tea Party staged its first rally just 38 days after President Obama took office;  ten days after he signed the Stimulus.  While they had remained completely silent when Bush signed the Wall Street Bailout, the prescription drug expansion, massive tax cuts and committed the country to two wars.

To me, the reaction to the Stimulus defied common sense.  TARP had been for the bailout of Wall Street, while the Stimulus was directed at Main Street.  Go figure.  And while economists, pundits, Republicans and some Democrats screeched that the Stimulus was too costly, in the end they would all concede that it was just too small. 

Healthcare

From Ben Smith of Politico:

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, the founder of Conservatives for Patients Rights told 104 participants on a conference call, which was organized to coincide with National Tea Party Patriot’s protests:

“….if we can hold it back (delay a vote) until we go home for a month’s break in August,” members of Congress will hear from “outraged” constituents….Senators and Congressmen will come back in September afraid to vote against the American people…If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him”.

The outbursts and demonstrations at town hall meetings across the country were clearly coordinated.

Congress

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declared,

“Our top priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term.” 

If the President was in favor of it, they were against it…even when they were their ideas.  They refused to do anything to help heal the economy or unemployment for fear the President would get credit for any improvements, while they harped that the President promised the unemployment rate would not exceed 8%.  But the President never said that…economists did!   And it was an assessment made on the Stimulus as presented, not one sliced and diced with tax cuts.

The Senate had 60 sitting Democrats only from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010, the day on which Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts was sworn in.

Senate Calendar January 21, 2009 – December 31, 2009
17 days out of session from September 24 thru December 31

Senate Calendar January 1, 2010 – February 4, 2010
12 days out of session from January 1 thru February 4

From September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010, the President had a filibuster-proof majority for 72 days.

Sitting Democratic Senators

Confronted with Republicans who plotted an hour after the inauguration to bring the nation to a standstill; a Republican party that employed the filibuster more times than ever in history and refused to compromise on any issue, there is legitimate reason some things simply couldn’t be accomplished.  Perhaps, my Latino friends will understand why he didn’t try for comprehensive immigration reform…he didn’t have the votes. Republican lies and anti-American slander have divided America.   Still, the President accomplished many, many things.

What did the GOP accomplish? 

The 2010 election filled the House and state legislatures with Republican/Tea Party Representatives who promised to create jobs.  Did they?  They passed legislation restricting and governing women’s reproductive rights, busted unions, fired teachers, firefighters and policemen, passed “stand your ground” laws, enacted voter suppressing ID laws and demonized immigration.   

Where are the jobs? 

(By Fay Paxton, cross-posted at The Pragmatic Pundit)

I don’t know why I turned on that stupid, partisan Morning Joe the other morning,  but I did.  And there he was,  that sniveling Joe Scarborough, “Well, the President had a Democratic majority…controlled Congress for two years and….”

My hair stands on end.

“When?!”  I yell at the television screen.  “Do any of you bobbleheads who sit around that table nodding in agreement know any facts…care anything about the truth?”

Yesterday, Willard Romney made the same declaration.  He may or may not know any better.  He’s lies with complete abandon.  Yes President Obama ran for the presidency with strong immigration reform rhetoric.  But unless Latinos are all deaf and blind, they saw what happened.  But then again, maybe like many people they too believe the President had control of the Congress and the Senate for two years.


Here are the facts:

Apparently everyone forgot the President needed 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation.  I heard a Latino news reporter say they felt if the President could pass healthcare, he could have passed immigration reform.  Newsflash!!  The healthcare bill was passed using “reconciliation”, because there were not 60 Democrats in the Senate.  Immigration, Gay Rights could not be passed with the same process because it is reserved for budgetary matters.  You’d think a reporter would know this stuff.  The Stimulus was hijacked by the Republicans and job-creating measures were traded for tax cuts because…there were not 60 Democratic votes to pass it.  Anyway, you got that?

Now, to begin with, apparently no one remembers that Scott Brown was sworn into office in February of 2010.  The President had only been in office for ONE year.  Most folks remember that the election of Scott Brown reduced the number of Democratic senators to 59.  So what damned majority are they talking about?

I’ve written about this before in an article I called Occupy the Media, but I feel the need to repeat myself.

January 20, 2009 – After suffering a seizure during Barack Obama’s inaugural luncheon, Senator Kennedy’s health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts. Also Senator Al Franken of Minnesota had not been seated because the previous Senator, Norm Coleman challenged the results.

So at the beginning of his Presidency, Democrats had 58 sitting senators…56 Democrats and 2 Independents.

Why do you think he had to compromise with Republicans on the Stimulus bill?  He didn’t have enough Democrats to pass the bill!  Why don’t you people who moan such disappointment know this?

April 28, 2009 news outlets issued the following report:

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter has switched parties, which would give Democrats a filibuster-proof 60 seats. You do remember the filibuster? The Republicans employed it more than in any time in history for the express purpose of stalling legislation.

Getting back to what I was saying.  Despite the fact that the media hailed the party switch of Alen Specter and claimed it gave Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate,  the Minnesota seat still remained vacant. The Senate had 57 Democratic members and 2 Independents.  Techinically, the Senate was two members short, but I’m counting Senator Kennedy even though he was at home ill because he did cast a vote in June.  59

May 15, 2009 Senator Robert Byrd was admitted to the hospital reducing the number of sitting Senators to 56 Democratic members and 2 Independents.  58

July 7, 2009 Al Franken (D) was sworn in after the election dispute over the Minnesota seat was decided in his favor.  Senator Kennedy continued to recuperate at his home in Massachusetts and was unable to cast any more votes; Senator Byrd was still in the hospital.  The Senate had 56 sitting Democratic members and 2 Independents.  58

July 21, 2009  Senator Byrd returned to the Senate making the count 59 seats.  No Senator Kennedy.

Senator Kennedy died August 25, 2009.

The Kennedy seat was vacant from August 25 – September 24  when  Paul G. Kirk was appointed to occupy his seat until the completion of a special election. The swearing-in of Kirk gave the Democrats a 60-seat majority.

Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010.   4 months people; not 2 years!!

Democrats lost their 60 seat majority when Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts was sworn into office in February of 2010.

But here’s the most important detail that no one ever mentions:

REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED THE HOUSE, SENATE AND PRESIDENCY (BUSH) FROM 2001 TO 2007!  SIX YEARS!

What purpose does the media serve?  And why are Americans so damned dumb and easily led?    This isn’t some obscure fact, but no one gets it right.  It’s pathetic!

As for Morning Joe, I guess that’s what I get for watching that stupid crap.  I suppose I should count my blessings…. at least I missed Peggy Noonan  swooning orgasmically about that damned economy-crasher Ronald Reagan.

With the recent flurry of good legislation that passed Congress during the lame duck session, and the Republican takeover of the House combined with the shrinking of the Democratic majority in the next Senate to 53 votes, some may be asking whether reform of the filibuster is a good thing for progressives to push for in the new Senate.  We here at Winning Progressive believe that the answer is yes – that filibuster reform, though not elimination, should be sought, and we urge you to contact your Democratic Senators and to write letters to the editor in favor of such reform.

Abuse of the filibuster was rampant in this past Senate.  Faced with a 59-60 seat Democratic majority, Senate Republicans decided to use the filibuster procedures to slow things down so that as little as possible would get done.  Under the current Senate rules, any single Senator can object to a bill proceeding to a full vote of the Senate.  If such objection is filed, then it is up to supporters of the bill to pull 60 votes in favor of cloture.  And at least 30 hours of additional debate must occur for each cloture motion, meaning that even if a filibuster is unlikely to succeed, it slows down the process considerably.

The results of the Republicans’ obstructionist approach in the Senate were stark.  For example:

* The number of cloture motions that have had to be filed to break filibusters were more than double in this Senate and the immediately proceeding Senate (which also had a Democratic majority), than in any previous Senate.

* Many significant pieces of legislation – including, most recently, the DREAM Act – died in the Senate despite having majority support in both houses of Congress.  As of February 2010, 290 bills had been passed in the House but languished in the Senate.

* Nearly one out of every nine federal judgeships remain vacant, and President Obama has had fewer lower-court judicial nominees confirmed than any President since before Carter.

* Dozens of Presidential nominees have been held up in the Senate, even though there are no substantive objections to most of them.  Such obstructionism has limited the ability of federal agencies to carry out their jobs.  For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lacked the necessary quorum to operate while a nominee was pending for 254 days, and the National Labor Relations Board had to operate with only two out of five members even while two nominees were held up in the Senate for more than 260 days.

* A single Senator – Richard Shelby (R-AL) – was able to hold up 70 Presidential nominees, including the top intelligence officers at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, because he was upset about possible elimination of some pork barrel spending in his state.

The good news is that there is a move afoot to reform the filibuster in the new Senate.  Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has set forth good principles for such reform. And every returning Democratic Senator has signed a letter calling for filibuster reform, though the letter does not endorse any specific proposals.

We believe that filibuster reform should be guided by four principles:

* Mend It, Don’t End It: We do think it is appropriate to have a properly-limited super-majority requirement for legislation in the Senate.  The 60-vote filibuster requirement helps ensure some long term policy stability, which is an important value for a functioning democracy.  Such a super-majority requirement can also be  good for protecting progressive gains.  Most progressive policy change at the national level has come in short bursts – a few years during the New Deal, a two-year period after JFK’s assassination, and the past two years under President Obama – followed by long periods of time in which there are unsuccessful efforts to turn those gains back.  In some cases, those efforts to overturn progressive gains have been turned back by relying on the filibuster.  Eliminating the filibuster completely would make it much harder to protect our gains over time.

* No Filibustering Presidential Nominations: While a limited super-majority requirement makes sense for legislation, it does not for President appointments.   For one thing, a President should have some leeway with who he or she wants to carry out the duties the President was elected to perform, and the filibuster interferes with that.  In addition, the Constitution limits the Senate’s role over Presidential nominations to “advise and consent,” which does suggests that super-majority requirements may not be appropriate.  Finally, the ability of the Senate to undermine the ability of our federal judiciary and agencies to operate is effectively is highly detrimental to our country, especially in times of economic crisis like we have had over the past couple years.

* Shift the Burden to Those Who Are Filibustering: Currently, any single Senator can invoke and maintain a filibuster by objecting, even secretly.  This means that there is little direct political cost for filibustering, and it is the Senators who want to break the filibuster who have to spend their time on the Senator floor trying to break the filibuster.  This burden should be shifted to the filibusters, by requiring that they have 40 votes on the Senate floor at all times to maintain a filibuster.

* Speed Up the Process: The 30-hour waiting period on cloture votes just encourages the minority to filibuster everything in order to throw sand into the gears of the Senate.  And the ability to filibuster legislation at multiple points, such as on amendments or motions to proceed to debate, allows for further delays.  These steps should be eliminated or significantly limited in order to ensure that filibusters are based on legitimate policy concerns, not just trying to delay everything.

The incoming Senate has a short window of opportunity to reform the filibuster when it arrives in January, and such reform is critical to returning the Senate to a fully functioning political body, and to making sure that President Obama is able to properly staff federal agencies and the federal judiciary.  In addition, while the returning Democratic Senators have noted their support of filibuster reform, there is also already push back from the right wing improperly suggesting that reforming the filibuster would represent some sort of an improper power grab by Senate Democrats.

As such, it is important that we do two things to make sure that filibuster reform occurs and that the public understands that such reform is the right thing to do:

1. Call your Democratic Senators and urge them to reform the filibuster when they are setting the rules for the new Senate.  Especially call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – 202-224-3542 – to make sure he knows that we want filibuster reform.

2. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper in favor of filibuster reform that follows the principles laid out above.  Here are links to national papers, and to newspapers in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.