Though fiscal talks are the dominant issue in Washington right now, there are still ongoing efforts to improve the way the Senate functions, and a looming fight over what, if anything, to do about filibuster abuses that have effectively broken the institution.
For many in the Democratic majority, there will be a unique opportunity for reform on the first day of the 113th Congress, but Sahil Kapur reports that there are now talks about striking a bipartisan agreement.
Democrats are conferring with Republican senators about cutting a deal that would still change some of the Senate's filibuster rules but avoid a showdown that would force Democrats to advance significant reforms on a majority-rules basis.
The Republicans in these talks include Sens. John McCain (AZ), Jon Kyl (AZ), Lamar Alexander (TN) and Lindsey Graham (SC), according to Politico. To enhance their leverage, they're courting Democrats who are skittish about changing the rules of the Senate using the so-called "Constitutional" or "nuclear" option.
"I think this is yet another sign of the bipartisan concern with using the nuclear option to forever revoke the ability of the minority to participate in the legislative process," a Senate Republican leadership aide told TPM.
It's worth noting, in case anyone's forgotten, that under the proposed Democratic reforms, no one is talking about forever revoking the ability of the minority to participate in the legislative process. That's insane. In fact, under the ideas on the table, the filibuster will still exist, a determined minority of 41 senators will still be able to block up-or-down votes, amendments can still be offered, and debates will still be held.
Indeed, by this GOP leadership aide's reasoning, the Senate was an authoritarian mess for about two centuries -- right up until Republicans started forcing mandatory supermajorities for every bill of any consequence.
Regardless, the seriousness with which Democratic leaders are pursuing institutional reforms has managed to get Republicans' attention, and have prompted GOP members to engage in a reform debate for the first time in recent memory.
So, what might the two sides agree to? I still haven't the foggiest idea why Republicans would oppose ending filibusters on motions to proceed -- they block debates on whether to have debates -- and it's far from clear what the GOP might offer to satisfy Democratic demands for change.
It seems quite unlikely, though, that we'll see a replay of the developments of two years ago.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) fierce resistance to reforming the filibuster isn't fazing Harry Reid, who insists that he will weaken the minority party's power to obstruct legislative business with Republican support or without it.
"There are discussions going on now, but I want to tell everybody here: I'm happy, I've had a number of Republicans come to me and a few Democrats," the Democratic majority leader told reporters Tuesday afternoon. "We're going to change the rules. We cannot continue in this way. So I hope we can get something Republicans will work with us on.
"But it won't be a handshake," Reid added. "We tried that last time; it didn't work."
Leave a Comment:
As with other things in Washington.
Ask Americans what they think of filibuster rules.
The Republicans were going crazy when the Democrats refused to allow judges to come up for votes and threatened the "nuclear option".
Now Obama has a rather large number waiting for votes and the Republicans are doing the same thing. My guess is that the closer we got to the election, the more the Republicans did this with the hope that Obama would be out of office and that Romney would start nominating conservative judges, so the Republicans could continue their attempt to stack the courts with conservatives.
Much has been made of the lack of adults in the room during the legislative battles of the past two years. Why should we believe that in the next two years the GOP will behave any differently? The trouble is that liberals indulge in the magical thinking that harsh consequences are not a necessary part of parenting.
Mann and Ornstein devastated this question. As they point out, tt's way way worse than it looks- either from Benen's or DogJudge's perspective. The American Constitutional System has collided With the New Politics of extremism, and extremism will win again for the 113th Congress if there is no meaningful Senate Rules reform. (Their Book on this) The sad truth even the biggest reforms Warren is pushing for are insufficient. This is not an argument of futility, but an argument that Democrats must not allow any backsliding or watering down of Merkley's proposals.
As for the GOP sentiments that Dems are being hypocrites- Wake the F*** up- the mouths of Faux News commentators are as full of marshmallows as Benen's is. The republicans are not doing the same thing the Dems did in prior congresses. Just look at the statistics on fillibuster and other blocking motions used by the 112th congress compared to any other congress in our 200 year history. What the republicans are doing is qualitatively different. Stalin made famous the sentiment that "Quantity has a quality all its own. "
The context of the filibuster reform discussion is already perverse, because the supposed maximalist position the Dems are hoping for in the Merkley proposal is to require standing filibusters. It is not radicals who point are pointing out that this is ridiculous embroidery around the edges of the problem. Mann and Ornstein make the factual case that there are myriad ways for a determined minority to obstruct legislation, and that it is pointless to make it difficult to use one or two methods while there are dozens of others that can be used for the same result.
This is why Benen's commentary is so lame. It is a straw man to suggest that anyone proposes that the minority should be silenced in the Senate. "That's insane!" Benen complains. What utter crap. Please show me where in the constitution that the Senate requires a supermajority for legislation.
It is fair that there be vigorous debate prior to to a vote. It is imperative that all sides have an opportunity to present their side of a question. But there is no provision that the time allotted for debate be infinite. To insist otherwise is not advocacy of insanity, or an unbalanced view of majoritarianism that the founders themselves did not hold. The framing of Fillibuster reform as a "nuclear option" is nonsense. As GOP Bill Frist pointed out when he proposed it, it is a "consitutional option", and he is right. The Senate may determine their rules by majority vote, and in fact there is nothing in the constitution that prevents a party with majority control from changing the rules at any time.
The absurdity of this debate is the premise that the GOP will obey norms of reciprocity. Why on earth should any Democrat with functioning frontal lobes conclude that the republicans will not change the rules the microsecond that they have control and the democrats insist on exercising the same minoritarian rights they seem determined to award the GOP. The GOP will laugh at the tendency of liberals to tolerate misbehavior of children- to forgive and forget. Watch them. Are we to believe that the GOP is repentant and will not employ any means at their disposal to obstruct any Obama legislation or appointments?
Benen points out that the "a determined minority of 41 senators will still be able to block up-or-down votes". All that is being promoted is the idea that the obstruction will be more transparent.
WTF? As if it is not transparent now? The GOP leaders boast of their obstructionist strategy. Do Dems actually believe that this is a problem of volume control and the GOP will demure in the harsh light of the media spotlight? Get a clue. They know their audience, and they are watching FOX and will reliably deliver their Senate seats back to them no matter how the rest of the media portrays their obstructionism. To the TParty faithful, these Senators are heroic obstructionists against socialism, and "unamericanism". They are proud of using any sharp object within their reach to gouge out the eyes of their opponents, and their bumper stickers and angry call-in diatribes on AM radio further proclaim their "resistance".
There is only one thing to do with political players who have no regard for the norms of comity. As with a petulant and unrepentant child, you remove all the sharp objects in the room, and offer no rewards for their misbehavior. The child must understand there are harsh consequences for violation of norms. If they wish to scream, they will do so but will understand that such strategy is not just against social norms- it is counter to their interests. They must not robbed of the opportunity to see why they should want back into the social contract.
To do otherwise is to indulge in magical thinking about GOP changes of heart. This is not an expression of the faithlessness of cynicism about politics, but stalwart faith that the good nature of our political adversaries will triumph. This will never happen so long as we reward misbehavior. The current beltway conversation is a charade, and our so called gifted commentators have bought into the milquetoast framing of the debate.
How about something radical. Democratic votes on well debated proposals.
Or is that too naive an expectation to have for our democracy? Let's face the facts that Mann and Ornstein present. The Republicans ARE the problem. To his credit, Benen took note of the Media Matters study of how the well respected beltway authors were received. (story) But as a member of the media, it is insufficient to merely note the phenomenon that journalists have a tough time reporting on stories where the truth is not found somewhere between the extremes of two positions. Truth is not found by examining facts, but examining the center point between competitors in a boxing match. McCain gets frequent slots on Sunday Shows, but Mann and Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute) do not.
Enough of the reduction of our institutions of governance and journalism to ridiculous charicatures. The responsible thing is to relentlessly deal with the reality of the situation. Let's not take the measure of the facts or the required consequences as something necessarily negotiated between dueling perspectives. In the current framing, the idea of comity is no longer common ground, but regarded as a partisan position advocated in this pugilistic spectacle.
What a mockery. It's not responsible reporting, and it is not responsible legislative action.
err, meant to write, "To many, Truth is not found by examining facts, but examining the center point...."
My phrasing suggested that I believe in this unfortunate proxy for reporting the truth. Extremists have gamed conventional journalists who believe that their responsibility ends after they have duly reported all sides of a controversy. By being gamed this way, they no longer are agents of truth, but pawns in pushing movement of the Overton Window.
@JohnMesserly
Have you come around to my way of thinking that the filibuster should be abolished? Judicial holds are a similar abuse and should be abolished. Some Dems are skittish for the obvious reason so they do not want to take a bold step. I would agree that Republicans are not going to stop the obstructions even with the modest proposals being considered. This should have been done in the last session and Reid has so acknowledged it. But if modest proposals are all that Reid can do because of fearful Dems, then make the changes with or without Republicans agreement. Doing this would be a warning shot that if Dems control the Senate in the following election, the filibuster and hold would be abolished. Hell, if I were Reid I would caution the Republicans that filibustering everything might be grounds for the Dems to go nuclear during this session.
I don't recall I have disagreed with you about what we do for the forseeable future. I think the filibuster as well as the myriad other ways that the minority can use to halt the legislative process should be jettisoned. I have no problem with rules that insure proper deliberation, careful hearings and extensive debate regarding legislation. As far as I know I am as maximal/ radical as you are in abolishing these rules, and I think we both are well aware this will make liberal Senators virtually powerless when they are not in the majority.
We do have a difference and perhaps I gave to much weight to it, or expressed myself unclear. I believe you have an objection to any return of the filibuster's return in any form. I think it could be acceptable in the event that both sides agree that it is an option to be used extremely rarely. Your position as I recall is that there are sufficient other checks on majoritarian excess, and that it has no place in the legislative process. My view is that in has historically been an important tool to safeguard interests of those in the minority.
But such a resumption is speculative, and I currently am skeptical the GOP will return to the spirit of comity any time soon.
Once again, the Republicans know how to play the cowardly Dems. Nothing real will come of this, but then enough of the spineless will say, Oh, we tried, we definitely can't support anything more!
Pathetic. Pathetic!
Enough said, it's a trap.
How about putting the onus to maintain a filibuster on the minority instead of on the majority? Require 40 votes to block a bill, rather than 60 votes to pass!
Definitely!
and rename the motion THE GRIDLOCK MOTION, force them to vote yes on gridlock, imagine the campaign ads theri next opponent can run!
The question the senate Democrats must ask themselves is,
Do they feel lucky?
In the confusion of the 112th Congress, the Democrats may have lost count of just how many bad faith procedural maneuvers McConnell has spent, and he simply does not have one more in the chamber to deploy!
So, I say to Mr. Reid, don't fall for the bluff - Mitch McConnell has no more munition in that .457! Vote the filibuster away!-Kevo
In the last 6 years there has been 386 filibuster. If they want to filibuster then they can stand up and talk about why they want to filibuster a bill.
I agree! I would like to hear the excuses for the delay in getting things done.
I think the waffling on this shows that what the the Senate is collectively afraid of is less giving the other side something else to complain about and more likely just simply not having anyone to blame for not getting any work done.
They are thinking to the future and that if things go wrong they will have to own them (that goes for both sides). In modern American politics plausible deniability is always preferable to anything else.
They know they need to go on with the rule reforms that have been proposed and get on with things but I doubt they will.
When I get my way, it's Democracy.
When I don't get my way, it's Tyranny.
I'm a selfish closed-minded Republican...AND I VOTE.
and Bozo Rmoney LOST, too
Technically, filibustering a motion to proceed is forcing the indefinite extension of a debate over whether to debate a bill. Since nobody really wants to indefinitely debate whether or not to debate a bill, the debate over debating is shelved, the bill never gets to the floor, and everyone goes on to the next thing on the list.
But I always thought it was pretty obvious why the GOP wanted to preserve the right to filibuster motions to proceed. If you're against a bill, and you realize the public's likely to be for it, then your best bet in terms of minimizing the political fallout is to kill it via filibuster before it gets debated, rather than afterward. Because if the bill gets debated, then the debate itself will get covered in the news, people will have opinions about it, and the bill will be killed when the public's paying more attention than usual.
And this is why Dems need to make motions to proceed non-filibusterable, if that's a word. Because the way things stand, it's almost always our side that benefits from heightened public awareness, whether we're the side that's trying to overcome a filibuster, or the side that's doing the filibustering. The public's overwhelmingly on our side of the issues, and the more they know what's going on, the better for us. And the easier it is to kill bills with little publicity, the better it is for the GOP.
It's time for some serious strong arm tactics by Harry Reid. If there are democrats out there that are going to caucus with the rebuked minority, then they need to be disciplined. Removal from committees, etc. Whatever it takes to place more fear of their democratic colleagues' retribution than what they may face from the GOP.
Hell, even Boner had the guts to do this on his side in the house.
Oh I see, you think the Dems are not bought off also, correct?
Why does the GOpp gang fear accountability? It makes it harder to lie to your constituents. Damn, someone might even expect them to be ethical!!
As always the Right use the tactic of complaining about what they are doing themselves.
Whatever the GOP might 'agree' to without an actual change in Senate rules could never be trusted. Just fix the thing, Democrats! Please!
Once again... John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Yes, from the right. Constant complainers about EVERYTHING.
I am sure one or both will be on Fox in the next two days saying this again.
I promised myself that after the election I would write both my Senators and urge filibuster reform. This was not an issue for them -- they both support reform, but I felt it needed saying. I received a wonderful, thoughtful response from Senator Wyden.
Yeah, your guys are leaders in this area. I got a "yes, but..." from Sen. Feinstein (canned letter, I'm sure, but made to look like a personal response to specific issue), and a " thanks for your letter about the thing... I'll consider your opinion if we ever talk about the thing.... [paraphrasing]" from Sen. Boxer. Despite the poorer PR work from Boxer, she is probably more on my side re this issue. Feinstein is in this case on the conservative side. How to persuade her?
Kudos to you for writing them (I wrote emails to at least 60). I hope others do the same rather than simply writing notes to other powerless people in places like this and in newspapers.
Wet-Start Johnny and Linda Graham, the two most trustworthy Republicans ever. How sad that that's actually true, given their own histories.
We can complain here, and though I have my doubts as to whether we small- or non-contributors can actually have any influence, I am still motivated to try. Easiest way (I'm too old to tweet) is to take 5 minutes to tell your Senators you want filibuster reform, particularly if any are possible fence-sitters:
Feinstein (CA), Kerry (MA), Levin (MI), Pryor (AR), Baucus (MT), Reed (RI), Rockefeller (WV), Inouye (HI), and Senators-elect Donnelly (IN) and King (ME).
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
...and follow the prompts to contact form. Write your own or cut-and-paste my message:
“Please support Senator Tom Udall in his effort to make the 113th Senate accountable for all its rules via a vote on opening day, January 3, 2013. The Constitution authorizes you to make your own rules, and does not bind you to rules made by a previous Senate. Please prepare to debate proposed rules, including Senator Harken’s thoughtful reforms regarding filibuster, and then adopt by a simple majority Senate rules which allow the majority to act, while protecting the minority’s desire to be heard. Since you have the responsibility to make your rules, we will not accept your future plea that a minority has blocked legislation using rules you had the responsibility to draft. Nor will we accept your complaints that key executive positions are unfilled or judicial appointments are blocked by rules on which you failed to vote.”
Filibuster reform will be worthless unless it involves 1) eliminating holds by individual or small groups of Senators, and 2) requiring a simple majority vote on Executive branch nominations and those for judicial positions below the SC level.
You can get me to support alternative methods of reforming the filibuster, but I'm not even remotely ready to entertain alternatives to filibuster reform. That's a good faith argument that should have been had prior to filibuster abuse.
Save the filibuster! Under current rules the filibuster is not allowed. Any non budget bill or appointment simply requires a 60 vote super majorly. The vice President has no chance to ever break a non budget tie.
Talking 24/7 of the Senate floor is, after all, heard work (can't have that in the Senate).
we need to vote the gop out of the house. asap
I know you know! -- but when?
Guns in America: A Statistical Look
More Sharing ServicesShare
Share on facebook_likeEmail
30 Comments
Print
Text Size
-/+
By JACK DATE, PIERRE THOMAS (@PierreTABC) and JASON RYAN (@JasonRyanABC)
WASHINGTON, Dec. 11, 2012
2012 has been a record setting year for gun sales. As of November, theFBI recorded 16,808,538 instant background checks for gun purchases for 2012.
Even without counting December, which has historically been the busiest month, this beats last year's record by more than 350,000.
If history is a guide, we can anticipate nearly 2 million additional gun checks to be added to the 2012 total when the December numbers come in, obliterating any previous total.
There are more than 129,817 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States, according to the latest Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives numbers (as of Aug. 1).
Of those, 51,438 are retail gun stores, 7,356 are pawn shops and 61,562 are collectors, with the balance of the licenses belonging mostly to manufacturers and importers of firearms and destructive devices. For comparison, here are some numbers of other ubiquitous elements of American life:
• Gas Stations in the U.S. (2011): 143,839 (source TD LINX/Nielsen via National Associations of Convenience Stores, Association for Convenience for Convenience and Fuel Retailing)
• Grocery Stores in the U.S. (2011) 36,569 (source: Food Marketing Institute)
• McDonald's restaurants in the U.S. (2011): 14,098 (Source: McDonald's Corporation Annual Report 2011)
Yes, there are more stores selling guns than groceries.
But unlike burgers, gas and groceries, firearms are not a perishable or consumable product. They don't go away. A rifle used in the 2009 Holocaust Museum shooting was nearly 100 years old, but was still an effective murder weapon.
According to ATF reports, in 2010 there were 5,459,240 new firearms manufactured in the United States, nearly all (95 percent) for the U.S. market. An additional 3,252,404 firearms were imported to the United States. That's nearly 8.5 million new firearms on the street in one year.
Right now if you don't have a criminal record and you have not been adjudicated as mentally incompetent, you can buy guns. In 2011 the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) ran16,454,951 background checks for firearms purchases. Only a small number of these purchases (78,211 or 0.48 percent) were denied.
Since 1998 there have been more than 157,690,937 NICS checks. Each check doesn't necessarily represent a single gun, just a single transaction. Multiple guns can be purchased in a single transaction, with only one check performed and recorded.
Violent crime rates have been falling in recent years, but the number of people killed by firearms in the United States remains high. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. with firearms, more than twice as many as were killed by all other means combined.
If this were measles we'd take action to protect the rest of the society. Tuberculois, scarlet fever, small pox, etc. -- why not guns! regulated on a need to use. not license to kill.