Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhile it is true that "half a loaf is better than none", it is just as true that a 50 foot rope is
of no help at all to someone drowning 100 feet from shore.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
9 replies, 931 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (17)
ReplyReply to this post
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
While it is true that "half a loaf is better than none", it is just as true that a 50 foot rope is (Original Post)
Atticus
Mar 2021
OP
intrepidity
(7,295 posts)1. Well said nt
Johnny2X2X
(19,064 posts)2. They are giving people 26 weeks instead of 30 weeks of UE
Thats hardly a good analogy.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)3. And what's the increase in the minimum wage? nt
Johnny2X2X
(19,064 posts)4. They couldn't get it through
96% of the Dems in the Senate will vote for it in a stand-alone. Biden has been in office 6 weeks, weve had control of the Senate for less than that. Going to take time.
Celerity
(43,349 posts)6. Wasn't it also reduced from 400 to only 300 usd per week? TIA
Johnny2X2X
(19,064 posts)7. Yeah, It was going to be 5 weeks longer too
And the tax benefit is big for people. The $300 thru October 4th was a better deal for people than the $400 thru August.
Then Manchin killed that and they made it 26 weeks.
This is a monumental deal. And MW is not dead, its a huge priority for all Dems and a few Republicans.
People are they to throw in the towel 6 weeks into the term. Jeesh. Its just starting.
Celerity
(43,349 posts)8. I do not think the 400 was cut off in August, and the 10K tax is not a full credit, only an income
deduction. If you have a link that explains it all I would appreciate it.
MW is not dead
it is unless we do one of 3 things
1. ram it into a 'must pass' bill like Defence appropriation and dare the Rethugs to filibuster it (plus dare Manchin and Sinema to vote against it)
or
2. Modify (not bin altogether) the filibuster in such a way that Sinema, Feinstein, and Manchin sign onto the reform, and then pass it that way
or
3. Bin the filibuster AFTER (and it's a huge if) we go +3 (or more) net for the Senate in 2022 (plus we have to hold the House, which is very shaky) We need at least a +3 net Senate gain to overcome Manchin, Feinstein, and Sinema
the exact same thing is needed for the even more important Voters Rights Act
options to modify the filibuster:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/02/manchin-filibuster-never-sinema/
Instead of naming and shaming them, Democrats might consider looking at what Manchin and Sinema like about the filibuster. Sinema recently said, Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, its meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans. Last year, Manchin said, The minority should Instead of naming and shaming them, Democrats might consider looking at what Manchin and Sinema like about the filibuster. Sinema recently said, Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, its meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans. Last year, Manchin said, The minority should have input thats the whole purpose for the Senate. If you basically do away with the filibuster altogether for legislation, you wont have the Senate. Youre a glorified House. And I will not do that. If you take their views at face value, the goal is to preserve some rights for the Senate minority, with the aim of fostering compromise. The key, then, is to find ways not to eliminate the filibuster on legislation but to reform it to fit that vision. Here are some options:
Make the minority do the work.
Currently, it takes 60 senators to reach cloture to end debate and move to a vote on final passage of a bill. The burden is on the majority, a consequence of filibuster reform in 1975, which moved the standard from two-thirds of senators present and voting to three-fifths of the entire Senate. Before that change, if the Senate went around-the-clock, filibustering senators would have to be present in force. If, for example, only 75 senators showed up for a cloture vote, 50 of them could invoke cloture and move to a final vote. After the reform, only a few senators in the minority needed to be present to a request for unanimous consent and to keep the majority from closing debate by forcing a quorum call. The around-the-clock approach riveted the public, putting a genuine spotlight on the issues. Without it, the minoritys delaying tactics go largely unnoticed, with little or no penalty for obstruction, and no requirement actually to debate the issue. One way to restore the filibusters original intent would be requiring at least two-fifths of the full Senate, or 40 senators, to keep debating instead requiring 60 to end debate. The burden would fall to the minority, whod have to be prepared for several votes, potentially over several days and nights, including weekends and all-night sessions, and if only once they couldnt muster 40 the equivalent of cloture debate would end, making way for a vote on final passage of the bill in question.
Go back to the present and voting standard.
A shift to three-fifths of the Senate present and voting would similarly require the minority to keep most of its members around the Senate when in session. If, for example, the issue in question were voting rights, a Senate deliberating on the floor, 24 hours a day for several days, would put a sharp spotlight on the issue, forcing Republicans to publicly justify opposition to legislation aimed at protecting the voting rights of minorities. Weekend Senate sessions would cause Republicans up for reelection in 2022 to remain in Washington instead of freeing them to go home to campaign. In a three-fifths present and voting scenario, if only 80 senators showed up, only 48 votes would be needed to get to cloture. Add to that a requirement that at all times, a member of the minority party would have to be on the floor, actually debating, and the burden would be even greater, while delivering what Manchin and Sinema say they want more debate.
Narrow the supermajority requirement.
Another option would be to follow in the direction of the 1975 reform, which reduced two-thirds (67 out of a full 100) to three-fifths (60 out of 100), and further reduce the threshold to 55 senators still a supermajority requirement, but a slimmer one. Democrats might have some ability to get five Republicans to support their desired outcomes on issues such as voting rights, universal background checks for gun purchases or a path to citizenship for Dreamers. A reduction to 55, if coupled with a present-and-voting standard would establish even more balance between majority and minority. In a 50-50 Senate, and with the GOP strategy clearly being united opposition to almost all Democratic priorities, Biden and Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) need the support of Manchin and Sinema on a daily basis. They wont be persuaded by pressure campaigns from progressive groups or from members of Congress. But they might consider reforms that weaken the power of filibusters and give Democrats more leverage to enact their policies, without pursuing the dead end of abolishing the rule altogether.
Bettie
(16,104 posts)9. All right, 80 feet of rope
when out 100.
harumph
(1,900 posts)5. Yes, but no rope at all helps no one.