Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE ROAR OF THE MINORITY.
So the Senate lacks the votes to pass the stimulus bill, which is to say, to overcome the Republican filibuster. In order to achieve passage, "they will seek to cut provisions that would not provide an immediate boost to the economy." Among those provisions: "$1.1 billion for comparative medical research, $350 million for Agriculture Department computers, $75 million to discourage smoking, $20 million in Interior Department funding, $400 million for HIV screening and $650 million for wildlife management." Some of those initiatives make sense both as stimulus and policy -- as Merrill Goozner notes, the comparative effectiveness research would go to immediate study grants and, in the long-run, save money for the health system -- some may not. But the article says the Republicans want to cut the bill by $200 billion -- which is a very different goal -- a difference of category, in fact -- than making sure the money is frontloaded. Slashing the size of the bill makes it less likely the bill will work, less likely the economy will improve, and more likely that Republicans will see victory in the 2010 midterms.
The real question here is why 58 Democrats can't pass the president's top priority. We're learning that the minority still controls the Senate. So long as Republicans fundamentally don't want a bill to pass, they can make virtually limitless demands. The worst that happens is that Democrats simply give up and admit failure to the American people. Put another way: The worst that happens is overwhelming success. The trick is making sure the demands seem reasonable rather than obstructionist. But that's not too hard. Republicans know full well that they won't actually be forced to publicly filibuster the bill and defend their obstructionism while Democrats fan out across the news shows to warn of the economic dangers. Instead, Harry Reid will ask how the bill can be made smaller and leaner and more Republican. And maybe, for this, he'll get the crucial two votes assuring passage of an insufficient measure, the failure of which Republicans will run against in 2010.
COMMENTS (19)
I don't remember the Senate Dems having any power what-so-ever when they were the minority.
Posted by: Obama -- Not as Tough as the Steelers | February 4, 2009 12:16 PM
Personally, this seems like a major bluff to me, a ploy to force the bill into reconciliation. In those circumstances, Senators get the same luxury as Representatives, and they can vote against the bill without being able to stop it.
So that said, call their bluff and make them kill it.
http://www.below-the-fold.com/index/2009/02/call/
Posted by: Brien Jackson | February 4, 2009 12:17 PM
"The real question here is why 58 Democrats can't pass the president's top priority."
Hey, you wanted post-partisan. Well, guess what? You got post-partisan.
Obama's whole schtick is not about getting to 58 + 2 or 3. It's about getting to 75.
Posted by: Petey | February 4, 2009 12:19 PM
I think something else is going on here. Yes, the Dems don't have the votes. But for a vote to have occurred on Friday, Reid would have had to advance the motion for cloture yesterday, which would have failed miserably. I think what we're hearing is just talk for talk's sake, to paper over a day or so until they determine the actual schedule of the votes. They'll remove some of that 1% of the total bill, and Collins, Snowe, Landrieux, Nelson et al will make it clear they're onboard, and it'll get maybe 63 votes.
Posted by: along | February 4, 2009 12:19 PM
PS -- this (and the corporate media) will totally embolden them to fuck everything in the future.
Rove certainly got his wish, re: permanent "majority."
Posted by: Obama -- Not as Tough as the Steelers | February 4, 2009 12:20 PM
The real question here is why 58 Democrats can't pass the president's top priority. In part, it's because some are defecting.
Ummmm.....because it's a crappy bill laden with special interests....and they know it?
Posted by: El Viajero | February 4, 2009 12:21 PM
How many democrats does it take to get something actually passed in the senate? It seems no margin will truly be high enough with the current senate leadership.
Posted by: jstrick | February 4, 2009 12:23 PM
"The real question here is why 58 Democrats can't pass the president's top priority."
There is a REALLY important lesson here for healthcare reform.
While we will obviously begin the effort to do healthcare reform through the normal Senate rules while seeking to get Republican support, we should be prepared to move healthcare reform to reconciliation process on a moment's notice.
Give moderate Republicans every opportunity to get on board with healthcare reform with them knowing that we'll pass it with 50 votes if necessary.
It will actually give moderate Republicans more of an incentive to get on board.
Posted by: Petey | February 4, 2009 12:24 PM
This just in: Gregg has "recused" himself from voting on the stimulus bill. Which means he's voting no. So his first act in joining the new administration is to vote to kill the new administration's top priority. We need this guy why?
Posted by: Bloix | February 4, 2009 12:41 PM
A dark and cynical view of what's happening from Ezra and unfortunately, completely accurate. The Dems should have pulled together and just smashed the Republicans and forced them to filibuster.
Posted by: inthewoods | February 4, 2009 12:51 PM
Most folks think that commercial cattle come in two kinds: bulls and cows.
But, the unfortunate truth there are 3 kinds: steers are castrated bulls, and most of the male cattle end up as steers (more tender meat and easier to control).
The US media are cows. The GOP is full of bulls. The Dems in Congress are largely steers, particularly in the Senate.
Obama's next weekly YouTube should just announce "There will be no change" and you can believe in that.
I'm embarrassed to be a Dem, although I'm as far from DC and you get without leaving the continent or going through another country.
Maybe a weekly shot of Testosterone for the Dems in Congress who are male might help, but I doubt it.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | February 4, 2009 12:55 PM
If they wish to filibuster: Make. Them. Talk.
Posted by: Monica Wolf | February 4, 2009 12:56 PM
Why not get rid of the filibuster? It's not in the goddam constitution. As far as I can tell it's just a way for spineless senators to avoid having to take responsibility.
Posted by: chrismealy | February 4, 2009 1:20 PM
Because someday the GOP will get a Senate majority again and will pass all sorts of crazy bills prescribing the death penalty for wearing baggy jeans or chemical castration for flag burning. And then the Democrats will want to filibuster.
But I have no problem with making Dems talk through those bills too. Why the fuck did the streamlined cloture process even happen? Doesn't it pretty much kill Congress' legislative capacity?
Posted by: NS | February 4, 2009 1:29 PM
Basically, they should slash the non-stimulative education funds, not to mention all sorts of crap that won't be spent until late 2010 or 2011. But you want to preserve the myth that there isn't even $200 billion of fat in here.
Posted by: Asher | February 4, 2009 1:42 PM
"Why not get rid of the filibuster? It's not in the goddam constitution. As far as I can tell it's just a way for spineless senators to avoid having to take responsibility. "
That seems backwards to me. The easiest cop out for the GOP is in reconciliation. In that scenario, all of them can oppose the bill with no chance of defeating it. But if you're voting on cloture, the GOP has to actually decide if they're really willing to risk *beating* the package, and incurring the political damage of such a decision.
In short, they're bluffing after the river with a bad board and a short stack.
Posted by: Brien Jackson | February 4, 2009 1:51 PM
I don't think there's a need to get rid of the filibuster but the generally accepted idea is that it now takes 60 votes to get anything at all through the Senate needs to be addressed since it's profoundly anti-democratic (small d).
The point is to make it obvious and public about who is obstructing what and why, no matter who is in the majority. The plain fact is that the current senate majority doesn't have the stomach for it either apparently.
We've come a long ways from "Profiles in Courage."
Posted by: Monica Wolf | February 4, 2009 2:52 PM
use of poker metaphors are an excellent indicator of buffoonery
Posted by: Teddy KGB | February 4, 2009 3:02 PM
To engage in buffoonery, Obama should call the Senate GOP's bluff and see how a cloture vote goes ASAP. This will result in one of two things:
1) Succeeds; passes with marginal GOP support
2) Fails; market plummets and GOP gets stuck with the blame for failing to compromise and a compromise is quickly brokered.
The third option is going straight for the compromise on the assumption that the GOP will support a filibuster. There's no reason to do this without subjecting the GOP to criticism for being sticks in the mud in the first place.
This is exactly what happened with the TARP bill... no clue why the calculus is any different here. In reality, the Senate GOP will be leaned on hard to get the minimum number of votes put together to make 60. The logic of their supporters in industry is that they'd rather the GOP be in power, but they need the stimulus; the symbolic opposition by the House GOP is far different from actually blocking the bill in the Senate.
Posted by: Zach | February 4, 2009 8:33 PM