Paul working for you.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Filibuster Reform



I received the following message by e-mail from senator elect Elizabeth Warren:

Julie,


I'm honored that I will have the opportunity to serve the people of Massachusetts in the United States Senate, and I'm deeply grateful for everything you've done to help send me to Washington.


You know what I want to do. When I'm sworn in just a couple of months from now, I want to fight for jobs, for students crushed by debt, for seniors who paid into Social Security and Medicare, for equal pay, for clean energy, for marriage equality. I want millionaires and billionaires and Big Oil companies to pay their fair share. And I want to hold Wall Street accountable. You know what I care about.



But here's the honest truth: it will be incredibly difficult to do any of that if we can't get up-or-down votes in the Senate.


Remember Jimmy Stewart's classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? I love that movie. That's what most of us think of when we hear the word "filibuster" -- a single passionate senator speaking for hours about legislation they fiercely oppose until they literally collapse with exhaustion.


But that's not what the filibuster really looks like. Now any senator can make a phone call to register an objection to a bill, then head out for the night. In the meantime, business comes to a screeching halt.  

On the first day of the new session in January, the Senate will have a unique opportunity to change the filibuster rule with a simple majority vote, rather than the normal two-thirds vote. The change can be modest: If someone objects to a bill or a nomination in the United States Senate, they should have to stand on the floor of the chamber and defend their opposition. No more ducking responsibility for bringing the work of this country to a dead stop.

Senate Republicans have used the filibuster 380 times since the Democrats took over the majority in 2006. We've seen filibusters to block judicial nominations, jobs bills, campaign finance transparency, ending Big Oil subsidies -- you name it, there's been a filibuster.


We've seen filibusters of bills and nominations that ultimately passed with 90 or more votes. Why filibuster something that has that kind of support? Just to slow down the process and keep the Senate from working.

I saw the impact of these filibusters at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Forty-five senators pledged to filibuster any nominee to head that new consumer agency, regardless of that person's qualifications. After I left the agency, they tried to hold Richard Cordray's nomination vote hostage unless the Senate would agree to weaken the agency and limit its ability to hold Wall Street banks and credit card companies accountable.


That's not open debate -- that's paralyzing progress.


I learned something important in my race against Senator Brown: voters want political leaders who are willing to break the partisan gridlock. They want fewer closed-door roadblocks and more public votes on legislation that could improve their lives.


Our campaign didn't end on Election Day -- and I'm counting on you to keep on working each and every day to bring real change for working families. This is the first step.


Thank you for continuing to be a part of this,


Elizabeth
I don’t know if signing this petition will change the filibuster rules in a significant manner. I think it’s worth a try to end the deadlock in Congress.

My opinions…supported by FACTS ! ! !

Julie Farrell

1 comment:

  1. Looks like a good project for us to work on. It does no one any good to hold things up, so that nothing gets done. I think the country had enough of that kind of behavior in the last year. I do not care if you are a Republican or a Democrat, the country needs to get things done, so our economy will grow. Let the vote be taken, up or down, I do not care, so long as people start acting like adults. We have to much to loose, the people who have been elected to do a job, need to start doing their job. I think of the old days. The people sent to the Senate or the House of Representatives, worked with their opponent to come to a agreement, that would be acceptable for every one. Since when, is that not ok? The people elected by the people had better read the writing on the wall. Things had better get done, for the good of the country, and the people in it. My opinion, Bev

    ReplyDelete