Obama has Supermajority through first term

[David T]

Point well taken.

Too many Senators, and too many of my fellow citizens in general, seem to view the filibuster as this great and glorious tradition. And, I just don’t see it.

Blame Jimmy Stewart for that:

Seriously, I would say that there was at least one filibuster that really did have something noble about it--the Armed Ship bill filibuster of 1917. Regardless of whether you think America should have entered the First World War or not, I say that there was something noble about it if only because the participants knew how they would be portrayed:

 

[David T]

An odd assumption I see here is that Obama was some sort of leftist who was frustrated by the lack of an adequate congressional majority. Maybe he--like the majority of Congress in 2009-10--was never anything more than a moderate liberal, and that largely explains why his legislative accomplishments were not more radical.

 

[GeographyDude]

Regulations were not only financials but on everything. For example we make biocides. Under obama testing costs went up to insane levels with no added value. This was the same to almost all manufacoring segments

I just don’t see any president having that kind of effect

 

[thatsbunkers]

I think talk about repealing the legislative filibuster is redundant. It was never going to happen during Obama's term, it probably won't happen next time Dems control all 3 branches of government again. What I want to know is what Bills could have been passed with a potential supermajority for Obama's first 2 years that weren't knowing at this time that the majority of Dem Senators were either conservative leaning or institutionalalists who did not want to make any dramatic changes to the system?

Card check, which made unionizing easier, could be passed in this tl

 

[GeographyDude]

The Senate wasn't going to nuke the filibuster. Neither party is willing to risk losing it, for the same reason neither party has tried to get rid of other "tyranny of the minority" . . .

I think I’d rather take my chances with the “tyranny of the majority”

 

[herkles]

An odd assumption I see here is that Obama was some sort of leftist who was frustrated by the lack of an adequate congressional majority. Maybe he--like the majority of Congress in 2009-10--was never anything more than a moderate liberal, and that largely explains why his legislative accomplishments were not more radical.

yup. He was no leftist by any means, just another centrist establishement democrat.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . since the Ec [Electoral College] is in the Constitution

and the filibuster is just an internal Senate rule, but most people aren’t aware of that.

And it almost gets to a philosophic question, Can God create a rock so large that He, or She, cannot later move it?

Or in this case, can one Senate make rules and hem in and make it significantly more difficult for another Senate to change the rules? And I answer, no. Other than the two-thirds requirements which are expressly in the Constitution (such as proposing Constitutional Amendments, such as ratifying treaties, such as the Senate convicting a president whom the House has impeached), no, one Senate cannot so hem in a future Senate.

 

[Maeglin]

Blame Jimmy Stewart for that:

The other issue is that people think modern filibusters involve actual talking, rather than simply threatening it.

 

[trajen777]

Card check, which made unionizing easier, could be passed in this tl

Basically Obama set all records for regulatory rules for all sorts of industries
For us as an example we used to have to file for a fabric to be treated. Now each and every color and thickness of fiber has to be done. As an example DuPont number 6 (major fiber) used to require 1 clinical test. Now for our last offering we had to do 86 third party tests (at $750 each). anyway things ran 100% out of control




(https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynec...-shattering-regulatory-rulebook/#30029dda1398)


Today, Friday the 30th, is the last federal workday of 2016.

And the printed version of the Federal Register, the daily depository of all things regulatory, has topped off at 97,110 pages, by far an all time record.

Skips and blanks will lower the official count a tad later when the National Archives issues final data, but not by much.

That dwarfs last year's count of 80,260 pages, and it shatters the 2010 all-time record of 81,405 by 15,705 pages.

Indeed, the 2010 level was passed November 17, making each day since a new record-breaker.

It's true that the Federal Register is not a great gauge, since it's full of notices and such. But the sheer magnitude of it signals a new era in the Administrative State as opposed to a representative one, and a challenge to new president Donald Trump to do something about a runaway federal government.
We noted here last week that until Obama, ninety-thousand pages was unheard of. Up until this year, the 80,000 page mark shocked, having been passed just three times (in 2010, 2011 and 2015, all by Obama). In fact of the 10 highest-ever counts, Obama holds seven.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . For us as an example we used to have to file for a fabric to be treated. Now each and every color and thickness of fiber has to be done. As an example DuPont number 6 (major fiber) used to require 1 clinical test. Now for our last offering we had to do 86 third party tests (at $750 each). . .

Yes, that seems excessive. However . . .

Why regulations are good — again
Chicago Tribune [Editorial], Cass Sunstein, March 19, 2012

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...319_1_regulation-baseball-scouts-requirements

‘In "Moneyball," author Michael Lewis celebrates the success of Billy Beane, . . .’

‘ . . . For more than two decades, I was a professor of law, mostly at the University of Chicago Law School, on whose faculty Barack Obama also served. . . . I emphasized the importance of ensuring that the benefits justify the costs, promoting flexibility for the private sector, using low-cost "nudges" and measuring the actual effects of regulatory requirements. . . ’

‘ . . . Obama issued a historic executive order, requiring an unprecedented governmentwide review of rules on the books. In August [2011], more than two dozen agencies produced reform plans, . . . ’

‘ . . . For example, the Department of Health and Human Services will soon finalize a rule to remove unnecessary paperwork and regulatory requirements now imposed on hospitals . . . ’

‘ . . . These benefits include billions of dollars in savings for consumers, achieved through historic rules increasing the fuel economy of cars and trucks. . . ’

—————

Cass R. Sunstein administers the federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Per this guy, the Obama administration streamlined some regulations, and then rolled forward with others when it was clearly worth it.

All in all, sounds very mainstream.

 

[GeographyDude]

Bailout is law
President Bush signs historic $700 billion

CNN Money, Jeanne Sahadi, Oct. 4, 2008

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/

‘ . . . signed into law by President Bush [Emphasis added] on Friday afternoon. [Oct. 3, 2008]

‘"By coming together on this legislation, we have acted boldly to prevent the crisis on Wall Street from becoming a crisis in communities across our country," Bush said less than an hour after the House voted 263 to 171 to pass the bill.

‘The House vote followed a strong lobbying push by the White House and other supporters of the bill. The House rejected a similar measure on Monday [Sept. 29, 2008] - a defeat that shocked the markets and congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle.

‘The law, which allows the Treasury Secretary to purchase as much as $700 billion in troubled assets in a bid to kick-start lending, ushers in one of the most far-reaching interventions in the economy since the Great Depression. . . ’

This is where I say Pres. Bush gets credit as an emergency room doctor.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . 2009 America on both sides of the aisle were ready to bring the hammer of god down on wall street . . .

This could have been the second step.

As it was, the big boy banks, Morgan Chase, etc, were able to weather the storm.

 

[dartingfog]

This is where I say Pres. Bush gets credit as an emergency room doctor.

Which brings up an idea: what if the "surgery" was unsuccessful or came too late? A worse Great Recession might allow Franken to win handily and even flip a few races in the Senate, especially in Georgia (Chambliss loses to Martin) or even Kentucky (McConnell loses to Lunsford). In this scenario, you might not even need Specter to switch parties to get a supermajority. Of course, if America is broke, that will limit what Obama can do.

 

[GeographyDude]

Which brings up an idea: what if the "surgery" was unsuccessful or came too late? A worse Great Recession . . .

and/or beginning stages of another Great Depression

* “surgery” and/or blood transfusion (including fractions if you’re a Jehovah Witness!)

 

[GeographyDude]

Jobs Lost During 2008-09 Great Recession. (many of which only came back as crummier jobs.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ge-jobs/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6909e6e67a35

This is why Pres. Obama failed.

Of course, FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton may have also failed.

————————————————-

* Of course, both Bush and Obama deserve credit for helping to keep the bridge from collapsing, but no one gets credit for what doesn’t happen!

 

[Praeses]

Abolishing the filibuster is a dangerous move. Remember u will necer hold tthe senate forever...and it basically makes the minority party helpless. I would argue in an era of increased polarizatiin, the filibuster is more important than ever to prevent increasingly radical bills from being passed.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . I would argue in an era of increased polarizatiin, the filibuster is more important than ever to prevent increasingly radical bills from being passed.

Similar to the UK nationalizing and then de-nationalizing steel in the immediate post-war years, I agree that abrupt swings back and forth are distinctively not good.

However, I make a judgement call that a nonfunctional frozen system is even worse.

——————-

For example, in the years to come we might have to address what I’ll call “The Great Automation Crisis” which might be . . . . . a slow motion catastrophe to the middle class in many countries or, on the other hand, it might not be.

 

[GeographyDude]

And there's a rule of thumb in negotiations: "the person who cares more typically loses."

Republicans may have successfully played Pres. Obama in this regard.

 

[GeographyDude]

I heard one Obama quote. One of his senior staff members said, they're throwing a lot of shit at us. Obama said, yes, but it's interesting shit.

That's the FDR approach of making a conscious effort to enjoy the presidency! (note: I haven't been able to find this quote)

 

[RousseauX]

Abolishing the filibuster is a dangerous move. Remember u will necer hold tthe senate forever...and it basically makes the minority party helpless. I would argue in an era of increased polarizatiin, the filibuster is more important than ever to prevent increasingly radical bills from being passed.

If the American people elect 51% of the house, senate and a president willing to pass a bill it should get passed

constitutional obstacles to radicalism in the legislature: like the independent judiciary and state governments, already exist, there is no need for extra-constitutional measures to stop legislation

if they don't like it then 2 years later they can go vote against it at the ballot box

the filibuster wasn't used that much until the last 25 years or so, the American Republic was fine the first 200 years or so