Comments: Elections Have Consequences

I expect this is where our democratically selected overlords will take us, I only hope the GOP succeeds in wresting something from the Democrats in return: Substantive entitlement reform, incremental entitlement reform, heck even the reform of the entitlement lexicon. "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program" becomes "food redistribution" and "Medicare" becomes "Medi-Ration" and "Social Security Insurance" becomes "intergenerational income redistribution." Something. Not holding my breath.

Posted by johngalt at November 27, 2012 2:53 PM

Here's another modest proposal: "No law or bill shall be implemented which includes the word "make" (or any synonyms including "force") in the context of any individual's behavior when not involving force against another sovereign individual or his property."

Let's finally see the Democrats defend government's use of force against peaceful individuals.

Posted by johngalt at November 27, 2012 3:29 PM

I thought the Republicans won the house (parliament) and therefore the election and so therefore they have a mandate to legislate. That's the way a democracy usually works. The president's job is to enforce the laws the Congress decides upon.

Posted by Steve D at November 27, 2012 4:46 PM

I'd surely love to see a reduced role for the Executive, SteveD. And the GOP is within rights to claim victory in the House.

But with the Democrats holding the Senate and White House, we're in for at least two years of brutally divided government. The only thing in the whole wide world that Democrats care about is raising taxes on rich people. Though I hate it, I'd give it to them. Ideally zero Republican votes, but no filibuster.

When the deficit is still a freaking trillion dollars, it won't be because of the eevil Bush tax cuts but rather the eevil Obama spending. Then the GOP would have dry powder for a fight on the Keystone Pipeline.

Posted by jk at November 27, 2012 5:14 PM

I don't personally know our friend Steve but I suspect he was being sarcastic. For all the wailing about the Virtue of democracy, Democrats don't control the chamber affectionately called "The People's House." But since that majority disagrees with Democrats, never mind.

Point of order: Since there are 47 Republicans in the Senate, and since rules require 60 votes to bring measures to a vote, zero Republican votes is effectively a filibuster (unless the Democrats use the "reconciliation" procedure.)

Posted by johngalt at November 27, 2012 6:38 PM

Rilly? It takes 60 to invoke cloture. If the majority is not delaying, I'm not certain that the votes would be required. If it is, let Susan Collins and a few cohorts vote to have a vote if needed.

I was more worried about the parliamentary tactics in the House and wondered about reconciliation. I'd like to keep GOP fingerprints off of it as much as possible. Of course, they are scheduled to expire, so it is not really a vote to raise them.

Posted by jk at November 27, 2012 7:04 PM

Not totally sure since I'm not a parlimentarian but my sense has been that the Senate can't order lunch without 60 votes. It's not worth researching though because if Harry Reid doesn't like the rules he'll change or ignore them.

(Cynical much? Yup.)

Posted by johngalt at November 28, 2012 3:18 PM

I'm extremely concerned; it can happen at any time and will push us one giant step closer to pure democracy. They'll probably trade "the nuclear option" for concessions on appointments just as the GOP did.

Not a parliamentarian myself, but the 60 (was 66 until LBJ) is required for cloture to shut down a filibuster. Knowing this, the leader just assumes he or she needs them. But if the minority caucus telegraphed that they had no intention of delaying a vote, I think it could happen with 51.

Posted by jk at November 28, 2012 3:51 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?