A vote for cloture is not a vote for the bill.

A vote for cloture is not a vote for the bill.

One of the aspects of the health care debate I and many others have found most frustrating is the repeated emphasis, coming from the media but also largely from the Democratic leadership in the Senate, on the “necessary sixty votes.” The whole notion is a farce–for ordinary legislation (as opposed to confirmations or certain kinds of restricted legislation), only 51 votes are needed to pass the Senate. But what about filibusters, you say? The response is two-fold:

First: Of late, opposition leaders have managed to get all the benefits of a filibuster (indefinitely postponing a vote and thus functionally killing a bill) without actually having to mount a filibuster simply by threatening one or by essentially submitting a note to that effect (Political Animal had a good post on this way back in 2007). Actual, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style filibusters, as incredibly rare, for a number of reasons–they shut down the Senate, they can make opposition leaders look bad, and, most importantly, they’re hard. Anyone who hasn’t watched the “The Stackhouse Filibuster” episode of The West Wing recently should, because it’s a great reminder that mounting an actual filibuster–standing, talking without pause, for as long as you intend to delay the bill –is physically difficult. It’s part of why the counter-democratic legislative filibuster has survived for so long without; as Matthew Yglesias wrote back in February, it mattered less to have the minority be able to block legislation favored by the minority when doing so was an arduous task rarely undertaken.Filibusters–pseudo-filibusters, really–did not become an ordinary part of legislative procedure until the recent past (check out the Yglesias link for a great chart of their increase).

In that spirit, it’s time for Democratic leaders in the Senate to start requiring Republicans to actually filibuster if they intend to block legislation, like health care reform, backed not only by a majority of Senators, but by a majority of Americans. Democrats have spent too long allowing a party that has been rejected by the American people in two elections in a row to prevent the majority party from doing what it was elected to do, simply by threatening to hold their breath until they get their way. There are risks involved in this: Republicans will get a lot of press for filibustering, if they do so, and Democrats should expect the same treatment from future Republican majorities. But I think the risks are worth taking, because the gains, in better legislation (not watered down please Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu, let alone Olympia Snowe) that can actually reach an up or down vote on not only health care but any number of other issues, far outweigh the costs. There’s a significant argument to be made that the legislative filibuster (as opposed to the judicial filibuster, which Republicans threatened to abolish a few years back, which is a meaningfully different topic for another time) ought to be abolished altogether as an antiquated and anti-democratic practice. I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other, but if we are going to continue to allow the perks of filibustering (a minority blocking majority-backed legislation) we ought to require its price (engaging in the difficult task of an actual filibuster).

Second, as the opening of this post suggests, if Republicans did go through the effort of mounting an actual filibuster, it simply is not the case that because a senator opposes a bill he or she should oppose a vote on the bill. Senators should, of course, fight hard for their convictions and try to convince their colleagues not to vote for legislation they believe to be bad. That said, if, after considerable debate and discussion (and let’s not forget how many months of debate have gone into this push, to say nothing of the years of work for health care reform generally),a majority of senators still back the legislation, the minority should allow the measure to go to a vote. The substantive vote to enact a piece of legislation and the procedural vote to limit debate in order to allow the former to happen are not synonymous. Go read the Wikipedia article on cloture if you don’t believe me. Given that fact, it is really not unreasonable to expect more moderate members of the caucus to vote for cloture, even if they ultimately do not vote for the bill to pass. Acting as if a vote for cloture is a vote for the bill–a sin Democrats in Congress, as much as Republicans or commentators have been guilty of–promotes a skewed understanding of the real procedure that hinders our ability to get policy that is desperately needed achieved.

The filibuster is not a magic wand that makes minorities into majorities, and neither not backing down to filibuster threats nor pushing non-supporters of bills to vote for cloture is a magic bullet to pass health care reform. Hammering out a bill that an actual majority of the Senate will back is still a difficult process before we even address the House. That said, it’s time for Democratic leaders to step up to the plate, give up on the Republican-promoted 60-vote fantasy requirement, and start delivering on the promises they made to the American people.

Like many Americans,  I have viewed the health care debate not in the abstract, but on a very tangible level. I have been incredibly fortunate to have quite good health insurance my whole life, as provided by my dad’s employer. I’ve been doubly fortunate because, as a tenured professor, he and therefore my family have never had to worry that coverage was going to abruptly go away with his job. I’m also 21 years old and will graduate (fingers crossed) from Swarthmore in May.  At some point in the next few years, I will stop being covered by my parents insurance. If I have to go into the private insurance market, I will, in all likelihood, be uninsurable. Surely, this country can do better.

Everyday, I take between three and five different kinds of medication, some prescription, some over the counter, for a combination of physical and mental illnesses. My afflictions are  all manageable, most mild, none  life-threatening even without medication,  and all likely to be with me for the rest of my life.  This classifies me, despite being young and generally healthy, as one of the countless Americans with what, in insurance terms, are known as “pre-existing conditions.” It also classifies me, along with countless Americans, as an almost certain automatic rejection for private insurance. Surely, this country can do better.

I am incredibly, ridiculously fortunate in terms of my life and my health care. There are countless Americans already going bankrupt over hospital bills or skimping on needed care. There are countless more Americans living in fear of losing their coverage or their life’s savings at a moment’s notice. Surely, this country can do better.

We live in the richest, smartest, strongest country in the history of the world.  This country won two world wars, put a man on the moon, and invented the Internet. Americans figured out how to make automobiles affordable, bring electricity to the mountains, and eradicate smallpox.  Surely, this country can do better.

Reasonable, reliable, affordable access to healthcare is a fundamental right. It is to our tremendous shame, that despite a lifetime’s worth of effort from the late Sen. Kennedy and countless others, we fail to fulfill that right. Tonight, President Obama, sometimes in words milder than I would have liked, sometimes making concessions I wouldn’t have made, called on us to live up to that right, to live up to our promise as Americans. Today, we spend too much and get too little from a health care system that is broken and has been broken for so long that its champions have gone to their graves without seeing it fixed. Surely, this country can do better.

After great effort and years of work, we now have a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic president. All three were elected, in large part, to do exactly this work. We have spent months of this congress, to say nothing of the years that came before, attempting to placate those who wanted to destroy what we were working to build and acting as if, in this country, the majority does not rule and arcane, misapplied Senate procedures are more important than the real lives of real people that are really at stake. We have the votes on our side. We have the people on our side. We have the moral good on our side. And somehow, we, Democrats, have acted as if we had none of the above. Surely, this party can do better.

Surely, this country can do better.

Surely, the United States of America can do better.

Video here

In the Loop was directed by Armando Iannucci and stars Peter Capaldi, Tom Hollander, Mimi Kennedy, James Gandolfini, and Chris Addison.

President Obama announced his first round of Medal recipients today. Among them:

• Susan J. Komen Foundation founder Nancy Goodman Brinker, US Ambassador to Hungary and then head of White House Protocol, both under President Bush.
• Republican Congressman and Dole running mate Jack Kemp, who passed away in May.
• Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a Reagan appointee who was the deciding vote in Bush v. Gore .

All are accomplished and worthy choices, but it’s nice to know that the president can publicly recognize exceptional people with whom he disagrees.

The full list of recipients is here and Amanda Terkel’s comments on the same subject are here.

Which brings us to Specter’s challenger in the democratic primary, PA-07’s own Joe Sestak.  Sestak has a reputation as a fairly moderate democrat, although as Molly points out here, he seems to be pretty good on most core democratic issues, and he is about as sharp as anyone on national security issues.  Sestak is in a good position to paint Toomey as the far right hack that he is, and at the same time appeal to Pennsylvania’s median voter: a slightly left of center moderate democrat.  Sestak is an excellent fund raiser, so he shouldn’t have any problems on that front.  While Toomey will be an underdog against either Democrat, I rate Sestak as maybe being slightly more favored in a general election.

The purposes of this Act are–

(1) to address the history and widespread pattern of irrational discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by private sector employers and local, State, and Federal government employers;

(2) to provide a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;

(3) to provide meaningful and effective remedies for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity; and

(4) to invoke congressional powers, including the powers to enforce the 14th amendment to the Constitution, and to regulate interstate commerce and provide for the general welfare pursuant to section 8 of article I of the Constitution, in order to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

(Who need convincing and what you can do after the jump!)

This desperately needed bill should not fail becuase Democrats failed to stand up for Democratic values.  This morning, I wrote to my congressman, Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY) to urge him to vote for HR 2981. The other Democrats who seem to be hesitating are:

Bobby Bright (AL), Parker Griffith (AL), Vic Snyder (AR), Dennis Cardoza (CA), Allen Boyd, (FL), Sanford Bishop (GA), David Scott (GA), Walt Minnick (ID), Bobby Rush (IL), Daniel Lipinksi (IL), Deborah Halvorsen (IL), Jerry Costello (IL), Peter Visclosky (IN), Joe Donnelly (IN), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Ben Chandler (KY), Frank Kratovil (MD), Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), Bart Stupak (MI), Mark Schauer (MI), Travis Childers (MS), Bennie Thompson (MS), Dina Titus (NV), Michael McMahon (NY), Scott Murphy (NY), Paul Tonko (NY), Daniel Maffei (NY), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Dan Boren (OK), Kathleen Dahlkemper (PA), Jason Altmire (PA), Christopher Carney (PA), Paul Kanjorski (PA), John Murtha (PA), John Spratt (SC), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Al Green (TX), Solomon Ortiz (TX), Henry Cuellar (TX), Gene Green (TX), Glenn Nye (VA), Bobby Scott (VA), Thomas Perriello (VA), Rick Boucher (VA), Gerald Connolly (VA), Alan Mollohan (WV), Ron Kind (WI), David Obey (WI).

The contact information for many of these legislators can be found here and for all representatives can be found here.

In my letter to Rep. Chandler, I wrote that as a teacher of civics, I teach my students that America is based on fairness, justice, and compassion for others and that government can be a powerful force for making the world a better place.  I strongly believe and further believe that the times when government is best is when it helps our country to reflect those values and uses its mighty power to protect those who have been oppressed and sidelined. This is one of those times and we can help make it happen.

In a rambling news conference, Mark Sanford apologized for having an affair, ending a mystery over his recent activities.