Filibuster

Americans Are Greater Together

Leo Gerard — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:46:54 -0500

It wasn’t so much a vote as a proclamation of ideology last Thursday when Republicans filibustered Obama’s nominee to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The rebuff had nothing to do with the person, Richard Cordary, who even Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said appeared well qualified. Rather, it was part of the GOP campaign to hobble the agency created to safeguard borrowers from dodgy payday lenders and predatory mortgage salesmen.

The GOP thwarts regulatory agencies in order to enforce its “you’re on your own” philosophy. That is, each citizen, like an island, fends for himself in a world where the invisible hand of the market serves as regulator. Democrats believe something very different. They espouse the principles set out by President Teddy Roosevelt in his 1910 speech in Osawatomie, Kan., and echoed by President Obama in his address there last week. That is America and Americans are better when citizens work together and watch out for each other, that cooperating invigorates the individual, the economy and the nation, and that primacy is in people and profit is subordinate.

The late Senator Paul Wellstone expressed the essential sentiment most succinctly:

“We all do better when we all do better.”

Republicans don’t ascribe to that. They want to set up a country where every person is responsible for every aspect of daily life, from ensuring drinking water is safe to reducing workplace hazards. The GOP wants to shred regulations that protect citizens, even eliminate the federal agencies that enforce them. Congressional Republicans have worked to defund the Environmental Protection Agency, a move that would “empower” each citizen to persuade big industrial polluters to limit the particulates, mercury, arsenic, cadmium and lead belching from smokestacks.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said he’d reverse laws forbidding child labor –the same regulations Teddy Roosevelt endorsed to keep youngsters in classrooms and out of factories. In a nation deeply concerned about the quality of schools and the quantity of imported oil, GOP candidate Rick Perry plans to close the Education and Energy departments. Republican candidate Ron Paul would abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the organization citizens created to aid fellow Americans who fall victim to natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes and floods.

But that’s just the point: Republicans don’t believe Americans should help each other – they should only help themselves. In the GOP view, greed and selfishness aren’t sins. They’re virtues.

That’s a new fangled philosophy for Republicans, however. Wealthy Republican Teddy Roosevelt, a big game hunter and war hero who led the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill to win the Spanish-American War, might be expected to be a rugged individualist of the go-it-alone ilk promoted by today’s GOP. But he wasn’t. He counseled against a cult of individualism, writing:

“The fundamental rule in our national life – the rule which underlies all others – is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.”

The concept is citizens working together for their mutual benefit and the advancement of their nation. American citizenship is not, Roosevelt said in his New Nationalism Address in Osawatomie in 1910, all about individual enrichment:

“Those who oppose all reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism.”

That could have come from the mouth of an Occupy Wall Street protester.

Then there’s this from Roosevelt in Osawatomie on regulation:

“This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

His purpose was to ensure equal opportunity for all people who work hard, he said:

“I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service.”

One hundred and one years later in Osawatomie, President Obama reiterated those sentiments. He talked about how in the 75 years after Roosevelt’s speech, America moved toward fulfilling the Rough Rider’s goals. The nation decreased income inequality and increased opportunity. Hard work paid off, and anyone who strived could succeed. This gave rise to the largest middle class and strongest economy in world history.

But, over the past 25 years, this progress eroded. Income inequality rose dramatically. Simultaneously, opportunity diminished. The middle class shrank as hard work too frequently stopped paying off.

How to restore opportunity and shared prosperity is, Obama said, “the defining issue of our time.” Roosevelt sought it through the square deal. Obama called for something similar:

“I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules. Those aren’t Democratic or Republican values; 1 percent or 99 percent values. They are American values, and we have to reclaim them.”

Obama rebuked on-your-own selfishness and greed, saying each American has a stake in the success of all Americans:

“We are greater together than we are on our own.”

Wisconsin Subterfuge Violates American Democratic Values

Leo Gerard — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:19:33 -0500

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and his crew of country club conservatives this week brutalized the nation’s democratic traditions to secure legislation demanded by big corporations and billionaire conservative financiers like the Koch brothers – legislation stripping workers of collective bargaining rights.

Walker & Crew succeeded in terminating workers’ rights – but they achieved that only by violating traditional American democratic values. They positioned themselves with dictators who act against the will of the people, deny free speech rights and suppress protests.

They violated the state’s open meetings law, breached the right of Wisconsin residents to rally in their own state capitol building, and contravened conventional standards of fairness by voting to deny workers their rights without assembling a quorum of senators.

Free speech and free access to government protect America’s democracy. Walker & Crew disregarded First Amendment rights repeatedly.

Just this week, Walker & Crew locked protesters out of their own capitol building in Madison. They locked the few protesters already in the building out of the meeting rooms where senate and house members voted. They denied access even to progressive Wisconsin Assembly members, one of whom climbed through a colleague’s window to gain access to his workplace.

In the weeks since Wisconsin’s 14 progressive senators fled to Illinois to prevent the chamber from achieving the quorum needed to vote on a measure spending the people’s money, Walker & Crew also shut down access from the capitol to a web site posted by protesters. And they severely restricted protesters’ access to the capitol where a sit-in and sleep-in began in mid-February.

Protesters, who peacefully gathered in Madison in the tens of thousands, began chanting, “Whose house is it?” referring to the capitol. “It’s our house,” they responded.

That’s not the way Walker & Crew saw it. They said voters gave them control of the people’s house in last fall’s elections. That, apparently, means to them that they don’t have to listen to the will of the people anymore. Polls show a large majority – more than 60 percent – of Wisconsinites oppose stripping workers of collective bargaining rights.

Walker & Crew didn’t listen to the people. And they repeatedly attempted to shut the people up. The First Amendment was written and adopted to protect the people from that kind of oppression by political leaders.

In addition to shutting the people up, Walker & Crew attempted to shut them out. On Wednesday, without providing proper notice, the state’s conservative senators conducted a meeting to consider a newly-written measure to strip workers of their collective bargaining rights. Notice is required by states’ open meetings laws, sometimes called sunshine acts. These guarantee citizens access to government meetings and documents. They’re intended to prevent governments from conducting the people’s business in secret. These laws also require notice of meetings so that citizens can exercise their access rights.

Walker & Crew ignored the notice requirements so that they could ram through their legislation terminating workers’ rights before citizens could comment on or protest the new measure. The conservatives deliberately disregarded citizens’ right in a democracy to participate in the political process that directly affects their lives.

In addition, by clandestinely arranging the vote to be conducted without a quorum of senators, Walker & Crew asserted that although state law prohibits spending the people’s money without a quorum, they feel it is fine to strip citizens of their rights without a quorum. This is the stuff of oligarchy.

Throughout the first two years of the Obama administration, conservatives in the U.S. Senate repeatedly used the filibuster maneuver to prevent votes on legislation that would otherwise have been approved by a majority. The progressives in Wisconsin essentially performed a filibuster with their feet – by going to another state to prevent a vote. What Walker & Co. did this week was exploit a loophole to circumvent the filibuster-by-foot. They damaged the democratic process in a way the progressives in the U.S. Senate never even considered when thwarted repeatedly by filibusters.

Walker & Crew got what they wanted. They commandeered from workers the right to collectively bargain for a better life. They did it with nefarious methods that disrespect the Constitution, disrespect democracy and disrespect workers. They did it in a way that heaps dishonor on them.

WI Dems Show Right Way To Filibuster

Dave Johnson — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:37:17 -0500

In Wisconsin the Governor and Republican majority are trying to strip state employees of the right to collective bargaining. The are literally trying to "ram through" in a very short time, out of nowhere, a bill that removes employee rights.

The Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate had one recourse: just leave. There are not enough members of the Wisconsin Senate to hold a vote if none of the Democrats are there, so in a dramatic move they left the state. And it is making news.

This short post by Thers at Atrios' Eschaton blog sums it up:

Hey, remember how for the past couple of years the Republicans routinely and shamelessly and without precedent used a parliamentary gimmick to enforce a non-Constitutional supermajority in the United States Senate?

Keep in mind those shenanigans whenever you're told that the Wisconsin State Senate Democrats are opposed to "democracy."

Exactly right. This is how it should be done. The Democrats in the Wisconsin legislature are engaged in a delaying action to give the public a chance to express their opinions on how this should proceed. This is what a filibuster is supposed to do. It is not supposed to be an easy, silent "parliamentary procedure" that lets a minority just block everything, as Washington Republicans have been doing. It is supposed to be rare, dramatic, a show, something to rouse public interest, giving the public a chance to weigh in.

In the post Filibuster: Make Them Talk

Making them talk would be good for democracy, because the public will be able to see that a dramatic event is taking place. Just as in the movie, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, the public will have a chance to rise in support of the effort, or let Senators know they oppose it.

Making them talk all night gives the public an opportunity to rally, one way or the other. It also, frankly, puts on a show, which will engage the public, restoring interest in government. This is good and we should do it.

Unlike so many in Washington, Wisconsin Democrats are showing they have a spine. They are showing that they understand democracy and how public opinion can be moved. They are showing us all how to stand up for ourselves!

Filibuster Changes Would Bring The Public Back In

Dave Johnson — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:03:40 -0500

We all want to see the Senate start working again, and be more democratic. We have all lived through the breakdown of the Senate and the damage this has done to our democracy and the public's faith in government because of the abuse of the current rules. There is a vote likely tomorrow and we want to see real changes. There is a way to fix the problem and restore public interest in government at the same time: make them talk!

Background

On the first “day” of a Senate session the rules can be changed. The Senate met January 5 but did not adjourn the session, which means that the first “day” continues. The Senate reconvenes tomorrow. There is likely to be a vote on rules reform tomorrow. And if the vote is not tomorrow, the Senate can go into recess instead of adjourning for the day, and continue in the “first day.”

Rumors

There are rumors in every direction about what they might do about the dysfunction of the Senate. Rumors aside, one month ago every Democrat in the Senate signed a letter in support of changing the rules to require Senators to actually talk. This is the best outcome and there is no reason at all not to do this. If another "compromise" against democracy occurs, the public will be further demoralized. The country does not need another blow against trust in government.

Restore Public Interest

The public thinks this is how it is done. The movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” has cemented this in the minds of everyone. Unfortunately it isn’t how it has been done, and the result is that the public does not even know that the Senate is broken. They only know that “government” doesn’t work for them, and the change they need just does not happen.

If the Senate required Senators to actually stand up and talk, in the conventional understanding of what a filibuster is, it would restore public interest. It would be dramatic. People would notice. It is a show, with a purpose. When Senators stand up and talk and don't stop the public wants to know why and they want to get involved. People would want to weigh in. This is the right way to fix the Senate. Just as in the movie, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, the public will have a chance to rise in support of the effort, or let Senators know they oppose it.

Please visit Fix The Senate Now for more information. And CALL YOUR SENATORS to tell them you support reforming the filibuster!

Filibuster: Make Them Talk

Dave Johnson — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:31:49 -0500

The Senate is considering reforming the rules for filibusters. In the last few years the filibuster has been used so frequently that it is now conventional wisdom that "it takes 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate." This is because the public, and apparently even much of the news media, does not understand how the Senate operates. In fact, when you hear that something takes 60 votes to pass it is because it has been filibustered.

In the last two years everything has been blocked by an obstructive minority in the Senate. This was done as a strategy, on purpose, with the idea that by blocking everything and keeping the public from understanding this was what was going on, the public would turn against the Democrats for not getting enough done to solve the country's problems. And it worked.

Make Them Talk

So the Senate is considering changing the rules for the filibuster, in an attempt to restore democracy and enable a return to governing and problem-solving. They are not talking about getting rid of the filibuster, they are talking about returning to its original purpose. To sum it up, they are going to try to make them talk.

Currently a Senator can can announce a filibuster or place a "hold," and that alone requires that the Senate gather 60 votes to undo it. For nominations the Senator does not even have to be identified. But this is not what the public understand the filibuster to be. The public thinks the filibuster is a dramatic event, with Senators talking all night, like in the movie Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.

So the proposed changes in the filibuster will bring this back. Senators will have to talk, and it will be dramatic, and the public will know that there is a filibuster underway.

Senator Harkin: The Purpose Of The Filibuster

On a call with the press today Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa talked about this idea for changing the filibuster. He began by reminding us of the original purpose of the filibuster. This was so that when the majority is doing something that is egregious, the minority can hold it up, giving the public time to react if they so choose. But this is not at all what we have today. Today it enables the minority to block everything, subverting democracy.

Harkin said that by enabling the minority to block everything we have "stood democracy on its head." The minority decides everything, which means "the majority has the responsibility but not the ability to govern." "The minority should not have the power to dictate what the senate does."

The purpose of the filibuster, he said, should be to slow things down and let the public know something dramatic is happening. And the use of a supermajority was historically limited, originally for impeachment, treaties and overturing a veto. Not for passing legislation or confirming nominees.

Harkin would like to see a return to a dramatic, make-them-talk filibuster.

Good For Democracy

Making them talk would be good for democracy, because the public will be able to see that a dramatic event is taking place. Just as in the movie, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, the public will have a chance to rise in support of the effort, or let Senators know they oppose it.

Making them talk all night gives the public an opportunity to rally, one way or the other. It also, frankly, puts on a show, which will engage the public, restoring interest in government. This is good and we should do it.

Please visit Fix The Senate Now for more information. And CALL YOUR SENATORS to tell them you support reforming the filibuster!

They Even Filibustered The Public Printer!

Dave Johnson — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:56:40 -0500

The Senate is considering changing the rules for the "filibuster" and this is an opportunity for you to do something that can make a difference. The filibuster has been abused and the Senate is broken. Call your Senators and tell them you want this fixed!

"Abuse" does not adequately describe what has happened with the filibuster and "broken" does not adequately describe what has happened with the U.S. Senate. Two years ago We, the People voted for change, but in the Senate change and everything else was blocked. Everything was filibustered as part of a strategy to demoralize people and undermine democracy. Everything. Important bills, judges, agency heads, ambassadors and all the things that constitute "everything." And the strategy worked.

They even filibustered the Public Printer!

What is the Public Printer? The Public Printer heads up the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). The GPO manages our country's public documents. They print but also electronically distribute the Congressional Record, Supreme Court decisions, passports, tax forms, internal government documents, and agency publications. (They don't print the money.)

Benjamin Franklin served as the Public Printer when we were a colony, though the current office was established by Congress in 1861.

I am unable to locate any stated reason why the nomination of the Public Printer was filibustered, leaving me to assume that this particular filibuster came under the classification of "everything." Therefore the Public Printer was filibustered.

So now the Senate is considering whether to change their system. They are voting on January 24. They are considering making Senators actually filibuster instead of being able to block things from a nice table at a nice restaurant. This way the public will be aware that this tactic is being used to block things and can respond accordingly.

This is why you should call your Senators - both of them - today, and tell them that you want the Senate to reform the filibuster.

If you do this, some of them will say "Uh oh, they're on to us." They depend on the public not understanding what is going on, but if you call they will know that you are hip to their bag of tricks.

Others will say, "Hey, I don't have to be afraid to change things, they are paying attention!" These Senators will know that they have support and will be nudged toward voting to fix the problem, which will help make it so they can fix the rest of the problems.

Either way, calling WILL do some good. So call. Today. And tell others to call.

This is Annie Hill of the Communication Workers Union, with an overview of Senate Rules Reform:

Warning: If you are not a political junkie you might want to stop reading now and go call your Senators and say you want the filibuster reformed. The following content might be unsuitable for normal audiences.

Ezra Klein, with one of the best blog post titles in a long time, If you read only one John Kerry speech today ...,

I'm not going to summarize it here, because I think it's actually worth taking five minutes to read it in full. But the whole thing is below the fold:

Yes, if you like to read John Kerry speeches you should click through to read the whole thing, but just in case you are the rare individual who does not live to read John Kerry speeches here is "the meat," (and keep in mind that I, a vegetarian, had to actually read the speech to find "the meat" for you),

John and I considered postponing this speech, which had been planned for some time. But serious times call for serious discussions. And after some reflection, both of us felt that not only should this speech not be postponed, but that, in fact, it was imperative to give it.

Oh, wait, that's apparently not the interesting part. This is, about 115 paragraphs into the ~~filibuster~~ talk.,

Sometimes, as John Kennedy once said, “party asks too much.” Sometimes, party leaders also ask too much, especially if they exploit the rules of the United States Senate for the sole purpose of denying a President a second term. But that is what we have witnessed the last two years; Republicans nearly unanimous in opposition to almost every proposal by the President and almost every proposal by Democratic colleagues. The extraordinary measure of a filibuster has become an ordinary expedient. Today it’s possible for 41 Senators representing only about one tenth of the American population to bring the Senate to a standstill.

Certainly, I believe the filibuster has its rightful place. I used it to stop drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge because I believed that was in our national interest --and 60 or more Senators should be required to speak up on such an irrevocable decision. But we have reached the point where the filibuster is being invoked by the minority not necessarily because of a difference over policy, but as a political tool to undermine the Presidency.

Consider this: in the entire 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted. Between 1933 and the coming of World War II, it was attempted only twice. During the Eisenhower administration, twice. During John Kennedy’s presidency, four times-- and then eight during Lyndon Johnson’s push for civil rights and voting rights bills. By the time Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan occupied the White House, there were about 20 filibusters a year.

But in the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, there were a record 112 cloture votes. And in the 111th Congress, there were 136, one of which even delayed a vote to authorize funding for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps during a time of war. That’s not how the Founders intended the Senate to work-- and that's not how our country can afford the Senate not to work.

If only I could move to DC so I could listen to speeches like this every day instead of just reading them.

Filibuster Reform ... But

Dave Johnson — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:48:00 -0500

“But.” Everything you read about the filibuster talks about how important the filibuster is, allowing a minority to retain some power over abuse by a majority… and then it says, “But.”

For example, the Camden, N.J., Courier Post editorial today, "Alter filibuster rules in Senate," reads:

In a representative democracy, the minority group or party should never be without any power, and the filibuster in the Senate has proved an important tool for both Republicans and Democrats when they've been in the minority. It allows the minority party to have a voice in the legislative process, even when the majority party would like to ignore that voice.

But over the last decade, as partisan divisions in Washington have become more entrenched, the filibuster privilege has been overused and abused by both parties. In just the last two congresses, filibusters have been used to block legislation or nominees 275 times. During the eight years when Dwight Eisenhower was president from 1953 to 1961, the Senate had to vote just twice to stop filibusters, according to Senate records.

"But over the last decade..." "overused," "used to block," etc... "But."

Of course the Courier Post threw in the “both sides” equivalence with no evidence. It’s a media rule that you can’t explain what conservatives are doing to the country without finding some way to equivalently blame "the other side."

The Albany, N.Y. Times Union "Fix the Senate," gets to the heart of the problem:

There actually were more filibusters in 2009 alone than in the 1950s and '60s combined.

A tool designed to guard against the tyranny of the majority has instead led to the tyranny of the minority. It's time for the Senate to consider allowing fewer than 60 votes to keep a bill under consideration. The rule of the majority, in both spirit and letter, remember, is just 51.

Even if a minority in the Senate is to retain this weapon, it should have to use it in a way that enhances debate, not undermines it.

More filibusters in the one year than the '50s and '60s combined...

The Problem: Blocking Everything

In the last two years Republicans pursued a strategy of trying to block everything -- every bill, every nominee, every judge -- and then campaigning saying that our country's problems were not being fixed. It worked. They got away with it. And our country's problems were not solved.

How bad is the problem? Last year one Senator placed a "blanket hold" on all Presidential appointments until he got earmarks for a defense contractor that was giving him tons of "campaign contributions." Even worse, here is a story about a lobbying firm that arranges filibusters for cash.

Abuse And Consequences

The filibuster is being abused, and the Senate is broken. Important bills are blocked: 420 bills that had passed the House were not voted on in the Senate. The judges and executive appointees we need are not able to be confirmed. The country's problems are not being addressed.

This is more than just abuse; it is damaging the country and the world's understanding of democracy itself. Columnist Thomas Friedman has been warning that the abuse of the filibuster is causing the world to believe that China's autocratic system is a more effective form of government than our own. In "Our One-Party Democracy," Friedman wrote,

The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.” Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste.

And in a column titled, Never Heard That Before, he writes about whisperings heard at the Davos conference of world leaders,

This year, Asians and Europeans, in particular, pull you aside and ask you some version of: “Tell me, what’s going on in your country?” We’re making people nervous. . . . “Our two-party political system is broken just when everything needs major repair, not minor repair,” said K.R. Sridhar, the founder of Bloom Energy, a fuel cell company in Silicon Valley, who is attending the forum. “I am talking about health care, infrastructure, education, energy. We are the ones who need a Marshall Plan now.”

Indeed, speaking of phrases I’ve never heard here before, another goes like this: “Is the ‘Beijing Consensus’ replacing the ‘Washington Consensus?’ ”

Please read that whole column to see the damage to our country this obstructionism is bringing in the world's eyes. It is causing the world to view democracy as an inferior system.

Democracy Thwarted

It's not just the filibuster itself that's abused; so is the public's understanding of it. The public understands what a filibuster is and when it should and should not be used. But they think a filibuster is senators talking, not sitting in a restaurant and placing an anonymous "hold."

The problem is that the public does not even know that the filibuster is being used. The public is not getting the information it needs to make decisions, and to apply political pressure where it should be applied. All they hear is that the Senate can't pass things. How many times have you read that "Senate rules require 60 votes to pass a bill?" This is now the accepted "conventional wisdom" assumption. But, in fact, Senate rules require a simple majority to pass a bill, not 60 votes.

Last year, in "Harry, Roll Out The Cots! Again And Again And Again!" I wrote,

You are not drawing a clear contrast and repeating it. You are not telling a simple story in a clear, understandable way. It is not getting through to the public that the hated filibuster is being used over and over. You need to put on a show that breaks through the haze and informs the public. There is a way to do that: roll out the cots! The public gets that. They associate cots with filibusters. It is theater but the public needs to have the information and without the theater – yes, the circus – of rolling out the cots again and again and again, the public is, in effect, having that information withheld from them.

Ever since the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" the public has believed that a filibuster is about senators staying up all night, talking. If that is what they believe, then that is what you have to give them. You have a responsibility to democracy to find ways to break through the media filter and help the public to understand what is really going on. You need to roll out the cots, and do it again and again, until the point is made with the public that what is going on is not the normal operation of the Senate, but instead is pure obstruction, used as a strategy to prevent the public from getting what they need, to demoralize them and keep them from voting.

After a while the public will get it. You owe it to them to do this. Roll out the cots.

Fix the filibuster. Fix the Senate. Stop the anonymous holds. Stop the silent filibuster. If they want to block a bill, make them block it, make them talk all night! Roll out the cots!

Cots.

Harry -- Roll Out The Cots! Again And Again And Again!

Dave Johnson — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:13:34 -0400

Dear Senate Majority Leader, you are letting the public down. We, the People need you to get things done but everything is being blocked by a minority. The public doesn't understand that everything is being filibustered, so they are not applying the pressure that could break the tactic. That is your fault, not theirs: you have to show them. You owe it to the public, in the name of democracy, to let them know what is going on. There is a clear way to do that: Roll out the cots!

The country has so many things wrong that need fixing. A majority of the Congress, elected to make changes, is trying to get things moving for the people, but a corporate-sponsored minority is blocking almost everything. Their strategy is to frustrate the public and they count on misinformation to confuse people as to who is responsible for the logjam. As a result the public doesn’t see that there is a strategy of pure obstruction at work here.

The obstructionists have help in spreading the confusion. Newspaper stories rarely use the word "filibuster." Many in the media tell the public that Senate rules require 60 votes to pass bills. Other stories blame "partisan bickering" for the lack of progress. So the public blames "both sides" because they don't know what is really going on.

But you are helping spread the confusion too. You are not drawing a clear contrast and repeating it. You are not telling a simple story in a clear, understandable way. It is not getting through to the public that the hated filibuster is being used over and over. You need to put on a show that breaks through the haze and informs the public. There is a way to do that: roll out the cots! The public gets that. They associate cots with filibusters. It is theater but the public needs to have the information and without the theater – yes, the circus – of rolling out the cots again and again and again, the public is, in effect, having that information withheld from them.

Ever since the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" the public has believed that a filibuster is about Senators staying up all night, talking. If that is what they believe, then that is what you have to give them. You have a responsibility to democracy to find ways to break through the media filter and help the public to understand what is really going on. You need to roll out the cots, and do it again and again, until the point is made with the public that what is going on is not the normal operation of the Senate, but instead is pure obstruction, used as a strategy to prevent the public from getting what they need, to demoralize them and keep them from voting.

Look what happened in April when you did roll out the cots! The cots were only part way down the hall when the obstructors held up their hands in surrender! That was a clue, Harry!

A Senator might (probably would) say, “But Senate Rules don’t recognize the circumstances unless there is an amendment to an amendment that meets a motion from the designated parliamentarian over the division of the rule to the committee and the amendment amends the amdenment to amend, and we have to suspend the rule by consent to amend the amendment before the amendment can be amended."

I would respond, "ROLL OUT THE COTS." Roll out the cots every single time they try to filibuster. Every single day. Cots. Cots. Cots. Park a truck out front of the Capital, filled with cots, and every time any Senator starts to say “No” workers should be starting to unpack the cots from the truck.

After a while the public will get it. You owe it to them to do this. Roll out the cots.

Cots.

Scott Brown Votes for Reform-- After Selling Out to Wall Street

Zach Carter — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:33:05 -0400

Wall Street reform passed Congress today, with three Republicans voting "yes," among them Scott Brown of Massachusetts. But Brown's vote came with a high price tag: he insisted on both hammering ordinary citizens with new taxes, instead of imposing them on the financial behemoths that jeopardize our economic stability. And he punched an enormous loophole in rules limiting bank gambling with taxpayer dollars. Both were explicit favors for powerful special interests in his state.

These were the first truly significant legislative maneuvers Brown has made since taking office, and they stand in stark contrast to the image he painted of himself while campaigning as a Tea Party favorite. The reform package comes with a $19 billion price tag. Traditionally, the cost of regulating an industry is covered by the industry being regulated. But of course those industries don't like those taxes, in part because they create up-front costs that limit profits, but also because a smaller profit-base results in a smaller bonus pool.

Brown led the charge in demanding that Wall Street bonuses not be hampered by these regulatory costs. He successfully pushed to restructure the tax burden to hit ordinary citizens and shield major Massachusetts hedge funds and banks. The taxed-enough-already Tea Party's man-of-the-people pushed to protect big financier bonuses, while imposing new taxes on the rest of us. Thanks for the new tax bill, Tea Partiers.

But this was the second time Brown dealt out major damage to reform in just a few weeks. In order to get the Wall Street overhaul through the conference committee, Brown demanded that the Volcker Rule—a ban on risky proprietary trading by banks—be watered down. Proprietary trading doesn't serve any client or help any business, it's just a naked bet, and when those bets are made through the commercial banking system, they're subsidized by taxpayer perks (those perks are designed to boost economically productive lending).

One of the biggest banks in Massachusetts is State Street Bank. It's a pretty boring institution—except for its prop trading operations. Throughout the crisis, it made decent money, and generally didn't run into any trouble—except from its prop trading operations. State Street's gambling operations backfired big-time, forcing taxpayers to step in with billions of dollars in bailouts.

What did Brown learn from this episode? Why, that State Street deserves to keep gambling with taxpayer dollars! Prior to Brown's efforts, the Volcker Rule would have banned any proprietary trading at major banks. After Brown's efforts, banks can put up to 3 percent of their capital into a proprietary hedge fund. That dealt a tremendous blow to the substance of the reform. When banks sponsor proprietary hedge funds, they collect lots of money from outside investors. If those hedge funds go under, the bank's reputation is immediately on the line, and it faces a tremendous amount of pressure to bail out other investors in the hedge fund. If they don't stand behind the hedge fund, investors wonder why, and it can spark a run on the bank.

So even if only a small amount is initially invested in the fund, banks often end up paying out several times their original investment to cover losses (Bear Stearns put about $40 million into a hedge fund and had to pay $3.2 billion when it went under). There are some provisions in the reform bill limiting the degree to which big banks can bail out their hedge funds, but they will be extremely difficult to enforce.

In sum, Brown actively weakened U.S. financial stability and hit taxpayers with unnecessary fees, and did it all for the express benefit of a handful of special interests.

Not all votes come at the price of weaker reform. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., threatened to vote against the bill if it was not strengthened, and secured stronger reforms as a result. Not even all Republicans insisted on a weaker bill. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, refused to vote for the bill unless it was substantively strengthened. Collins insisted on imposing higher capital requirements on major banks—effectively reducing the degree to which banks can make bets with other peoples' money. It's not the most important section of the legislation, but it is a real reform.

Brown didn't do any of this. He simply created specific giveaways for special interests. If that's the Tea Party's plan for reforming Washington, then they're doing just fine. But if they want responsible public policy, maybe it's time to put down the assault rifles and start courting serious reformers.

Wall Street Reform Clears Final Filibuster

Zach Carter — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:36:31 -0400

Good news: The Senate just secured 60 votes to proceed on Wall Street reform, clearing the way for the legislation's final passage today or Saturday.

The legislation garnered the votes of every Democrat except Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who argued that the bill was too weak to support. Every Republican opposed the bill, except Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Scott Brown, R-Mass. Brown's influence over the bill was particularly pernicious, which I'll elaborate more on later.

As I've argued previously, the bill is far from perfect, but is still a step in the right direction. After thirty years of deregulation, Congress is finally moving back to actually regulating Big Finance. The bill won't end too-big-to-fail, but it will create a powerful new regulator to protect consumers from banker abuses, and it will establish some useful financial infrastructure that can be expanded by future legislation.

Wall Street reform is going to pass. That fact is worthy of celebration, but citizens and activists must maintain the pressure on Congress and the administration to pass more significant reforms in the coming months and years. A brief list of what's left to do: breaking up the megabanks, imposing a tax on financial speculation and barring banks from backing risky derivatives operations with taxpayer funds.