ReportWire

Tag: filibuster

  • Commentary: The U.S. Senate is a mess. He wants to fix it, from the inside

    To say the U.S. Senate has grown dysfunctional is like suggesting water is wet or the nighttime sky is dark.

    The institution that fancies itself “the world’s greatest deliberative body” is supposed to serve as a cooling saucer that tempers the more hotheaded House, applying weight and wisdom as it addresses the Great Issues of Our Time. Instead, it’s devolved into an unsightly mess of gridlock and partisan hackery.

    Part of that is owing to the filibuster, one of the Senate’s most distinctive features, which over roughly the last decade has been abused and misused to a point it’s become, in the words of congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein, a singular “weapon of mass obstruction.”

    Democrat Jeff Merkley, the junior U.S. senator from Oregon, has spent years on a mostly one-man crusade aimed at reforming the filibuster and restoring a bit of sunlight and self-discipline to the chamber.

    In 2022, Merkley and his allies came within two votes of modifying the filibuster for voting rights legislation. He continues scouring for support for a broader overhaul.

    “This is essential for people to see what their representatives are debating and then have the opportunity to weigh in,” said Merkley, speaking from the Capitol after a vote on the Senate floor.

    “Without the public being able to see the obstruction,” he said, “they [can’t] really respond to it.”

    What follows is a discussion of congressional process, but before your eyes glaze over, you should understand that process is what determines the way many things are accomplished — or not — in Washington, D.C.

    The filibuster, which has changed over time, involves how long senators are allowed to speak on the Senate floor. Unlike the House, which has rules limiting debate, the Senate has no restrictions, unless a vote is taken to specifically end discussion and bring a matter to resolution. More on that in a moment.

    In the broadest sense, the filibuster is a way to protect the interests of a minority of senators, as well as their constituents, by allowing a small but determined number of lawmakers — or even a lone member — to prevent a vote by commanding the floor and talking nonstop.

    Perhaps the most famous, and certainly the most romanticized, version of a filibuster took place in the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The fictitious Sen. Jefferson Smith, played by James Stewart, talks to the point of exhausted collapse as a way of garnering national notice and exposing political corruption.

    The filibustering James Stewart received an Oscar nomination for lead actor for his portrayal of Sen. Jefferson Smith in the 1939 classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

    (From the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences)

    In the Frank Capra classic, the good guy wins. (It’s Hollywood, after all.) In real life, the filibuster has often been used for less noble purpose, most notably the decades-long thwarting of civil rights legislation.

    A filibuster used to be a rare thing, its power holstered for all but the most important issues. But in recent years that’s changed, drastically. The filibuster — or, rather, the threat of a filibuster — has become almost routine.

    In part, that’s because of how easy it’s become to gum up the Senate.

    Members no longer need to hold the floor and talk nonstop, testing not just the power of their argument but their physical mettle and bladder control. These days it’s enough for a lawmaker to simply state their intention to filibuster. Typically, legislation is then laid aside as the Senate moves on to other business.

    That pain-free approach has changed the very nature of the filibuster, Ornstein said, and transformed how the Senate operates, much to its detriment.

    The burden is “supposed to be on the minority to really put itself … on the line to generate a larger debate” — a la the fictive Jefferson Smith — “and hope during the course of it that they can turn opinions around,” said Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “What’s happened is the burden has shifted to the majority [to break a filibuster], which is a bastardization of what the filibuster is supposed to be about.”

    It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, by invoking cloture, to use Senate terminology. That means the passage of legislation now effectively requires a supermajority of the 100-member Senate. (There are workarounds, which, for instance, allowed President Trump’s massive tax-and-spending bill to pass on a 51-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaker.)

    The filibuster gives outsized power to the minority.

    To offer but two examples, there is strong public support for universal background checks for gun buyers and greater transparency in campaign finance. Both issues have majority backing in the Senate. No matter. Legislation to achieve each has repeatedly been filibustered to death.

    That’s where Merkley would step in.

    He would not eliminate the filibuster, a prerogative jealously guarded by members of both parties. (In a rare show of independence, Republican senators rejected President Trump’s call to scrap the filibuster to end the recent government shutdown.)

    Rather, Merkley would eliminate what’s come to be called “the silent filibuster” and force lawmakers to actually take the floor and publicly press their case until they prevail, give up or physically give out. “My reform is based on the premise that the minority should have a voice,” he said, “but not a veto.”

    Forcing senators to stand and deliver would make it more difficult to filibuster, ending its promiscuous overuse, Merkley suggested, and — ideally— engaging the public in a way privately messaging fellow senators — I dissent! — does not.

    “Because it’s so visible publicly,” Merkley said, “the American citizens get to weigh in, and there’s consequences. They may frame you as a hero for your obstruction, or a bum, and that has a reflection in the next election.”

    The power to repair itself rests entirely within the Senate, where lawmakers set their own rules and can change them as they see fit. (Nice work, if you can get it.)

    The filibuster has been tweaked before. In 1917, senators adopted the rule allowing cloture if a two-thirds majority voted to end debate. In 1975, the Senate reduced that number to three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members.

    More recently, Democrats changed the rules to prevent filibustering most presidential nominations. Republicans extended that to include Supreme Court nominees.

    Reforming the filibuster is hardly a cure-all. The Senate has debased itself by ceding much of its authority and becoming little more than an arm of the Trump White House. Fixing that requires more than a procedural revamp.

    But forcing lawmakers to stand their ground, argue their case and seek to rally voters instead of lifting a pinkie and grinding the Senate to a halt? That’s something worth talking about.

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • President Trump urges Republicans to reopen government as shutdown marks longest in US history

    The government shutdown has reached its 36th day, the longest in U.S. history, as President Donald Trump pressures Republicans to end the Senate filibuster in order to reopen the government.”It’s time for Republicans to do what they have to do, and that’s terminate the filibuster. It’s the only way you can do it,” Trump told senators Wednesday at the White House.The filibuster is a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. Ending the filibuster would allow Republicans to pass a bill with a simple majority, but several Republicans warn that when Democrats are in power, they’d be able to do the same thing. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after breakfast at the White House, “It’s just not happening.”The president also said the shutdown was a “big factor, negative” in Tuesday’s election results.”Countless public servants are now not being paid and the air traffic control system is under increasing strain. We must get the government back open soon and really immediately,” Trump said.The shutdown is hitting home for many Americans, with lines stretching at food banks across the country as SNAP benefits are delayed and reduced for more than 40 million Americans. After-school programs that depend on federal dollars are closing. The Transportation Secretary said, starting Friday, there will be a 10% reduction in flights at 40 airports across the country.Republicans have pushed to reopen the government with a short-term spending bill. Democrats have rejected those bills, arguing that Republicans are leaving out a key provision: restoring expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that help millions of Americans lower their health-insurance costs. Democrats say passing a short-term bill without those subsidies would leave families facing sudden premium spikes.”The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. “The American people have spoken last night. End the shutdown, end the healthcare crisis, sit down and talk with us.”Republicans have said they’re willing to negotiate ACA subsidies, but only after the shutdown is over.See more government shutdown coverage from the Washington News Bureau:

    WASHINGTON —

    The government shutdown has reached its 36th day, the longest in U.S. history, as President Donald Trump pressures Republicans to end the Senate filibuster in order to reopen the government.

    “It’s time for Republicans to do what they have to do, and that’s terminate the filibuster. It’s the only way you can do it,” Trump told senators Wednesday at the White House.

    The filibuster is a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. Ending the filibuster would allow Republicans to pass a bill with a simple majority, but several Republicans warn that when Democrats are in power, they’d be able to do the same thing.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after breakfast at the White House, “It’s just not happening.”

    The president also said the shutdown was a “big factor, negative” in Tuesday’s election results.

    “Countless public servants are now not being paid and the air traffic control system is under increasing strain. We must get the government back open soon and really immediately,” Trump said.

    The shutdown is hitting home for many Americans, with lines stretching at food banks across the country as SNAP benefits are delayed and reduced for more than 40 million Americans. After-school programs that depend on federal dollars are closing.

    The Transportation Secretary said, starting Friday, there will be a 10% reduction in flights at 40 airports across the country.

    Republicans have pushed to reopen the government with a short-term spending bill. Democrats have rejected those bills, arguing that Republicans are leaving out a key provision: restoring expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that help millions of Americans lower their health-insurance costs. Democrats say passing a short-term bill without those subsidies would leave families facing sudden premium spikes.

    “The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. “The American people have spoken last night. End the shutdown, end the healthcare crisis, sit down and talk with us.”

    Republicans have said they’re willing to negotiate ACA subsidies, but only after the shutdown is over.

    See more government shutdown coverage from the Washington News Bureau:

    Source link

  • Only Trump Can Reopen the Government. But He’s Not in the Mood.

    Deal-making overseas is so much more interesting than deal-making at home.
    Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images

    Before last night’s off-year elections, there was quiet momentum in Washington toward an end to the government shutdown, which has officially become the longest one in U.S. history. Among Senate Democrats, there was angst over the damage being done to public employees and SNAP beneficiaries and some confidence that public reaction to Obamacare-premium spikes would lead Republicans to agree to a subsidy extension after the government reopened. Among congressional Republicans, there was a realization that the public was blaming them for the shutdown and a recognition that Democrats needed some sort of moral victory in order to give up the fight. And among appropriators of both parties, there was a desperate desire to return to bipartisan spending decisions instead of lurching from shutdown threats to stopgap spending bills and back again. So a deal seemed likely.

    But only one person could make a deal possible: President Donald Trump. Without his personal involvement, no Democrat could trust that a deal would be honored. And without his personal pressure, too many House Republicans would refuse to make any concessions to Democrats at all, particularly if it involved the hated Obamacare program. Yes, Trump was too distracted by his recent world travels to cut deals and lobby for peace prizes. But he’d eventually focus, particularly after Senate Republicans made it clear they wouldn’t just cut to the chase by killing the filibuster and crushing Democrats without negotiations.

    Then last night happened, and suddenly it’s not at all clear if the government is reopening soon. Trump publicly blamed Republican losses on the shutdown and accurately pointed out the quickest solution to that problem was for Republicans to follow his earlier instructions: Kill the filibuster, and impose a reopening on Democrats by a simple majority vote in the Senate. During what Axios described as an “uncomfortable breakfast” with Republican senators who were sorting through the ashes of the off-year elections, Trump stamped his foot:

    The room was “eerily silent” and “uncomfortable” Wednesday morning as President Trump cajoled Republican senators to end the filibuster, multiple attendees told Axios …

    Trump warned the party would “get killed” and be viewed as “do-nothing Republicans” if they don’t change Senate rules requiring 60 votes for most legislation.

    “If you don’t terminate the filibuster, you’ll be in bad shape,” the president told GOP senators during the televised portion of the breakfast remarks.

    He went even further after the press was instructed to leave.

    So much for the prior Republican self-assurance that if they just held their ground, Democrats would either cave or crawl to them for a face-saving deal that wouldn’t require real concessions. But as John Thune made clear after the “uncomfortable breakfast,” the Republican votes aren’t there to do what Trump wants. So it will require some very serious presidential arm-twisting (making Senate GOP lives “a living hell,” one Trump adviser warned) to bring them around.

    Meanwhile, as Punchbowl News reports, Democratic spines were stiffened by the same election returns that enraged Trump:

    Senate Democrats who want to keep up the fight are pointing to Tuesday’s election results as evidence that the public is with them — and that they shouldn’t cave now.

    Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said their victories should “give Democrats confidence that the American people have our back as we engage in the fight to protect people’s health care and save our democracy …”

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) are leading 25 fellow Senate Democrats in a new letter to the Trump administration that slams the GOP for refusing to negotiate a deal to reopen the government that concretely addresses health care. It lists rising health care costs, including spiking Obamacare premiums, and says voters want Congress and the president to act.

    So what, or who, is going to give? Trump, most Democrats, and the more sensible Republicans all want the government to reopen. But it’s not happening unless Trump okays concessions he is in no mood to consider or, alternatively, unless Senate Republicans stop thinking ahead to a future in the minority and make Congress a totally party-run operation. It does not seem to have occurred to Trump that another authoritarian power grab might be as unpopular as the shutdown it would end. And it must really suck to be John Thune right now and bear the burden of talking either his president or his colleagues into abandoning their positions.


    See All



    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • After Republican election losses, Trump pushes lawmakers to end shutdown, filibuster

    WASHINGTON — As the federal shutdown has dragged on to become the longest in American history, President Trump has shown little interest in talks to reopen the government. But Republican losses on election day could change that.

    Trump told Republican senators at the White House on Wednesday that he believed the government shutdown “was a big factor” in the party’s poor showing against the Democrats in key races.

    “We must get the government back open soon, and really immediately,” Trump said, adding that he would speak privately with the senators to discuss what he would like to do next.

    The president’s remarks are a departure from what has largely been an apathetic response from him about reopening the government. With Congress at a stalemate for more than a month, Trump’s attention has mostly been elsewhere.

    He spent most of last week in Asia attempting to broker trade deals. Before that, much of his focus was on reaching a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas and building a $300-million White House ballroom.

    To date, Trump’s main attempt to reopen the federal government has been calling on Republican leaders to terminate the filibuster, a long-running Senate rule that requires 60 votes in the chamber to pass most legislation. Trump wants to scrap the rule — the so-called nuclear option — to allow Republicans in control of the chamber to push through legislation with a simple-majority vote.

    “If you don’t terminate the filibuster, you’ll be in bad shape,” Trump told the GOP senators and warned that with the rule in place, the party would be viewed as “do-nothing Republicans” and get “killed” in next year’s midterm elections.

    Trump’s push to end the shutdown comes as voters are increasingly disapproving of his economic agenda, according to recent polls. The trend was reinforced Tuesday as voters cast ballots with economic concerns as their main motivation, an AP poll showed. Despite those indicators, Trump told a crowd at the American Business Forum in Miami on Wednesday that he thinks “we have the greatest economy right now.”

    While Trump has not acknowledged fault in his economic agenda, he has began to express concern that the ongoing shutdown may be hurting Republicans. Those concerns have led him to push Republicans to eliminate the filibuster, a move that has put members of his party in a tough spot.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has resisted the pressure, calling the filibuster an “important tool” that keeps the party in control of the chamber in check.

    The 60-vote threshold allowed Republicans to block a “whole host of terrible Democrat policies” when they were in the minority last year, Thune said in an interview Monday with Fox News Radio’s “Guy Benson Show.”

    “I shudder to think how much worse it would’ve been without the legislative filibuster,” he said. “The truth is that if we were to do their dirty work for them, and that is essentially what we would be doing, we would own all the crap they are going to do if and when they get the chance to do it.”

    Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said last week he is a “firm no on eliminating it.”

    “The filibuster forces us to find common ground in the Senate. Power changes hands, but principles shouldn’t,” Curtis said in a social media post.

    As the government shutdown stretched into its 36th day Wednesday, Trump continued to show no interest in negotiating with Democrats, who are refusing to vote on legislation to reopen the government that does not include a deal on healthcare.

    Budget negotiations deadlocked as Democrats tried to force Republicans to extend federal healthcare tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year. If those credits expire, millions of Americans are expected to see the cost of their premiums spike.

    With negotiations stalled, Trump said in an interview aired Sunday that he “won’t be extorted” by their demands to extend the expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies.

    On Wednesday, Democratic legislative leaders sent a letter to Trump demanding a bipartisan meeting to “end the GOP shutdown of the federal government and decisively address the Republican healthcare crisis.”

    “Democrats stand ready to meet with you face to face, anytime and anyplace,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both from New York, wrote in a letter to Trump.

    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Democrats’ letter.

    “The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” Schumer told the Associated Press.

    Trump’s remarks Wednesday signal that he is more interested in a partisan approach to ending the shutdown.

    “It is time for Republicans to do what they have to do and that is to terminate the filibuster,” Trump told GOP senators. “It’s the only way you can do it.”

    If Republicans don’t do it, Trump argued Senate Democrats will do so the next time they are in a majority.

    Democrats have not signaled any intent to end the filibuster in the future, but Trump has claimed otherwise and argued that it is up to Republicans to “do it first.”

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • The federal shutdown and the Senate filibuster: What to know

    As Republicans and Democrats battle for the upper hand in the federal government shutdown, President Donald Trump has zeroed in on a new target for potentially breaking the deadlock: eliminating the Senate filibuster.

    In two Truth Social posts, Trump urged senators to end the chamber’s longstanding practice of requiring 60 votes to proceed to final consideration of legislation. The 60-vote threshold means that Republicans cannot simply rely on their own senators to pass legislation to fund the government; they also need to secure backing from seven or more Democrats, given the chamber’s 53-47 partisan breakdown.

    Democrats have not supported a bill to continue federal funding during the shutdown, which has now entered its second month. Democrats are using the leverage they have from the filibuster requirement to push Republicans to extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies.

    “Terminate the filibuster, not just for the shutdown, but for everything else,” Trump wrote Nov. 2 on Truth Social. He said Democrats would end the filibuster “immediately, as soon as they get the chance. Our doing it will not give them the chance.”

    In parliamentary lingo, the process of using a simple majority vote to eliminate the filibuster has been called the “nuclear option.”

    A president pushing to “nuke” the filibuster can make a difference, said Arizona State University political scientist Steven Smith. President Woodrow Wilson supported the first of several filibuster workarounds, which was enacted in 1917, Smith said.

    Although Trump has secured congressional Republicans’ support on most issues during his second term, Senate Republicans haven’t acceded to his desire to end the filibuster.

    The top Senate Republican, Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota, has reiterated his opposition to eliminating the filibuster. He is joined in opposition by several other Republicans, including Sens. John Curtis of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. 

    If these Republicans hold firm against eliminating the filibuster, Trump won’t have enough votes to end the practice.

    “We do not seem to be any closer to ‘nuking’ the legislative filibuster than we have been for decades,” Smith said. 

    What is the filibuster, and how does it work?

    The filibuster was not established by a specific act, and it is not in the Constitution. 

    The Constitution delegates internal rule-setting to the Senate itself, and for much of its history, a senator could block action by filibustering.

    It took until 1917, when the Senate voted to create a process known as cloture, by which a two-thirds supermajority of senators present and voting could cut off a filibuster and move on to other business. Then, in 1975, the Senate voted to lower the supermajority to three-fifths of senators serving overall, establishing its current level of 60 senators.

    Those 60 votes have become a significant hurdle in a chamber that has not often had one party hold that many seats — and especially in recent years, as the two parties have become more polarized.

    How could senators deploy the nuclear option?

    The nuclear option’s mechanics are complex even by the standards of parliamentary maneuvers, requiring a series of carefully choreographed steps. The gist is that the majority party would move to change the supermajority rule through a series of votes that require only a simple majority.

    The nuclear option doesn’t have to entirely eliminate the filibuster. It could be used to eliminate it only for certain purposes — a tactic that has been used by both parties in the past dozen years.

    In 2013, Democrats deployed the nuclear option to approve most executive branch and judicial nominees, after the chamber’s Republican minority refused to approve many of President Barack Obama’s appointees. 

    But the effort left Supreme Court justice nominations to meet the 60-vote threshold. That restriction fell in 2017, nuked by Republicans.

    With all appointments now handled by a simple majority, ordinary legislative business remains subject to the 60-vote margin.

    Does the filibuster have staying power?

    It would be possible to narrow the filibuster further by eliminating it for the spending bills at issue in the shutdown fight without eliminating the practice for all legislative business. Some Democrats tried during Joe Biden’s presidency to end the filibuster for voting-related legislation — which would have benefited a Democrat-backed election bill — but they did not succeed.

    One argument against ending the filibuster is that today’s political majority could become tomorrow’s political minority.

    Republicans have historically appreciated the filibuster more than Democrats have, since the filibuster makes it harder to create new federal programs, which is a common goal of Democrats. 

    Democrats have a different reason for preserving the supermajority rule. Each state receives two Senate seats, regardless of population. Because most states today tend to vote the same way for president and Senate — and because more states are reliably Republican than reliably Democratic — Democrats are at a long-term disadvantage in the Senate. As a result, Democratic senators will want to have continued access to the filibuster.

    Another argument against eliminating the filibuster: It gives any single senator greater power within the chamber. Many senators would be loath to give up a significant amount of personal leverage by ending the filibuster, even if it were to benefit their party.

    Source link

  • The One Thing Republicans Will Deny Trump

    Trump whooping it up with Japan’s prime minister, Sanae Takaichi.
    Photo: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    You know, it’s hard work being a historic president elevated by God himself to save America and then the whole world. So it’s understandable that Donald Trump is deeply annoyed, and even embarrassed, that while he was off cutting deals, ending wars, and accepting presents from grateful foreign leaders, his hirelings in Congress still can’t end the government shutdown. He fully vented his wrath at Truth Social:

    I just got back from Asia where I met the Leaders of many Countries, including China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, and others. It was a Great Honor to meet them but, more particularly, to see that America is respected again — RESPECTED LIKE NEVER BEFORE! Great Trade Deals were made, Long Term relationships now exist, and money is pouring into our Country because of Tariffs and, frankly, the Landslide Results of the 2024 Presidential Election. The one question that kept coming up, however, was how did the Democrats SHUT DOWN the United States of America, and why did the powerful Republicans allow them to do it? The fact is, in flying back, I thought a great deal about that question, WHY?

    After repeating some lies about illegal immigrants being the principal beneficiaries of the Democratic health-care demands that congressional Republicans have refused to consider, the president cut to the chase: “It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!”

    In other words: “This isn’t my problem, it’s yours, so go fix it!”

    It’s certainly an unwelcome message to his loyal congressional troops. Along with their Democratic opponents, they have been waiting for Trump to cut some sort of deal to end the shutdown. Having deferred to the administration to an embarrassing degree from the moment his second term began, Republicans in Congress will be understandably chagrined to be told they are on their own. The one thing, perhaps the only thing, that they are likely to deny him in this demand (and not for the first time) is a complete end to the Senate filibuster. Yes, it would rob Democrats of the one bit of leverage they have in 2025, which they’ve used to bring Trump’s legislative agenda to a halt and to advance their own priorities. But it would also expose Republicans to the future wrath of a Democratic trifecta regime long after Trump has left Washington for good. You can’t really expect the narcissist-in-chief to care about what happens when he’s gone, but Republicans will be loathe to disarm future Senate minorities.

    They are certainly making that clear today in extremely rare rebukes to Trump, as Politico reports:

    [John] Thune has defended the filibuster multiple times during the shutdown, calling it a “bad idea” to suggest eliminating it. “The 60-vote threshold has protected this country,” he said earlier this month.

    Ryan Wrasse, a spokesperson for the South Dakota Republican, said in a statement on Friday that “Leader Thune’s position on the importance of the legislative filibuster is unchanged.”

    Kate Noyes — a spokesperson for Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 2 GOP leader — said on Friday his position in support of the legislative filibuster also hasn’t changed….

    Prior to Trump’s postings Thursday, more than a dozen GOP senators had rejected chatter about changing Senate rules as the shutdown dragged on in recent weeks. 

    As so the government shutdown will drag on for the time being, with the man who considers himself the greatest deal-maker in human history on the sidelines, pouting. Perhaps he’ll get back on Air Force One and seek more congenial surroundings somewhere, anywhere, other than the ungrateful country over which he grudgingly presides. Or maybe he’ll get over it and do his job. Tens of millions of Americans who are about to lose SNAP benefits this weekend, along with tens of millions more who will receive notices their health-insurance costs are about to skyrocket, are counting on him to help resolve the crisis. Having said for years about every problem that “Only I can fix it,” it’s no time for him to just walk away.

    This piece has been updated.

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • President Trump Says Senate Should Scrap The Filibuster To End The Shutdown, An Idea Opposed By Republicans – KXL

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Back from a week abroad, President Donald Trump is calling on the Senate to scrap the filibuster and reopen the government after a monthlong shutdown, breaking with majority Republicans who have long opposed such a move.

    Trump said in a post on his social media site Thursday that “THE CHOICE IS CLEAR — INITIATE THE ‘NUCLEAR OPTION,’ GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER.”

    Trump’s sudden decision to assert himself into the shutdown debate — bringing the highly charged demand to end the filibuster — is certain to set the Senate on edge. It could spur senators toward their own compromise or send the chamber spiraling toward a new sense of crisis.

    Trump has long called for Republicans to get rid of the Senate rule that requires 60 votes to overcome objections, dating all the way back to his first term in office. The rule gives Democrats a check on the 53-seat Republican majority and enough votes to keep the government closed while they demand an extension of health care subsidies.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune and most members of his Republican conference have strongly opposed changing the filibuster, arguing that it is vital to the institution of the Senate and has allowed them to halt Democratic policies when they are in the minority.

    Thune has repeatedly said he is not considering changing the rules to end the shutdown, and his spokesman, Ryan Wrasse, said in a statement Friday that the leader’s “position on the importance of the legislative filibuster is unchanged.”

    Broad GOP support for filibuster

    Even if Thune wanted to change the filibuster, he would not currently have the votes to do so.

    “The filibuster forces us to find common ground in the Senate,” Republican Sen. John Curtis of Utah posted on X Friday morning, responding to Trump’s comments and echoing the sentiments of many of his Senate Republican colleagues. “Power changes hands, but principles shouldn’t. I’m a firm no on eliminating it.”

    Debate has swirled around the legislative filibuster for years. Many Democrats pushed to eliminate it when they had full power in Washington, as the Republicans do now, four years ago. But they ultimately didn’t have the votes after enough Democratic senators opposed the move, predicting such an action would come back to haunt them.

    Speaker Mike Johnson also defended the filibuster Friday, while conceding “it’s not my call.” He criticized Democrats for pushing to get rid of it when they had power.

    “The safeguard in the Senate has always been the filibuster,” Johnson said, adding that Trump’s comments are “the president’s anger at the situation.”

    Little progress on shutdown

    Trump’s call comes as the two parties have made little progress toward resolving the shutdown standoff while he was away for a week in Asia. He said in his post that he gave a “great deal” of thought to his choice on his flight home and that one question that kept coming up during his trip was why “powerful Republicans allow” the Democrats to shut down parts of the government.

    While quiet talks are underway, particularly among bipartisan senators, the shutdown is not expected to end before next week, as both the House and Senate are out of session. Democrats say they won’t vote to reopen the government until Republicans negotiate an extension to the health care subsidies while Republicans say they won’t negotiate until the government is reopened.

    As the shutdown drags on, from coast to coast, fallout from the dysfunction of the shuttered federal government is hitting home: Alaskans are stockpiling moose, caribou and fish for winter, even before SNAP food aid is scheduled to shut off. Mainers are filling up their home-heating oil tanks, but waiting on the federal subsidies that are nowhere in sight.

    Flights are being delayed with holiday travel around the corner. Workers are going without paychecks. And Americans are getting a first glimpse of the skyrocketing health care insurance costs that are at the center of the stalemate on Capitol Hill. Money for food aid — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — will start to run out this weekend.

    “People are stressing,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as food options in her state grow scarce.

    “We are well past time to have this behind us.”

    Money for military, but not food aid

    The White House has moved money around to ensure the military is paid, but refuses to tap funds for food aid. In fact, Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” signed into law this summer, delivered the most substantial cut ever to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, projected to result in some 2.4 million people off the program.

    At the same time, many Americans who purchase their own health insurance through the federal and state marketplaces, with open enrollment also beginning Saturday, are experiencing sticker shock as premium prices jump.

    “We are holding food over the heads of poor people so that we can take away their health care,” said Rev. Ryan Stoess during a prayer with religious leaders at the U.S. Capitol.

    “God help us,” he said, “when the cruelty is the point.”

    Deadlines shift to next week

    The House remains closed down under Johnson for the past month and senators departed for the long weekend on Thursday.

    That means the shutdown, in its 30th day, appears likely to stretch into another week if the filibuster remains. If the shutdown continues, it could become the longest in history, surpassing the 35-day lapse that ended in 2019, during Trump’s first term, over his demands to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

    The next inflection point comes after Tuesday’s off-year elections — the New York City mayor’s race, as well as elections in Virginia and New Jersey that will determine those states’ governors. Many expect that once those winners and losers are declared, and the Democrats and Republicans assess their political standing with the voters, they might be ready to hunker down for a deal.

    “I hope that it frees people up to move forward with opening the government,” Thune said.

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Trump urges Republicans to launch “Nuclear Option” against filibuster

    President Donald Trump has called on Republicans to exterminate the filibuster rule to clear a path for the end of the government shutdown.

    Why It Matters

    The filibuster—a procedural move allowing senators to extend debates on bills indefinitely without a 60-vote majority—has long been viewed as a move to encourage bipartisanship in Congress and as a bulwark against political dominance by slim majorities in the upper chamber.

    Banishing the rule would further empower the already dominant Republicans in Congress.

    What To Know

    Trump, in a post on his Truth Social page, said he had been repeatedly asked on his tour of Asia this week about the government shutdown.

    “The one question that kept coming up, however, was how did the Democrats SHUT DOWN the United States of America, and why did the powerful Republicans allow them to do it?” he said.

    Trump added that Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson “are doing a GREAT job but the Democrats are Crazed Lunatics that have lost all sense of WISDOM and REALITY.”

    The president said the demands Democrats were making to end the shutdown “will hurt American citizens, and Republicans will not let it happen.”

    “It is now time for the Republicans to play their “TRUMP CARD,” and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!” Trump said.

    During former President Joe Biden’s term in office, many Democrats called for an end to the Senate‘s filibuster rule but Biden opposed scrapping it, saying that he wants to govern in a bipartisan manner and garner the support of Republicans for his legislative priorities. 

    What People Are Saying

    Trump, also in his post: “Just a short while ago, the Democrats, while in power, fought for three years to do this, but were unable to pull it off because of Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Never have the Democrats fought so hard to do something because they knew the tremendous strength that terminating the Filibuster would give them..Now I want to do it in order to take advantage of the Democrats.” 

    What Happens Next

    Senate Republicans have ruled out changing the rules to abolish the filibuster, arguing that it would ultimately benefit Democrats the next time they retake power, but Trump said Republicans should act now to immediately end the shutdown.

    Source link

  • President Trump calls for end of Senate filibuster to break funding stalemate

    President Donald Trump on Thursday urged congressional Republicans to unilaterally end the government shutdown by eliminating the filibuster — an unprecedented step that GOP leaders have opposed taking until now.”It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.Senate Republicans have so far ruled out changing the Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold needed for passing legislation, arguing that it would ultimately benefit Democrats the next time they retake power.But Trump, in his post, brushed off that concern, contending that Republicans should take advantage of the opportunity first.”Now I want to do it in order to take advantage of the Democrats,” Trump wrote.

    President Donald Trump on Thursday urged congressional Republicans to unilaterally end the government shutdown by eliminating the filibuster — an unprecedented step that GOP leaders have opposed taking until now.

    “It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

    Senate Republicans have so far ruled out changing the Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold needed for passing legislation, arguing that it would ultimately benefit Democrats the next time they retake power.

    But Trump, in his post, brushed off that concern, contending that Republicans should take advantage of the opportunity first.

    “Now I want to do it in order to take advantage of the Democrats,” Trump wrote.

    Source link

  • Fetterman’s Case for Helping GOP Nuke Filibuster Is Faulty

    Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    Pennsylvania Democratic senator John Fetterman has notoriously been taking an unorthodox path since Donald Trump reentered the White House. It’s a matter of some dispute as to whether Fetterman’s growing estrangement from his own party has anything to do with his medical and mental-health struggles following a 2022 stroke. Regardless of these concerns, Fetterman’s political situtation is becoming increasingly fraught, particularly for someone once firmly ensconced in the progressive, Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.

    Fetterman has famously criticized other Democrats for saying mean things about the 47th president. He has split from them on certain confirmation votes (he was, for example, the only Democrat to vote to confirm Pam Bondi as attorney general). He has defended ICE against Democratic criticism. And most conspicuously, he has become perhaps one of the Senate’s most hardcore supporters of everything Israel has done in its war with Gaza. Public-opinion polls in Pennsylvania show he is now more popular with Republicans than with Democrats.

    So it wasn’t particularly surprising when Fetterman joined two of the 47 Senate Democrats (Catherine Cortez Masto and Angus King) in voting for the Republican-sponsored stopgap spending bill at the end of September, rejecting the conditions most Democrats placed on cooperating to keep the federal government open. Fetterman is, however, placing himself on an island by agreeing with far-right Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Chip Roy that it’s time to crush the Senate Democratic opposition by “nuking” the filibuster, as The Hill reported:

    Democratic Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) told reporters Tuesday that he would support Republicans using the so-called nuclear option to override the Senate filibuster to pass a bill to reopen the government.

    Fetterman said the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is running out of money and people “need to eat” as the government shutdown dragged into its 21st day …

    “This is just bad political theater. Open it up,” he said.

    Asked if he would support Republicans “nuking” the filibuster to let a House-passed funding measure pass the Senate with a simple-majority vote, Fetterman replied affirmatively.

    More specifically, Fetterman appeared to endorse not a total abolition of the filibuster but a “carve-out” to allow a vote to reopen the government to pass the Senate by a simple majority. And he rationalized that position by noting that Democrats had in the past supported their own carve-outs.

    “We ran on that. We ran on killing the filibuster, and now we love it. Carve it out so we can move on. I support it because it makes it more difficult to shut the government down in the future, and that’s where it’s entirely appropriate,” he said. “I don’t want to hear any Democrat clutching their pearls about the filibuster. We all ran on it.”

    The filibuster isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition, and not all carve-outs are alike. Over the years, Congress has carved out a series of exceptions to the right to filibuster Senate votes, notably executive- and judicial-branch confirmations and congressional budget measures (e.g., the huge “budget reconciliation” bills like this year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act). This year, Senate Republicans also implicitly carved out certain budget scoring rules to make it easier to disguise the deficit-swelling nature of the OBBBA. So the question is not, as Fetterman appears to suggest, whether to have filibuster carve-outs: It’s what the carve-out is for and whom it benefits.

    The Democratic carve-out proposal Fetterman is apparently alluding to as something “we ran on” was to exempt voting-rights measures from the filibuster following a series of state voter-suppression measures sponsored by Republican-controlled states and defended by Senate Republicans. Some Democrats (notably Kamala Harris) also backed a carve-out for congressional measures to ensure abortion rights in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing Roe v. Wade. In both cases, the proposed carve-outs involved fundamental rights. In the current situation, the right in question is the Senate majority’s power to deny Democrats their one bit of significant leverage over the Trump administration and its congressional allies at a time when Republicans are running the country almost exclusively via executive actions and filibusterproof budget measures (e.g., the OBBBA). The lights really do go out for congressional Democrats if they can’t use this limited power to stand in the way of the Trump 2.0. steamroller.

    Fetterman is obviously within his rights to conclude that the cost the country is paying for the government shutdown is too high and to cross the aisle to help the GOP end it. But there’s nothing hypocritical about Democrats wanting to get rid of the filibuster for one thing and not for another; it’s not and never has been an all-or-nothing matter. So Fetterman should probably omit this argument from his litany of grievances about his party.


    See All



    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley Speaks All Night Denouncing Authoritarianism – KXL

    Source: YouTube

    U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has been speaking all night and into the early morning hours of Wednesday, filibustering about the Trump Administration and its “authoritarian” ways of governing.

    Oregon’s junior senator began speaking at 4pm on Tuesday and says outright that President Donald Trump is a “great threat to democracy” and said that a government should never send its military to confront peaceful protesters.

    Merkley spoke for 30 hours back in February to denounce the nomination of eventual Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought.

    More about:

    Noah Friedman

    Source link

  • Some lawmakers call for ‘nuclear option’ to end government shutdown. What is it?

    Some lawmakers have called for using the “nuclear option” to override the Senate filibuster and end the government shutdown.

    Some lawmakers have called for using the “nuclear option” to override the Senate filibuster and end the government shutdown.

    Sonder Bridge Photography, UnSplash

    As the government shutdown drags on, a small group of lawmakers is embracing the “nuclear option.”

    In recent days, several Republicans and one Democrat have spoken out in favor of the controversial legislative maneuver, which could help break the deadlock on Capitol Hill. However, congressional leaders remain opposed to the idea.

    The so-called nuclear option entails overriding the Senate filibuster — a long-standing procedural tactic — which allows any senator to delay or block a vote by extending the window of debate indefinitely.

    Under current Senate rules, a 60-vote supermajority is needed to invoke cloture and end debate. If the filibuster were eliminated — which could be done by a simple majority vote — just 51 senators would be sufficient to advance legislation, paving the way for the narrow GOP majority to pass a spending bill.

    The nuclear option has already been used several times in the past, allowing a simple majority to advance nominations. But, the filibuster remains in place for passing legislation.

    The option was first employed in 2013 by Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, to confirm lower court judicial nominees. Then, in 2017, Senate Republicans used the last resort method to confirm Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.

    Calls for the nuclear option

    “I think Republicans ought to take a long, hard look at the 60 vote threshold, because I think we’re just being beholden to a broken system right now,” Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican, told reporters on Oct. 20.

    “At a minimum, why don’t we take a look at it for (continuing resolutions),” he added. “Why shouldn’t we have a 50-vote threshold to be able to fund the government if the majority of the people want to do that.”

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene — a Georgia Republican and frequent critic of House GOP leadership — was less equivocal.

    “As I have been saying for weeks now, Republicans in the Senate can reopen the government, without Democrats, by using the nuclear option,” Greene wrote on X on Oct. 21. “All of this political drama would end if Republicans would use the power we have. Democrats will do it when they regain power. Like it or not.”

    Sen. Susan Collins, a long-serving Maine Republican, said she is wary of nuking the filibuster, but didn’t write it off entirely.

    “I am a strong supporter of the filibuster, but obviously I’ll look at any plan that anyone puts out in order to reopen the government,” she told NOTUS, a nonprofit news outlet, on Oct. 20.

    Additionally, at least one Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, signaled his desire to do away with the filibuster.

    Speaking to reporters on Oct. 21, he said he would support a carve-out in the filibuster to allow legislation to fund the government to move forward with a simple majority.

    “Carve it out so we can move on,” Fetterman said, according to The Hill. “I support it because it makes it more difficult to shut the government down in the future, and that’s where it’s entirely appropriate … I don’t want to hear any Democrat clutching their pearls about the filibuster. We all ran on it.”

    In 2022, Senate Democrats made a high-profile attempt to override the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation, though it ultimately failed due to opposition from Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin.

    Pushback from leadership

    However, other lawmakers, including GOP leadership, have dismissed attempts to override the legislative tactic, pointing to concerns that it could come back to hurt them in the long-run.

    “There’s always a lot of swirl out there, as you know, from social media, et cetera, but no, I have not had that conversation,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters in early October when asked about ending the filibuster, according to Politico.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson signaled the move would be risky.

    “Is it possible? Yes,” he said, according to the outlet. “Is it wise? A lot of people would tell you it’s not. I mean, on the Republican side, I would be deeply concerned if the Democrats had a bare majority in the Senate right now.”

    Brendan Rascius

    McClatchy DC

    Brendan Rascius is a McClatchy national real-time reporter covering politics and international news. He has a master’s in journalism from Columbia University and a bachelor’s in political science from Southern Connecticut State University.

    Brendan Rascius

    Source link

  • Why Biden is only just about to face his first veto | CNN Politics

    Why Biden is only just about to face his first veto | CNN Politics

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Spend some time reading about how the presidential veto has fallen into disuse and you can’t help but think it coincides with an era where the filibuster and other forms of Capitol Hill obstruction have been put on steroids.

    It’s an indication of how the constitutional vision of the US government – with its separation of powers – has contorted to what we have today, where very little can pass out of one branch of government and the executive is taking more and more power.

    The Constitution spells out specific instructions for use of the veto as a means to separate power. The filibuster is a custom that isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, but has complete control over modern Washington and is leaving a vacuum for presidents to fill.

    Still, issuing a veto is a rite of passage for every modern president, and Joe Biden is about to experience his first.

    There are two issues where lawmakers from both chambers are testing Biden.

    The first relates to a Biden administration retirement investment rule, which according to CNN’s report, “allows managers of retirement funds to consider the impact of climate change and other environmental, social and governance factors when picking investments.”

    Normally, Democrats would have used filibuster rules to block action against the rule in the Senate. But since lawmakers are looking to repeal an executive rule and not a law, Republicans were able to vote to repeal it on Wednesday with help from two red-state Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana. Biden is expected to veto the measure, which was passed by the House on Tuesday.

    It would take two-thirds supermajorities in both chambers (usually 67 of 100 senators and 290 of 435 representatives) to override the expected veto.

    As for the second issue testing Biden, there had been talk that the president could veto a bill pushed by congressional Republicans to invalidate the DC city council’s effort to rewrite its criminal law. Critics argue the new law is soft on violent criminals.

    But Biden told Democratic senators on Thursday that he won’t use his veto power in this case and would sign the measure to repeal DC’s new crime law. In a subsequent tweet, he noted, “I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings.”

    Regardless, it took more than two years to get to this point, when a Republican-controlled House is testing Biden and a slim Democratic majority in the Senate is unable to protect him from pulling out his veto pen.

    That it’s taken more than two years for Biden to face his first veto, after Republicans took control of the House in January, is about in line with when former President Donald Trump issued his first veto, more than two years into his presidency.

    The levers of government were completely reversed back then. The Republican president was usually protected by a slim Republican majority in the Senate from legislation passed out of a House controlled by Democrats.

    The trend away from vetoes has carried through several presidents as use of the filibuster has increased.

    Trump threatened to veto lots of things, but he only ended up issuing 10. Just one of those – his veto of a bill to authorize defense spending – was overridden.

    Note: Read this explanation of the difference between a regular veto and a pocket veto. The latter occurs when a president simply declines to sign a bill and Congress goes into recess. But there hasn’t been one of those in more than 22 years.

    Barack Obama issued 12 vetoes as president and also had one overridden. Lopsided votes in the House and Senate enacted a law allowing citizens to sue Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 attacks.

    George W. Bush was more than five years into his presidency before he issued his first veto, but there was a flurry of activity in his final two years, when he, like Obama, ultimately used his veto 12 items.

    Unlike Obama, Bush had four vetoes overridden, although one of those was due to a clerical issue that required him to veto (and be overridden) twice on the same farm bill. He was also overridden by lawmakers in order to avoid a slash in payments to Medicare providers.

    The first veto was issued by the first president after the first census. George Washington, a Southerner, opposed Congress’ plan to reapportion congressional seats to each state by the state’s population, which would have given more seats to Northern states.

    He issued the veto because the Constitution said there shouldn’t be more than one lawmaker per 30,000 people, and the plan approved by Congress included eight states exceeding that ratio. Thomas Jefferson, who encouraged the veto, according to the National Archives, ultimately devised a new plan to apportion seats based on the population as a whole.

    The first master of the veto was Grover Cleveland, who cracked down on Congress’ practice of acting to individually grant pensions to people who had been rejected by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    Most presidents up to that point had issued either zero or a handful of vetoes. Cleveland, however, issued 414 vetoes during his first term. His most notable veto was to reject crop subsidies requested by Texas. Only two of his hundreds of vetoes were overridden during his first term. In total, across two terms, he issued more than 580 vetoes.

    Andrew Johnson, who ascended to the presidency after Abraham Lincoln’s death, suffered the most veto overrides: 15. It makes sense since Johnson, a Southern Democrat, clashed with the Northern Republicans who controlled Capitol Hill at the time.

    The veto practice has fallen into general disuse for a number of reasons, according to Steven Smith, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, who has pointed out that for starters, Congress simply doesn’t send as many bills to presidents as it used to.

    Rather than congressional committees writing bills, since the mid-’90s, when then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich squared off with then-President Bill Clinton, congressional leaders have taken over much of the process. That means there’s more coordination between the White House and Capitol Hill when the same party is in control of both.

    When there is a split between the White House and Congress, the president’s allies in the Senate usually offer protection.

    “Many of the partisan, controversial measures die in the Senate before they can be sent to the president for signature or veto,” Smith wrote in his newsletter in 2021. Presidents have also assumed more power from Congress, giving Congress less incentive to act.

    “Every president really in the modern era, especially in the last three or four decades, has stretched the use of unilateral action,” Smith told me on the phone, noting as an example that instead of waiting for Congress, Biden has tried to enact student loan debt relief on his own. While these actions are frequently challenged in court, they are rarely completely repealed.

    “And because of the gridlock on Capitol Hill, everyone has to live with that,” he said.

    Congressional obstruction seems counterproductive in this way. Less legislation has meant fewer vetoes, but also more power for presidents.

    Source link

  • Divided government is more productive than you think | CNN Politics

    Divided government is more productive than you think | CNN Politics

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Now that CNN has projected Republicans will win the House of Representatives, it’s time to consider a Washington where both parties have some control.

    Despite underperforming on Election Day, the GOP gains will have a major impact on what’s accomplished in the coming two years.

    Additional climate change policy? Don’t count on it. National abortion legislation? Not a chance. Voting rights? Not likely.

    Plus, Republicans have indicated they will use any leverage they can find – including the debt ceiling – to force spending cuts.

    While you might immediately think this is all a recipe for a stalemate in Washington, I was surprised to read the argument, backed up by research, that the US government actually overperforms during periods of divided government.

    Those periods are coming more and more frequently, by the way. While there used to be relatively long periods of a decade or more during which one party controlled all of Washington, recent presidents have lost control of the House.

    Barack Obama, Donald Trump and George W. Bush each saw their party lose the House. President Joe Biden will join that club.

    The two Republicans in the ’80s and ‘90s – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush – both had productive presidencies and never enjoyed a sympathetic congressional majority. The last president to enjoy unified government throughout his presidency was Democrat Jimmy Carter, and voters did not look very kindly on him in the final analysis.

    What’s below are excerpts from separate phone conversations conducted before the midterm election with Frances Lee and James Curry, authors of the 2020 book, “The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era.” Lee is a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, and Curry is a political science professor at the University of Utah. What led me to them was their 2020 argument that divided government overperforms and unified government underperforms expectations.

    What should Americans know about divided government?

    LEE: It’s the normal state of affairs in our politics in the modern era. Since 1980, something like two-thirds of the time we’ve had a divided government.

    And yet you think about all the things that government has undertaken in the years since the Second World War. The role and scope of the US government is so much greater now than it was then. And a lot of that happened in divided government. Most of that has been under divided government time. …

    Unified government usually results in disappointment for the party in power, which is just exactly what we’ve seen here in (this) Congress. Democrats were unable to deliver on their bold agenda, and that’s not different than what Republicans faced when they had unified government and couldn’t pass repeal and replace of Obamacare.

    Now hold on. Republicans passed a massive tax cut bill with unified government. Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which included spending to address climate change. Those are the major accomplishments of recent years, no?

    CURRY: I think we’re making a mistake when we say that those are the three biggest things that have happened. For instance, earlier you talked about the American Rescue Plan (another Covid relief bill passed with only Democratic support) – it is not as significant as the CARES Act, which was the first major Covid relief legislation passed by Congress. It passed in March of 2020, and it passed on an overwhelming bipartisan basis.

    A lot of what was included in the American Rescue Plan were things that were initially set out under the CARES Act. Arguably the CARES Act was the single most important legislative accomplishment that we’ve had in this country in several decades.

    And there are other examples too … things like criminal justice reform that was passed with bipartisan support in 2018, and many others things that are just as significant from a public policy standpoint, including also the bipartisan infrastructure bill that Congress passed last year.

    They don’t have as much political significance, foremost because they were passed on a single-party basis. But I don’t think you can make the case that they’re necessarily more significant in terms of policy consequences for the country.

    (In a follow-up email, Curry said that Congress often flies its bipartisanship accomplishments under the radar as part of larger bills, which means they don’t get as much attention. He pointed to big-ticket items that passed quietly in 2019 as part of larger spending bills, including raising the age to buy tobacco to 21, pushing through the first major pay raise for federal employees in years and repealing unpopular Obamacare taxes. He has similar examples for each recent year. But if they are not contentious, they get less attention, he said.)

    Your argument is counter to the current narrative of American politics – that parties enact more on their own. Is that a media problem? A partisanship problem?

    LEE: I’m still blown away by how much was done on Covid. Basically the United States government spent 75% more in 2020 than it spent in 2019. All that was Covid.

    You’re talking about New Deal levels of spending and yet people just didn’t even seem to notice it because it was done on a bipartisan basis. We basically had a universal basic income in response to Covid and all the small business aid – it’s just extraordinary – and yet, it just seemed to pass people by as though nothing important occurred.

    I don’t think it’s just a media story. The media wrote stories about the Covid aid bills, but it just didn’t capture people’s attention.

    And I think that’s because it didn’t cut in favor of or against either party. When you don’t have a story that drives a partisan narrative, most people are just not that interested in it. Most people that pay attention to politics are not that interested in it. It lacks a rooting interest.

    What about the big things that need action? Immigration reform has eluded Congress for decades and climate change is an existential threat. How can divided government be preferable if Congress can’t come together to address these problems?

    CURRY: I’m not saying divided government is preferable, which I think is important. I’m just saying it doesn’t make that big a difference on a lot of these issues.

    So we’ve seen that list of issues you just mentioned – climate change, immigration, etc. These are issues that Congress has equally struggled to take big, bold action on under divided or unified government.

    On climate change, for instance, Democrats want to do big, bold things, but they aren’t able to go as far as they want to, because not only are there disagreements between the parties on how to address climate change, there are disagreements among Democrats about the best way to address climate and environmental legislation.

    On immigration, you have clear divisions across party lines, but also divisions within each party.

    LEE: Congress can pass legislation spending money or cutting taxes. The problem is it’s difficult to do things that create backlash. It’s hard to do serious climate legislation without being prepared to accept a backlash.

    Isn’t this just a structural problem then? If there was no requirement for a filibuster supermajority, couldn’t a simple majority of lawmakers be more effective?

    LEE: On the two examples that you just put forward – on immigration and climate – the filibuster has not been the obstacle to recent efforts.

    In immigration reform that Republicans attempted to do (under Trump), they couldn’t get majorities in either the House or Senate. Democrats were way short of a Senate majority when they tried to do climate legislation under Obama. They barely got out of the House.

    (Curry and Lee’s research shows the filibuster is not the primary culprit standing in the way of four out of five of the priorities that parties have failed to enact since 1985.)

    CURRY: We found a more common reason why the parties fail on the things that can be accomplished is because they are unable to unify internally about what to do. The filibuster matters, but it is far from the most significant thing.

    But certainly the legislation that passes under divided government is different than what would have passed under a unified government. The parties must compromise more. Whether the government is unified or divided matters, right?

    CURRY: It makes a difference certainly for precisely what is in these final policy bills. It certainly makes a difference for the politics of the moment. It really makes a difference for each side of the aisle in terms of being able to say, we got this much done or that much done that matches my hopes and dreams as a Democrat or a Republican.

    But it’s just sort of an overstated story that unified government means big, bold things happen and divided government means they don’t.

    Wouldn’t Washington work better if one party was more easily able to deliver on its goals when voters gave it power?

    CURRY: Whether it would be better if we had a situation like you have in more parliamentary-style governments where a party takes control, they pass what they will and stand to voters, I think it’s just in the eye of the beholder.

    On one hand, potentially, yes, because it’s very clear and clean from a party responsibility or electoral responsibility standpoint, where parties pass things and then voters can hold them accountable or not. On the other hand, then you would see more wild swings in policy from election to election.

    Does the growing number of swings in power in Congress mean American voters consciously prefer divided government?

    CURRY: I don’t think that Americans necessarily have a preference for divided government. That’s something that people sometimes say. It sounds nice.

    But the reality is that roughly since the 1980s and early 1990s, it’s been the case that electoral margins are really tight – you have relatively even numbers of Americans that prefer Democrats and Republicans. And so from election to election, based on turnout and swings back and forth, you get this constant back and forth of our electoral politics where one party is in control for two to four years and then the other party is in control.

    That’s really important because it has massive implications for our politics. If you have a political system and political dynamic like we have today, where each party thinks they can constantly win back control or lose control of the House, the Senate and the presidency, it ups the stakes for every single decision that’s going to be made.

    Everything is considered through a lens of how will this affect our partisan fortunes in the next election, and that makes things just naturally more contentious.

    Can we agree that ours is not a very effective way to govern?

    CURRY: It is certainly the case that Congress does not pass every single thing that every person wants it to. But I don’t think that is ever true of any government. Nor do I think that’s a reasonable bar to set a government against.

    The reality is Congress does a lot of stuff and does a lot more than people give it credit for, but it also fails to take action on a lot of policies. I think that’s just politics. That’s just government. It’s not just an American problem, and it’s not just a facet of our specific political system.

    Source link