ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

What Could A Filibuster-Free Democratic Congress Get Done?

[ Posted Monday, August 29th, 2022 – 15:46 UTC ]

Even though it is a Monday, I find myself in an optimistic mood. Maybe it's just the end of the political Silly Season, but I found myself wondering what would happen if the Democrats truly ran the tables in the midterms and wound up still in control of the House of Representatives and with at least 52 senators in the Senate (so Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin could be politely told to go fly a kite by Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democrats). What could they get done? What would their agenda look like, with a Democrat in the White House ready to sign whatever passed? I know, I know, it is still the longest of longshots -- Democrats will likely still lose the House even if they manage to expand their majority in the Senate -- but like I said, I'm feeling optimistic, so let's just assume it does somehow come to pass.

Of course, it goes without mention that the first thing they would absolutely have to accomplish would be putting a stake through the heart of the legislative filibuster. If Republicans ever gain control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, they're going to get rid of it so fast it'll make your head spin, so why not get proactive and get the Democratic agenda passed before that happens?

There's no guarantee that a broad change in the rules to jettison the filibuster would happen, of course. It might not just be Sinema and Manchin who would balk at going that far, to put it another way. The only test votes on it I recall from the current Senate were on very specific constitutional rights -- like renewing the Voting Rights Act or codifying the protections of Roe v. Wade. Some Democratic senators might acquiesce to making a new carveout in the filibuster rules when basic constitutional rights are in danger, but still be wary of removing it for all legislation. But for the sake of argument here, let's assume that they could get 51 votes to abolish the filibuster forever. What would they do next?

Well, pretty much what they've tried to do already, for the most part. Democrats would indeed pass an updated Voting Rights Act. They would indeed create a national right to abortion. They could also pass the companion bill to the voting rights one that would reform state-level election laws across the country, to fight back against rogue Republican officials and voter-intimidation and voter-suppression laws in red states. If it doesn't happen in the lame-duck Congress, Democrats could also update the Electoral Count Act to remove the possibility that what Donald Trump wanted to have happen on January 6th could ever happen in the future. They could also codify rights to: gay marriage, interracial marriage, contraception, or even the basic right of privacy; to fend off any future Supreme Court rollbacks of rights people have enjoyed for half a century or more.

There are some longstanding Democratic goals that could pass, although none of these is guaranteed -- even without Manchin and Sinema, Democrats would still need to corral all 50 of the other votes to get anything through, and not every Senate Democrat is completely on board with everything on the Democratic agenda. Even so, the possibility exists for finally passing a federal $15 minimum wage. And even if they couldn't agree on anything else on immigration, Democrats could at the very least codify the DACA program to prevent it from being halted by any future Republican president (and to finally give all those covered by it a permanent path to citizenship).

Democrats could revisit and beef up things they've already accomplished with President Biden, like significantly broadening the ability of Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices (instead of the paltry pilot program they did pass). They could pass a lot stricter gun safety laws than what the Republicans agreed to, as well. Again, there'd be no guarantee these would get the required 51 votes, but it certainly would be worth trying.

One huge area of the Democratic agenda contains all the things that Joe Manchin wouldn't agree to in the original Build Back Better bill. This is an extensive list and would be the biggest accomplishment from any Congress since F.D.R.'s New Deal. Here are some of the items that were left on Manchin's cutting-room floor:

  • Two free years of pre-K school.
  • Free or subsidized child care for parents of very young children, capped at 7 percent of income.
  • Two tuition-free years of community college.
  • Free or subsidized elder care.
  • Revive the beefed-up child tax credit that sent parents a check every month and cut childhood poverty by 40 percent.
  • Add coverage for hearing aids, vision care, and dental care to Medicare.
  • A $35-per-month cap on out-of-pocket insulin costs for everyone.
  • A minimum of four weeks paid family leave for all workers.
  • One million new affordable housing units, as well as modernizing existing public housing.

All of this would be paid for by revisiting all the Trump tax cuts and throwing out the ones most egregiously slanted to upper-income earners and gigantic corporations.

One interesting side effect of jettisoning the filibuster would be the fact that Democrats wouldn't have to stuff everything into one giant omnibus bill any more. This was necessary, under the "budget reconciliation" loophole in the filibuster rules, but would be a moot point if all bills only needed a simple majority to pass. This would also eliminate the "Byrd bath" and having to pay any attention to what the parliamentarian thought about things. So individual bills could be tailored for similar subjects, for instance a single bill which would: provide free pre-K, subsidize child care, expand the child tax credit, provide family leave, and throw in tuition-free community college too -- and call it something like the "Helping Families Act" or something equally as family- and child-centered.

All of this is in no way a definitive list, of course. There are all kinds of other things Democrats could and should address. Descheduling cannabis and finally ending the federal War On Weed, for one. Or granting statehood to Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico. If Democrats ever felt like they were running out of ideas, all they'd have to do is ask Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or maybe Sherrod Brown what they'd also like to see passed. Maybe without Republicans voting against it they could pass a law to scrutinize gas companies for price-gouging just as a regular way of doing business, perhaps? The horizons for possibilities would be wide indeed.

Democratic voters are used to being disappointed, after voting in majorities to Congress. This time around could be different. This time around a Democratic Congress could actually be transformative. They could provide solid examples of how they are fighting for average Americans, instead of all the endless promises and big talk on the campaign trail (from both parties, it bears pointing out). Voters are used to unkept promises, so this would be a welcome change.

So that's my optimistic Monday rundown on what things could be like next year, if Democrats manage to beat all historical expectations and hold onto Congress -- and actually expand their razor-thin margin in the Senate to the point where they could absolutely ignore Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema for the next two years.

Just think of what the 2024 campaign would be like, if Democrats managed to get even the lion's share of the things listed here onto President Joe Biden's desk. Just think of how many things Democratic candidates would have to brag about -- "We made your lives better and the Republicans fought us every step of the way!" That's an optimistic way to start a week, right?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

7 Comments on “What Could A Filibuster-Free Democratic Congress Get Done?”

  1. [1] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    They could also codify rights to: gay marriage, interracial marriage...

    Hey CW,

    There is no such thing as "gay marriage" or "gay rights" or "interracial marriage". There is "marriage equality" and "equal rights", however. We aren't asking for something special or unique just for ourselves, we are simply asking for the same rights that others have enjoyed for so long: the right to love who we choose to love.

    I know that you are aware of this, but like continuing to use "pro-lifers" instead of "forced birthers", the old terms do not tell the real story.

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Citizen's United should be the first to go right after our civil rights are finally codified. Getting unlimited money out of our elections will change politics in our country more than anything has in over a century.

    I'd also love to see a Truth in Broadcasting law passed requiring any program that is going to intentionally publish stories presenting information known to be untrue as being true to have to place announcements at the beginning, at the end, and after any breaks the show takes for commercials stating that the show is presenting knowingly untrue information as "facts".

    It should not be too big a deal, honestly. FoxNews told a judge that Tucker Carlson's viewers all knew that they were being lied to by Tucker, and the judge agreed with that claim and ruled in FoxNews' favor. If FoxNews' viewers supposedly already know that they are being lied to, making sure that all of their viewers are made aware of that fact should not be a problem for them. Here's the great thing... if you aren't going to knowingly present untrue information as being factual, there is no need to put the warning up for that episode.

    I believe that journalism is the only non-government occupation that is mentioned in the Constitution. Journalists are granted special protections by our Constitution because their job at keeping the masses informed as to the actions of our government require it. They're jobs are too important for them to be allowed to lie to us and maintain those protections.

    "What about their First Amendment right to Free Speech?"

    They are free to say whatever they choose. If they choose to intentionally claim untrue information is true, then they must put that warning informing us of their intent to deceive at the beginning and end of their article. Deception was not what the First Amendment was written to protect.

  3. [3] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [2]

    My Dear Fellow Traveler,

    All kinds of nope.

    The First Amendment prohibits governments from prohibiting free speech and that would most certainly include forcing "news organizations" or "opinion programs" or what not to have to post warnings.

    JUST WHO decides what's false and what's real? Not only totally unworkable but it's the complete opposite of what the Framers wanted.

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Back on topic...

    I'm entirely confident about the Senate (53 seats) and less so *duh) for heavily Gerrymandered House races. But we still have two plus months of Republican cray-cray, lawlessness and possibly* a grip of indicted Repugs before the midterms. Dunno if DoJ protocol forces them to wait until after the election. What about state prosecutors?

    And more Trump madness. He'll surely announce before October and Season 2 of the J6C is all teed up.

    Don't you remember how the stench of Watergate hurt my Michigan Man Gerry Ford and the Repugs?

    I don't think the majority of us are so jaded as to think Trumpism and current GQP conduct isn't existentialism worse.

    I ignored Manchinema for a year in hopes Joe would pull a rabbit out of his hat right about now due to our collective nano-attention span. Turns out I was right.

    Moving along, at this I won't quite predict that were in due able Tsunami but I wouldn't be shocked in the least.

    Old bleeping conventional wisdom is on time out. Hopefully forever. Trump lies like hell in an honest sounding manner and Muricans now require truth in an honest sounding manner (paging Joe Biden) and...

    Results! And not half an extra half million dead citizens kind of results.

    Think about Loudermilk and those who asked for a pardon, just for starters. This in Lindsey Graham and go get a Carroll of friends to the polls blah blah blah.

    Easy peasy!

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    All kinds of typoz.

  6. [6] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Back on topic...

    I'm entirely confident about the Senate (53 seats) and less so (duh) for heavily Gerrymandered House races. But we still have two plus months of Republican cray-cray, lawlessness and possibly a grip of indicted Repugs* before the midterms. DoJ protocol regarding influencing upcoming election is ambiguous. And then there's the state prosecutors...

    And more Trump. He'll surely announce before October, putting himself on the ballot. If only there were 81 million voters laying around just looking for a little small-d democracy action.

    With Season 2 of the J6C all teed up. Must watch TV! :D

    Don't you remember how the stench of Watergate hurt my Michigan Man Gerry Ford and the Repugs in '74 and '76? (Spoiler alert: 49 seats)

    I don't think the majority of us are so jaded as to think Trumpism and current GQP conduct isn't worse.

    Like, existentialy worse.

    I ignored Manchinema for a year in hopes Joe would pull a rabbit out of his hat right about now, due to our collective nano-attention span. Turns out I was right and I saved a lot of teeth grinding.

    Moving along, at this time I not quite ready to predict that we're in for a Blue Tsunami but I wouldn't be shocked in the least.

    Old bleeping conventional wisdom is most certainly on time out...hopefully forever. Trump lies like hell in an honest sounding manner and Muricans now require truth in an honest sounding manner (paging Joe Biden) and...

    Results! Good results, not half a million needlessly dead citizens nor half a million fat cats needlessly enriched. Repeal Trump's tax cuts!

    *For starters, think Tour Guide Loudermilk and those who asked for a pardon. Throw in Lindsey Graham and don't forget to drive a carload of your peeps to the polls blah blah blah.

    Easy peasy!

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Much better.

Comments for this article are closed.