Different Filibuster Rules for Taxes/Budgets?

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
chilidog

I keep hearing that, now that CJ Roberts has declared the individual mandate piece of ACA to be a "tax," it will only take 51 Senate votes to repeal it.

Are there different rules for filibusters with regards to bills for budgets and taxes?  How exactly does that work?

I thought the filibuster was part of the Senate's parliamentary rules, it was constitutional, and could be changed even eliminated at the beginning of each Congress.

Comments

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
It does only take 51 Seantors

It does only take 51 Seantors to pass budget bills, but the rules also require any new spending or tax cut be "paid for". Which means repealing Obamacare will require about $150 billion in tax increases. Or cutting $150 bn from the rest of the budget. The TeaBaggers almost shutdon the govt, trying to cut $35 bn, and because they can't count they cut nothing in their showdown bill.

Capital.0
Capital.0's picture
Phaedrus76 wrote: It does

Phaedrus76 wrote:

It does only take 51 Seantors to pass budget bills, but the rules also require any new spending or tax cut be "paid for". Which means repealing Obamacare will require about $150 billion in tax increases. Or cutting $150 bn from the rest of the budget. The TeaBaggers almost shutdon the govt, trying to cut $35 bn, and because they can't count they cut nothing in their showdown bill.

Or just requires a fictitious CBO score.   It certainly worked in getting it passed...

 

 

chilidog
It seems to me that a lot of

It seems to me that a lot of "law" can be passed by working in some type of spending/taxing provision, if such bills can't be filibustered.

Doesn't this mean the eligibility age for Medicare can be lowered with only 51 Senators?

DynoDon
Not practical. Like here in

Not practical. Like here in CA where it takes a 2/3 vote to pass new taxes, it is wrong in a democracy to require supermajority votes to pass something. It was ironic that it only took a majority vote here to pass the supermajority law. Something not quite right about that.

chilidog
DynoDon wrote: It was ironic

DynoDon wrote:

It was ironic that it only took a majority vote here to pass the supermajority law.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

DynoDon
Don't you find it illogical

Don't you find it illogical to only require a 50%+1 passage for a law that will require a 2/3 majority to pass laws? At the least, it should require a supermajority to pass a law to require supermajorities. In the Senate, filibusters are like supermajority laws.

chilidog
OK I get it: it only takes a

OK I get it: it only takes a simple majority to pass the parliamentary rule for filibusters.

chilidog
I've frequently posted that

I've frequently posted that almost all of our deficits are the fault of the GOP because the GOP has always had at least 41 Senate seats in the last 30+ years.  So if the minority can't filibuster bills that are solely spending/taxing, I really can't say that.