Different Filibuster Rules for Taxes/Budgets?

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

9 posts / 0 new

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.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

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.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

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...

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 2:21 pm

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?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

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.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

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.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

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.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am

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

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

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.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Did Carrier Fleece Both Trump & America?

Donald Trump took a victory lap in Indianapolis yesterday afternoon, where he and Vice President elect Mike Pence officially announced a deal to keep 800 Carrier jobs in Indiana.

That's 200 fewer jobs than the 1,000 jobs that Trump initially said the deal would save, but that's kind of besides the point.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system