The political predicament facing Dems as a result of the GOP-Obama tax cut deal provides yet another example of how the threat of a filibuster frustrates Democratic reforms and undermines democracy. The House passed a perfectly reasonable tax bill, the provisions of which are supported by a majority of Americans in opinion poll data. A majority of the Senate supports it, but the bill is dumped because it doesn’t have 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and avoid the threat of a filibuster.
The distinction between the threat of a filibuster and an actual filibuster is important,as Tim Fernholz of the American Prospect explains in his post, “Challenging the Filibuster Old Guard: A new group of Democratic senators is poised to challenge the filibuster in the next term.” Says Fernholz in this excerpt:

“By a vote of 53 to 36, the Senate defeated a proposal to extend tax cuts first on those earning up to $250,000 in income,” Capitol Hill’s Roll Call explained over the weekend. It was a typical Senate defeat, where a majority supported the losing measure and a minority achieved a filibustered veto.
It’s been well observed in Washington that it doesn’t cost much to filibuster: Senators don’t have to speak or stay on the floor of the Senate. They only need to say a few words to their leaders, and the whole institution grinds to a halt. The public, of course, doesn’t see that level of detail, which makes things difficult for those interested in reform — but that could change.

Fernholz reports that Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has accepted the challenge to provide the needed leadership for filibuster reform:

Merkley has floated a proposal to reform the filibuster by forcing senators to actually take to the floor to obstruct Senate debate and by limiting the number of times the maneuver can be used to stop a piece of legislation. He and several allies hope it will win the support of 51 senators when the new Congress comes into session in January, the easiest time to amend the Senate’s rules.

Such measure, if adopted, would drastically reduce the use of the filibuster, the threat of which is deployed more than twice a week on average, compared to about three times a year back in the 1960’s, according to Fernholz. He reports that Sen Dodd and other “institutionalists” oppose reform, basically because they feel it weakens Senate power relative to the House.
But Merkley responds,

This is not the framework in which anyone who cares about the function of the institution would feel like the institution is functioning well…If we turn the clock back 30 years … senators understood that for them, individually, to hold up the work of the Senate, it had to be an issue of profound importance to the nation. That understanding is gone.

On Jan 5th Sen Tom Udall will try to bring a filibuster reform measure to the senate floor, reports Fernholz. But it too can be filibustered, with two-thirds of ‘those present and voting’ needed to invoke cloture on a rule change. Despite the concerns of the “institutionalists,” Democrats should support it. It’s just unacceptable that nothing can pass without 60 senate votes, and this is one of the few measures that might be able to help.
Some Dems may argue that we could lose a lot of senate seats in ’12, since we have 21 senators (plus 2 pro-Dem Independents) up for re-election and the GOP has only 10. We could also lose the presidency, in which case the filibuster begins to look like a tool we can use to obstruct Republican legislation, including the gutting of health care reform. It’s a solid argument, as far as it goes.
The fact remains, however, that Democratic prospects for enacting significant reforms that reflect progressive values are slim, as long as the opposition can trot out the mere threat of a filibuster to obstruct any legislation they don’t like. Reforms supported by the Democratic Party are being held hostage by the threat of filibusters, and we need to put an end to it.
Yes, the GOP is enjoying the benefits of filibuster threats right now, because it serves their obstructionist agenda. But, looking forward, some of them have to be thinking “we could have a majority in both houses, plus the presidency after the ’12 election. Then the filibuster is our problem, so maybe changing the rules now is our best option for enacting our legislative agenda.” Some GOP votes in favor of Merkley’s proposal are not out of the question.
The old JFK adage (borrowed from a Chinese proverb) about every crisis presenting both dangers and opportunities applies nicely at this twilight political moment, when partisan power distribution is fairly equal, but in flux.
There are other possible routes to filibuster reform, including reducing the number needed to invoke cloture or even abolishing the filibuster altogether. But right now Merkley’s proposal is the one that seems to have the energy behind it. We may not get another chance for a long time.

The manuevering in Washington over the tax agreement negotiated between the White House and Mitch McConnell grew even more complex today, with the House Democratic Caucus agreeing to a resolution to oppose the deal as announced, and the Senate apparently on the brink of approving the deal.
Here’s how the ever-astute Brian Beutler of TPM sought to explain the House Democratic action:

At a private meeting of the Democratic caucus this morning, members overwhelmingly rejected the idea that the plan is inviolable by passing a resolution agreeing not to bring up the tax package without changing it first. However, the White House and Republicans insist that the plan is in stone — and any changes would likely prompt a GOP backlash.
The Senate could adopt the proposal as early as tonight, leaving House Democrats a choice between swallowing it, modifying it, or rejecting it and starting from scratch.
After the meeting, though, members and aides stressed that future steps are unclear, and were unable to say that the White House plan won’t pass the House untouched.

In other words, it’s not at all clear what House Dems are actually trying to accomplish, and it may well be the “no-confidence vote” that passed was designed to appeal to Members with wildly different understandings of what will happen next. It may also transpire that the maneuver was a bluff design to test whether Republicans are willing to make some last-minute concessions that will make Democrats feel less like chumps.
To the extent that the deal’s provisions on the estate tax seem to be feeding a lot of progressive angst, it’s worth noting that this is one area of tax policy where there is a vast, unbridgeable gap between most Democrats and virtually all Republicans. GOPers think of the “death tax” as inherently evil, and thought its demise was sure when the initial legislation phasing it down and out was enacted. Progressive Democrats tend to regard the estate tax as one of the few progressive levies with zero negative macroeconomic effects, and are outraged that concessions benefitting a small handful of the super-rich, with no economic payoff at all, would be considered during these negotiations.
Beyond the dialogue of the deaf on this subject, the prospects for a renegotiation of the tax deal depend on some pretty speculatative ideas about which side might blink first, and also are vulnerable to a reaction in the financial markets. It’s reasonably safe to assume that hardly anyone wants to begin 2011 with higher tax rates on nearly all Americans and big drops in stock prices. But it’s less clear which side could be confident the other side would get the blame if that happens. The most convincing argument among progressives is that the vote on tax extensions should have been held before the midterms. But the future of this dispute remains much murkier than its past.

Since the House ain’t having it, the deal is going to have to be renegotiated in part, unless of course, the my-way-or-the-highway caucus of the GOP prevails. In that event, the tax fight in the next congress will make the health care battle look like patty-cake.
For the sake of argument, let’s be optimistic. Let’s assume that there are some grown-ups hiding in the GOP shadows who get it that they won’t look like wimps if they compromise a little. Maybe Scott Brown or Richard Lugar or some other Republicans in the Senate are thinking “Hmmmm, maybe it’s time for a little adult supervision…Maybe voters are ready for different leadership from our side. Darth Boehner is already tripping. Mitch thinks he’s Patton. I could look pretty good as the lead dog voice-of-reason Republican for a bipartisan solution.”
I know it sounds crazy, because we haven’t seen any Republicans demonstrate a sincere bipartisan spirit for many, many months, if not years. There are no “red dogs” or anything resembling the “gypsy moths” of earlier decades. Plenty of Dems have no problem breaking party ranks, but it’s hard to name even one prominent Republican who has shown a willingness to do so on major votes.
Republican leaders are proud of the party discipline they have demonstrated in 2010. But they may be approaching the point where their strength is poised to become a weakness and look more like indefensible rigidity. All polls indicate a majority/plurality of voters oppose tax cuts for the rich. The GOP could reap most of the backlash if congress bogs down in another prolonged, acerbic conflict. Some Republicans have to be thinking that they could look a lot better by giving a little here and there to make the deal palatable to enough Democrats. A sure win-win outcome is a lot better than gambling on a we-win-they-lose scenario, especially when public opinion data favors the opposition.
If some Republicans rise to this challenge, it’s likely that enough Dems will be open to tweaking the numbers a little here and there. Just for openers, let’s suggest having the Bush cuts expire for those earning over $500K, and cranking up the estate tax rate to 40 percent, kicking in at $3 mill. (If no deal is negotiated before the new year, the estate tax rate is scheduled to increase to 55% for over $1mill, and the Republicans emphatically don’t want that. We do have that leverage.) The Republicans would undoubtedly respond with a counter-offer.
Whatever the magic figures may be, it’s time to stop playing chicken and start negotiating in good faith until we find the numbers that both houses of congress can live with.

This item by TDS Co-Editor William Galston is cross-posted from The New Republic.
While tout Washington is furiously debating the deal between President Obama and the Republican congressional leadership, it’s time to look ahead. Assume that some form of the deal survives the cross-fire and is enacted into law. What then for the president?
There’s one thing we already know for sure: the agreement will light the fuse on a bomb timed to explode at the height of the 2012 presidential campaign. Unfortunately for Obama, taxation is an issue on which Republicans have long enjoyed an advantage in the court of public opinion, a situation not likely to change anytime soon. On the other hand, the president could not accept a permanent extension of all the Bush tax cuts without destroying the possibility of long-term deficit reduction.
There’s only one way out, which fortunately combines good policy with good politics. Obama should seize the initiative by moving comprehensive tax reform to the center of his agenda. He could argue–correctly, in my view–that the current tax code is far too complex, treats millions of average families unfairly, and constitutes an impediment to economic growth. Building on an emerging bipartisan consensus, he could go on to advocate a plan that broadens the base of the system while reducing rates–a formula that applies to both individual and corporate taxes. And he could challenge both parties to join with him to make a reformed code the law of the land during the 112th Congress.
So conceived and framed, tax reform serves both of the long-term goals–economic growth and fiscal restraint–that Obama must promote as the heart of his domestic agenda. Embracing it would enable him to move back on offense and to become the transformative leader he clearly wants to be. And if he places himself at the head of an initiative with substantial appeal across party lines, he could also begin to redeem the promise of a more cooperative, less confrontational politics that first brought him to national notice and helped him become president.
This is one of many reasons why the 2011 State of the Union address may well be the most important speech of Obama’s presidency. If he is able to chart a new course toward growth and fiscal sanity and back it with specifics–starting but not ending with tax reform–he will improve not only his own prospects, but the nation’s as well. If he does not–if the speech devolves into the kind of routine laundry list that Winston Churchill once dubbed a “themeless pudding”–the chances of gridlock and drift will rise, and so will the prospects of a return to unified Republican governance in 2013.
By the end of January, we’ll find up whether Obama and his advisors have been able to raise their game. The stakes could not be higher, and the time is short.

It’s too early to tell anything definitive just now, but there is definitely a possibility that Democratic and Republican opponents of the deal struck by the White House and GOP congressional leaders can combine forces to kill it.
Progressives avid for this to happen do need to ask themselves a simple question: then what? It’s not like the collapse of the deal is going to place Obama or other Democrats in a time machine where they can start all over in mobilizing public pressure on congressional Republicans to support their own position. Given the strength of conservative opposition to the deal, GOPers are not about to recut it to make it more acceptible to Democrats, particularly if any extension of top end rates and any compromise on the estate tax are off the table. Besides, Republicans are about to take over the House and increase their numbers in the Senate; time is on their side.
If Democrats are considered in media accounts the prime factors in killing the deal, Republicans may well be happy to play a waiting game, refusing to extend unemployment benefits (much less provide additional economic stimulus through a payroll tax holiday or extension of low-income refundable tax credits) and blaming any economic or political fallout on divisions among Democrats. A tax logjam will also provide a convenience excuse for the GOP to continue to obstruct votes on DADT and the START treaty.
So are progressives willing to pay that price for the principle of not extending upper-income tax cuts? I’m asking this question honestly; personally, I consider ever-worsening economic inequality the great undiscussed issue of our time, and think the abolition of estate taxes would be morally obscene. But those who urge a course of action that makes these positions non-negotiable have a responsibility to game-plan this out a bit in terms of real-life consequences. “Fighting” is not a strategy; nor is “drawing a line in the sand.” No rebellion is going to change the Obama administration’s handling of the 2009 stimulus bill or the 2010 health reform bill. And you can’t make the tax issue a no-brainer: yes, Obama did promise to oppose extension of tax cuts keyed to the top bracket, but he also promised, much more vocally, to extend the rest of them, so he’s going to have to break a promise anyway you look at it.
In other words, it would be a shame if all this progressive anger at the president is really just retroactive, and about the public option or “card check” or the size of the stimulus or Afghanistan, because the issues bound up in the tax deal are very real and immediate, and by no means symbolic. So they should be part of the discussion, as should any thoughts the president might have about how he intends to regain some political initiative after the big Democratic Congress of the last two years officially becomes a thing of the past.

Michigan was without a doubt one of the states that made the Rust Belt such a disaster for Democrats during the midterms. Republicans picked up two U.S. House seats; gained control of the state House to take over total control of the legislature; and won the governorship by a 58-40 landslide.
It’s interesting, then, that a new PPP poll of Michigan looking ahead to the 2012 presidential election shows Barack Obama beating all the big GOP names, even Michigan homeboy Mitt Romney. Obama leads Palin by 21 points; Gingrich by 15 points, Huckabee by 12 points, and Romney by 4 points. For grins, PPP even tests Obama against newly elected Republic Gov. Rick Snyder, and the president leads that one by 11 points.
Dave Weigel thinks this is probably all about the popularity of the Auto Industry Bailout in Michigan. I’m sure that’s an element of it, but just as importantly is the fact that we are talking about a different electorate voting on a different contest with different candidates in play. Get used to seeing this kind of poll in the future.

Now that the president has cut a deal with congressional Republican leaders on the extension of Bush tax cuts and related matters, it will be helpful for progressives to keep some perspective on how they react.
The objection heard most often before and once the deal was struck was mainly about tactics and psychology: why wasn’t the White House willing to hang tougher in negotiations, creating the credible threat of all the Bush tax cuts expiring? Was the president letting Republicans bully him? Will he ever learn? etc., etc.
There’s actually been less focus on the deal itself than about its existence and timing. There are not actually that many Democratic politicians who would have been happy (or would have admitted to being happy) about the total expiration of the tax cuts, which without any doubt would have been unpopular, and would have been indelibly identified with any future downturn in the economy. “Deficit hawks” are the only cheerleaders for a general increase in tax rates at the moment, and they’re not the ones angry at the president today.
What the deal did achieve is probably the maximum degree of short-term economic stimulus available in the current political environment, thanks to the inclusion of one of the very few stimulus measures popular on both the left and right, a payroll tax “holiday.”
As for the principle of the high-end Bush tax cuts being vindicated by this deal, it’s worth noting that Obama was able to maintain some of the increases in refundable tax credits (the EITC and the Child Tax Credit) that were in the 2009 stimulus legislation. Refundable tax credits have rapidly become a major demon-figure in conservative ideology of late, so it’s significant these items stayed in.
The total costs and benefits of this deal actually can’t be measured until we see if it cleared the way for action during the lame-duck session on DADT and Start, and also assess its impact on the economy.
But if a deal had to be struck–and I understand some progressives thought any deal was too high a price to pay–then I’m with Ezra Klein, this one doesn’t look that bad.