Why has George Bush not needed to veto more legislation these last 21 months despite
Democratic control of Congress? The
Democrats' razor-thin margin in the Senate doesn't provide an answer: even the
smallest margin allows the majority party to control the agenda. The conventional response from inside
the Senate Democratic Caucus has been, "We don't have 60 votes."
Sixty is seen as the magic number because only 60 votes will guarantee success on a
cloture motion (the procedural device that limits further debate on a measure
to a time certain). By this logic,
however, all progressive legislation is forever held hostage so long as
Republicans can muster 41 votes (which they will surely be able to do,
regardless of how well the election goes for Democrats).
There
is a simple alternative. Select a
bill with broad popular support, like the bill to overturn the Supreme Court's
narrowing of the Equal Pay Act.
The bill would have the support of a President Obama, and would be
passed in the House. In the Senate,
challenge Republicans to vote "no" on a motion for cloture. If the motion fails, dare the Republicans to
filibuster against equal for women, keeping the Senate in session for as long as Republicans want to have that stance
define them.
In
other words, "just say no" to the habit of letting the Republicans off the hook
with a single "no" vote on cloture.
Instead, put them to the test of sustaining a wildly unpopular
filibuster. With proper issue selection -- other examples include pegging the minimum wage to increases in inflation and permanently setting the estate tax exemption at a level the
insulates everyone except the wealthiest among us -- Democrats can make it substantially more difficult for their opponents to maintain successfully the reactionary posture they've patented over the course of 40 years.
Does
this proposal mean that "reaching across the aisle" in order to "get things
done" doesn't make sense? To the
contrary, this proposal will facilitate the
process of reaching across the aisle.
The difference is that Democrats will be reaching across from a position
of strength, not weakness.
