Louis Proyect wrote:
Could someone help me out on the recent vote for funds for the
automakers. I read that the democrats in the senate gave up the
effort because they didn't have the 60 votes necessary to end a
filibuster.
But how did this really workI guess my question concerns the
workings of the American political systemwas there an actual vote
where a majority voted for the bill but not 60? Or was there just a
determination by the democrats that there would not be 60 votes for
the bill so there was no vote. Or did the republicans threaten a
filibuster if the democrats tried to move to a vote and the democrats
decide not to call a vote to override it or . . .
Apologies for such simple questionsbut I am confused. According to
the paper "The measure was defeated 52-35 on Thursday night in the
Senate when it fell short of the 60 votes it needed." So, it seems
like the measure passed. Where does the filibuster enter in here,
when would it have happened, and why did the democrats just give up
without a formal test--or was that what the vote was?.
Thanks,
Marty Hart-Landsberg
I posted the following in response to this question when it arose on
Marxmail:
Eli wrote:
Harry Reid accepting a "loss" when "only" 51 Senators supported an
agreement, allowing a whopping 35 (!) Republicans to "win" the debate
by pretending, as he has over and over, that the Republicans were
capable of, and would have, filibustered indefinitely and that
therefore without 60 votes "nothing can be done."
I have been too busy with other stuff to analyze this in depth but
there is something very weird about this vote. Here you have Bush and
the Dems supporting aid for the big 3 auto companies, but it does not
pass because why? Because the Republicans would have filibustered? So
the Dems need 60 votes to push through "progressive" legislation? By
this calculation, they can always use the excuse of a Republican
filibuster to "go back to the drawing board" and come up with a
proposal that is acceptable to everyone. A sure-fire formula for
screwing working people, if you ask me.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
This is not weird, at least not as I understand it. I think the key
issue was concessions from the UAW. Repugnicans wanted concessions from
the UAW in the form of accepting a wage and benefit packages similar to
those found in Japanese transplants. Democrits did not want to make
these concessions. So, they could have passed the bill but they could
not have defeated the filibuster so the bill would have stalled. Bush,
in my opinion, doesn't care one way or the other. He is a lame duck and
is willing to do anything to look "good" in his last few weeks in office.
Of course, this raises several interesting issues (and forgive me if I
step on some toes) but it would seem to me that the UAW workers are
overpaid. They have better wage and benefits packages than school
teachers and probably faculty at some universities. How and why this
happened is another question which has it roots in the horrible
conditions of the 1930s, the concessions of the 1950s and the pattern
which it established.
One of the things that amazes me about American Capital is that they
fail to understand that a system of national health insurance is in
their best interest. The US is the only developed country without such
a system and the need to privately insure their work force puts US
Capital at a long term disadvantage.
CHAD
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
