Can someone please explain this to me? That's right, back in May 2003, the U.S. Senate passed $350 billion in tax cuts, mostly for rich people, "on a 51-49 mostly [Republican] party-line vote," but today we're constantly told by many of those same Republicans (and a few "moderate" Democrats) that:1. We don't have the money for anything, from extending unemployment benefits to shoring up our crumbling infrastructure to reforming health care (with a "public option") to jump-starting a green economy while fending off climate change? God forbid we should reverse Bush's tax cuts for the rich in order to pay for any of the things this country so badly needs. [I'd add that we're also going to need major entitlement reform to deal with the long-term fiscal crisis this country has faced for years now...]
2. We need 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, not the 51 votes Republicans when they managed to pass their agenda of massive tax cuts for rich people to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (that one also passed the Senate by a 51-49 margin). What, are Republicans like Mitch McConnell simply better at running the Senate than Democrats like Harry Reid? If that's the case, maybe we should hire Mitch McConnell to run the Democratic Senate caucus for us? Ha.
In short, Democrats now control the White House and Congress, including the U.S. Senate with a theoretically fillibuster-proof 60 votes, yet they can't pass whatever they want in a timely manner? Yet Republicans, with a razor-thin edge back in the first few years of Dubya, were able to pretty much get whatever they want? As the Daily Kos diarist to whom I link writes:
We need to remind Reid how to control his caucus. You don't start by asking the GOP what they want, you start by rounding up all your votes first. If you have 51 or more votes you pass whatever bill you want and that is that. At least, that is how the GOP used to do it. So, why can't the Democrats do it?Again, can somebody please explain why this works for tax cuts, drilling in ANWR and war in Iraq but not for health care reform, clean energy and climate change, and other progressive priorities? Thank you.
