I understand that the reason the Republicans can hold up the bill is not a filibuster, but a rule that says that bills that break the pay-go rules (i.e., that don't balance taxes and spending) must have a 60-vote margin.

If it were me, I'd see about amending that rule muy pronto! And if it's a rule, and not a law, use aggressive Senatorial rules-juggling (remember how they were going to use the 'nuclear option?') and change it today (or tomorrow at the latest).

Then we wouldn't need this artificial 60-vote BS to pass simple legislation in the Senate. Bye-bye centrist/Republican road-block!

Ed

Suggestion to House Dems: Take out the AMT fix and the Isakson home buying credit. That would bring the bill from about $838B to $732B. Neither item is stimulative. Neither helps the people who are losing homes, jobs or healthcare. The other things you can fight for in other bills, but make Specter and Nelson defend these two items. Make it all about these two items.

Can someone explain a bit about how the conference process works? Will there be another vote on the reconciled bill?

Will there be another vote on the reconciled bill?

Yes, and it will be subject to the same 60 vote cloture resolution.

I'm confused. Let's say they withdraw. Does the final bill need 60 votes in the Senate? I thought that after the conference committee the bill has to get an up-or-down vote, no amendments. Am I wrong?

If the 3 senators that wrecked the bill decide to blackmail the House into swallowing their version, I think it's safe to say the bill will fail.

And if Harry Reid had any balls (which he doesn't) he would change the rules at that point and allow the bill that Obama wanted in the first place to sail through easily on a majority party-line vote.

I thought it was a simple majority of votes to pass after conference as well...

How is it that the Senate, which is disproportionately representative, has come to, or at least seems to, have so much more power than the House, which is proportionally representative?

Hoorah. This is now the Bush/Nelson/Collins/Snow Depression!

At we all now know what it's proper name will be.

Imagine if the House Dems were taking this same sort of public "we will not negotiate" stance. I suppose now centrists are defined by their unwillingness to negotiate and compromise.

Also, I like Dnap's, idea, but I say do that and put back funding for schools and aid to states. That would keep the cost of the bill about the same but make it a much better bill. Let's see the gang of 4 Senate douchebags obstruct that.

Also, let's convince the new Commerce Secretary to vote with the president and get Al Franken seated already. Then we'd only need to peel off two of the douchebags, and I think pressure from their home states is only just beginning to arise. This isn't over.

Is Arlen Specter running again in two years? Who is his opponent. I'd like to make an early contribution. Thanks.

Plus, Specter wouldn't dare vote against this bill. Neither would Olympia Snowe, who is also up for reelection. They are just blowing loud and noisy farts.

No, its not about filabuster and I wish Benen or someone else in the liberal blogosphere would post this because by not providing the truth it gives the impression that we have more leverage than we actually have. Because of a point of order related to passing bills that involve deficit spending cloture is not the only time you need 60 votes. To get the bill passes PERIOD you need 60 votes, cloture or not, filabuster or not. THATS WHY we basically have to take what the eff we have and run with it because otherwise we get nothing. Thats reality.

Benen, Hilzoy please read this post from Kagro X and then inform the readers whats really going on here so people stop getting upset that Reid (who is admittedly WEAKSAUCE) isn't forcing a filabuster.

http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/7/161443/9275/436/583

How many Republicans are left in the Northeast? That's why these three supported it at all. Would someone please tell Reid that?

The House progressive caucus is starting to make some noise. They could/should flex their muscle and shut the whole thing down. F the Blue Dogs. Are they blue dogs because they're dumber than dogshit?

My aren't we all learning a lot about senate rules. If this puppy fails the depression that follows will eternally be known as the Bush/Nelson/Collins depression. What a way to achieve immortality.

sgwhiteinfla - Because of a point of order related to passing bills that involve deficit spending cloture is not the only time you need 60 votes.

Are you referring to the PAGO provision?

Also on the question of whether bills are subject to cloture after going to conference, these bills are called conference reports. They are subject to cloture. Here is the senate rule (See page CRS 11, pdf 14)).

sgw, thanks for posting that Waldman link again. I would think that between you and me (and Paul) the word should have gotten out.

And yet, Steve hasn't written a post on it.

As the esteemed Mr. Benen would say, how odd.

Steve, you listening?????????

I heard a good example of congressional stupidity on npr this morning.

The local morning news show (in SF, kqed) was interviewing a nearby republican congressman about the stimulus bill.

He first said there was no stimulus in the bill. Then in his next sentence he identified 30 billion of spending as a stimulus. Then again he said there was no stimulus. Then again he identified another part of the bill as a stimulus.

Sadly the interviewer did not ask him why he was repeatedly reversing himself over a period of less than a minute.

They then interviewed a local democratic congresswoman. She seemed pretty dumb and out of her depth. Clearly had no idea what a fiscal stimulus was, seemed to think it was the same thing as a monetary stimulus.

sgw - and never mind my question about PAGO. I have now read your link. Sorry.

"THATS WHY we basically have to take what the eff we have and run with it because otherwise we get nothing. Thats reality"

We'll see what comes out of conference. I think
it will probably be worth taking what we can get right now. You can always put through another bill
to boost aid for states, food stamps, and school construction. And I think such a bill would be
damn hard for any self-styled "centrist" to vote
against.

But I do think there are more ways to put pressure
on Specter, Collins, Nelson etc: President Obama
has a *lot* of power and a lot of popularity right now, and that gives him a lot of sticks and
carrots to play with. At some point Obama may
have to pick a fight with one of these "centrists"
and show them just how painful it can be to oppose
a popular president (popular even in their home states).

Also the new senators Bonnie Newman (NH) and
Al Franken (MN) should make life easier if further
stimulus comes up for a vote in a month or two.

"Act in haste, regret in leisure."--George Bush [ha,ha].

Thanks to several of you for answering the two questions I had. Why they needed 60 votes after the cloture vote yesterday and whether they will face a new cloture vote once the conference committee comes back. I guess my view is go ahead and get the watered down Senate Bill passed and immediately introduce a new bill with the stuff that was in the House Bill and then some, make sure that it is paid for by repeal of the AMT patch or early repeal of the estate tax provisions or some other tax increase which is unlikely to sink the economy and then make the Senate GOP filibuster. That will really put the screws to Spector and Snowe because Franken should be seated by then. I still have one question on cloture--do you need 60 votes or 60%?

Seems to me that Specter and Nelson know how to negotiate. You don't go in pre-conceding your position. The real issue, rather, is what pressure (carrots and sticks) will it take to keep their votes on the approval of the conference report?

They could, of course, be serious. But these are seasoned politicians, and one suspects that they have their wish-lists ready on other issues, as well, and that they listen to what they hear in their districts and from their big donors, too.

Call their bluff.

These centrists love to be the heroes, not the villains. There is no way in hell they would vote against the bill if you take out the AMT and add money for states and schools. How would they justify voting no?

They'd really piss off Obama, who could move to plan B and include the spending in appropriations bills that can't be filibustered. And the centrists would lose a lot of credibility.

I suggest we waste no time screwing the "centrists" so they know exactly where they stand, which is just nominally less far right than the rest of the Republithugs caucus.

Yank the tax benefits & put the spending back in. Then when they vote against it have Reid reintroduce the bill as a spending bill which can't be filibustered and only needs 50 votes to pass.

Let them suck on that for a while.

"Act in haste, regret in leisure."--George Bush [ha,ha]. -- Luther, @14:56

The quote should have been followed by [sic!], not by [ha,ha].

But, I can well believe it's Bush's version; every word that ever came out of his mouth -- even the most commonplace saw -- came out mangled. The *correct* version of the idiom is "Marry in haste, repent at leisure".

How about putting your two half Nelson posts together for a full Nelson (illegal in wrestling but politics ain't bean bag or wrestling).

Nelson says he will vote no if the cuts are restored "My support for the Conference Report on the stimulus package will require that the Senate compromise bill come back virtually intact including, but not limited to, overall spending, the current ratio of tax cuts to spending, and the $110 billion in cuts."

Yet he can't defend them on the merits but only argues that they were needed to get the votes of Republicans

"Ultimately, Nelson seemed to argue that the cuts were necessary to generate Republican support, needed to cut off Republican obstructionism. (He told Maddow at one point, "You can do the math," referencing the Democrats' 58-seat caucus.)"

In this post there are two explicit centrist threats, from Specter and from Nelson.

What if Snowe and Collins accept a report which isn't "Senate compromise bill come back virtually intact." Then Nelson might cast the deciding vote against a bill, because it is not the compromise which he argued was not ideal but needed to get Republican votes.

How do you think that will play in Omaha ?

I'd say there aren't 40 senators who would dare vote against a conference committee report.

Nelson is bluffing.

What if Snowe and Collins accept a report...

Snowe will. Collins will choose the course of action that gets her the most face time, and the most sucking-up by the media.

Her staffers have her convinced she can not only save the GOP, but be the first woman president. "Moderate", when her party isn't. Northern, when her party is Southern, female in a party of pasty white dudes. She is The Answer. And all this 'moderate' shadow boxing is the set-up.

She's the Next Empty Suit.

The *correct* version of the idiom is "Marry in haste, repent at leisure".

Don't I know it, honey.