Why Sen. Bernie Sanders can single-handedly filibuster tax cuts for rich

Sen. Bernie Sanders became a sensation on cable television and new media outposts like Twitter with his filibuster Friday of a proposal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts to all Americans.

Twitter lit up with highlights from Sanders’ (an Independent from Vermont) prolonged and sometimes angry speech, decrying an agreement between President Obama and Republicans to allow the breaks even for millionaires, while he said many of his constituents are going hungry.

The filibuster, from a Dutch word meaning “pirate,” has a long and not so proud history in the U.S. Senate. Those in the majority have tried for more than two centuries to make it go away. They have failed.

Vice President Aaron Burr paved the way for the filibuster with a seemingly innocuous move in 1805 to simplify the Senate’s rules. He argued that the Senate debate guidelines were too complex and that one rule, allowing “previous question” motions, should be stricken.

The previous question rule had allowed lawmakers to end debate and call for a vote. But the Senate went along with Burr and dumped the rule. It wasn’t until more than three decades later, in 1837, that a filibuster stalled Senate action for the first time.

The filibuster became more common as Senate expanded and as issues, such as slavery, became more contentious.

The Senate several times over the decades debated whether to end the practice and free the way for legislation. It took a crisis, in 1917, for a compromise to be hatched. In the spring of that year, President Woodrow Wilson wanted to arm merchant ships for World War I. Senate Republicans  blocked him.

Wilson and Democrats framed reform as a national security issue and won approval of Rule 22, which provided that a vote by two-thirds of the Senate could force an end to debate.

Still, senators from the South made liberal use of filibusters to block civil rights legislation. That included stalling anti-lynching legislation, according to the Senate website, until cloture was invoked after a 57-day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964.

It was not until 1975 that the Senate reduced the number of votes required to shut off debate from two-thirds to three-fifths. That means 60 votes to end debate with the current complement of 100 senators.

Sanders finally broke off his prolonged performance just before 7 p.m. Eastern time Friday, some 8 1/2 hours after he started. The extended speech was technically not a filibuster since it did not delay a vote or other business.

But there Sanders stood, protesting a vote on the tax measure that could come as early as Monday. He had the Senate floor microphone all to himself (with a brief bit of assistance from Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana), with only a staffer and a bare minimum of other Senate personnel in attendance.

He talked about the "insanity" of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans. He savaged the accompanying idea of cutting the estate tax--which he said would expand the national debt by $1 trillion over 10 years.

With a lot of time to fill, the 69-year-old senator with the giant spectacles also talked about the weather, the delights of his native Vermont (inviting outsiders to come ski at Stowe), his opposition to the Comcast-NBC merger and scads of other things.

Sanders paused occasionally for a sip of water or to confer for a moment with his staff. But he kept going. By days end Friday he had the top TWO trending items on Twitter and his own hashtag, #filibernie, highlighting Twitter posts about his exploits. Websites like isberniesanderstilltalking.com had popped up to celebrate his fete. Pollsters purportedly were ready to measure the lefty-legislators appeal as a possible president candidate.

It's anybody's guess whether the filibernie could resume next week, but his persistence Friday heartened many liberals and conjured up a raft of Senate history.

--James Rainey

Photo: U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill on Dec. 7. The Obama administration is pushing for Congress to extend Bush-era tax cuts in a compromise with Republicans. Credit: Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images

 

Comments

[Bill Frogale]

Give em hell Bernie! Apparently nobody else has the balls to do it.

[Henry Porter]

I think it speaks volumes about the media ownership in this country that a serious attempt to force debate on the future of this country is relegated to the Entertainment section.

It reminds me of Juvenal's contemptuous observation about the declining fortunes of Rome

"the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddle no more and longs eagerly for just two things — bread and circuses."

[Graham]

As someone from Vermont Sen. Sanders continues to embarrass my state. Why we keep electing him is beyond me, maybe someday we'll smarten up and elect someone who will actually do something instead of continue to push a socialist agenda...

[Betty]

The guy made a complete a## of himself and his party. Nobody was there or paying any attention for that matter. News tonite is all about Clinton doing a press conference for Obama Nobody is even mentioning Sanders unless they joke about it. What a waste of time no wonder nothing ever gets done.
If everyones taxes go up in Jan you have no one to blame but the dems. Now they want to add abunch more junk to this bill you know turtle crossings hygeine for african americans etc etc all the pork they want to cram in before Jan. A bunch of clowns is all they are. Pelosi went on a trip wow guys she is really concerned with getting this taken care of isnt she?

[Madeleine Rongey]

Extending the tax cut for the rich is the WRONG thing to do. I am disgusted at the Republicans ( most of them rich who will benefit) and at Obama for not keeping his campaign promises and is giving in to the pressure by the Republicans. Extending the tax cut will not revive the economy and generate more work. This is a falacy and Waren Buffet said the same.

[Tom H]

I not admire not only what Sanders is filibustering--outsized, unproductive debt-increasing tax cuts for the very wealthy--but how he chose to do it. He got up and spoke.

Under modern rules, Senators no longer need to "hold the floor" and speak for long stretches to filibuster, they simply have to indicate that they are filibustering.

This is why the Senate Republicans have been able to achieve record-breaking number of filibusters, often on the simplest procedural votes. And this is why most Americans probably don't even realize these filibusters are happening.

It's time to make a Senator who wants to filibuster actually filibuster.

[Chelsea Starr]

Why is this piece of "journalism" focused on defining the word and history of filibuster, and not on the underlying issue that concerns the American public? The top 2% of the income distribution do not need tax breaks. Trickle down economics, history has shown us, does NOT create jobs, and neither will a tax cut for the rich. Our biggest corporations pay little to no income tax, and have moved American jobs overseas. Gee, why do we have a deficit? One reason is that those who can afford to pay taxes can use their immense wealth to convince Americans that they shouldn't have to. The Times should be asking the hard questions, like "Who benefits and who loses from tax cut legislation for the wealthy?", not giving us a page out of Webster's Dictionary.

[Alvin]

One last time, they are NOT tax cuts. They are maintaining the same tax levels as we currently have. Authors Pat and James need to cut the biased reporting. Why not report on the pork that some are trying to add to this? Solar and Wind subsudies added, why not pixi dust?

[Alvin]

@ Madeleine Do you work for a living? Are you employed by another person or business? Sit in their accounting department for a day and see how taxes affect their ability to maintain staffing. So many businesses file under individual 1040's.

[Leonel A Umana]

I am an Obama supporter and abhor the filibuster abuse caused by both party. In the case of the Bush era tax cut, I pray for Obama defeat in this measure and had hope some truly patriotic Senators will filibuster this to death. Those super rich tax cut is blatant bad policy at the expense of the majority when the majority needs help. The only good it does is to justify those donor checks to the GOP psrty at the expense of everyone else but the super rich. When the Republican con the nation on the platform of the need for massive debt reduction the idea of giving the super wealthy a tax cut, which they can afford, is crass politics and hypocrisy when they were so adamant of cutting unemployment benefit, which the unemployed so desperaterly need. I am so sick of the carpet-bagging, political cons of the GOP at our expense and that so many continue to be con by the same old lies. Will someone please bring these bastards to court?