With filibuster intact, can Dems go rogue with COVID bill?

It takes two to tango, says the old expression, and within the opening days of the US Senate, with the Democrats in charge, albeit by a slim majority, there were two senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, that tipped the scales to a power sharing agreement accepted by the new Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Sen. McConnell

 While success has many fathers, and failure is an orphan, can yet again, a successful bipartisan effort, be had? And, was there no middle ground for the Senate to fill the seats of the various committees, with the inauguration of President Joe Biden without one? 

It seemed not, and with the Republican dominated Senate as the historical party of “no”, endorse any Democratic legislation, ever?

That logjam, noted The Hill, that McConnell, as well as Chuck Schumer, the new majority leader, wanted to end, and with Manchin and Sinema on the dance card, the die was now set, despite not getting written assurances that Schumer would not change the rules of the filibuster, in his tenure, and an “okay” with reconciliation, (a measure designed for a straight up and down vote), and with VIce President Harris, breaking any ties, there is now agreed governance for lawmakers in the new administration.

There is still the role of the filibuster, and while many have seen it as a time honored tool, others have maligned it, especially as a tool for segregationists, and some Dems were for it, before they were against it, for example, former President Obama, when he was a senator.

As The Wall Street Journal noted last September, “many senators of both parties defended the filibuster as a tool to promote comprose and counter the other party, and viewed ending it as shortsighted because a party newly in power might quickly undo the other’s laws and pass its own.”

Biden has also said that he would prefer its preservation, unless facing GOP opposition that would thwart him in his efforts towards new legislation.

Taking a look back at its origins sheds some light for modern readers: “Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster—from a Dutch word meaning "pirate"—became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill,” notes the US Senate website.

“In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in number, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.”

For those of a certain generation, and perhaps beyond, there was Huey Long of Louisiana in the 1930s infamous for his hours long recitation of Shakespeare, and recipes for southern delicacies; but, on the less humorous side, there is “The record for the longest individual speech [which] goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.”

History might be written by the victors, but it is also subject to scrutiny, and revision.

Now enter Sara Binder, historian, and academic, whose closer read of the original documents show that “the history of extended debate in the Senate belies the received wisdom that the filibuster was an original, constitutional feature of the Senate. The filibuster is more accurately viewed as the unanticipated consequence of an early change to Senate rules.”

Out of a lengthy and persuasive discussion, Binder, “In testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, she counters a number of conventionally held notions about the origins and history of the Senate filibuster, and worth noting for the Biden administration, is this: “There are conditions that can lead a bipartisan supermajority to agree to change Senate rules. The minority has often held the upper hand in these contests, however, given the high barrier to reform imposed by inherited Senate rules.”

Most recently, McConnell refused to end the filibuster for President Trump, and along with Sen. Orrin Hatch defended its nearly sacrosanct role in senate negotiations, and  “The GOP knows what it's like to be powerless, and it has used the filibuster to great effect in recent years while in the minority. This is a tool whose value is known to many Senate Republicans because they have relied on it<’ noted The Washington Post, in 2017.

All  of which brings us to the present day where Biden facing the ongoing COVID pandemic and growing pressure to stem the tide of the pandemic, especially on the economic lives of millions of Americans faces a stalwart GOP determined not to pass his $1.9 billion coronavirus relief

Sen. Dick Durbin  of Illinois, the new majority whip, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "The American people want us to take action, action on this pandemic, action on this economy and on a host of other issues, and if this filibuster has become so common in the Senate that we can't act, that we just sit there helpless, shame on us. Of course we should consider a change in the rule under those circumstances.”

With some justification the GOP has balked at the price tag, but, with increasing new strains from overseas, can America afford to not do everything that it can. Certainly, without federal help as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has noted before, economic relief cannot be had.

Sen. Durbin

Republican lawmakers want to limit relief to vaccines, already in short supply due to Trump officials recalcitrance, and many like Maine senator Susan Collins are looking only at the vaccine, and distribution, without taking stock of the vast needs for the nation's public schools, and state and local aid.

She noted in a recent call that, “it seems premature to be considering a package of this size and scope.”

Looking at the methodology is also Collins' way of distancing herself, and others of her camp, from an outright rejection, on cost alone. But, without the money, direct payments withstanding, how can the US recover?

The new president has said, “Time is of the essence, and I must tell you I’m reluctant to cherry pick and take out one or two items.” 

While no deadline has been set by the White House, it is obvious that time is of the essence, and going it alone is an option, without GOP support, but some supporters, as well as critics, note that would burn through a lot of his political capital, and upset McConnell, but as most Washington insiders know the minority leader is skillful at playing on the contours of an issue, and in the end not cooperating at all.