Big procedural news -- and if this blog believes anything, it's that there's no news bigger than procedural news -- out of the Senate today where eight Democratic senators signed onto a letter (more letters!) opposing the use of the reconciliation process to pass a cap and trade bill. That means that cap and trade will be subject to the filibuster. Brian Beutler comments that "Democrats are joining their Republican friends in a campaign to preserve the Republicans' right to filibuster," but that's not quite right. Look at the signatories: Robert Byrd (WV), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Evan Bayh (IN), Mark Pryor (AR), Bob Casey (PA), Carl Levin (MI), and Mary Landrieu (LA). These are all senators from states with large dirty energy industries. States, in other words, that worry that they'll have much to lose from cap and trade. Indeed, vote counting on carbon pricing is likely to break across regional lines as much as party affiliation. Meanwhile, the letter itself is a good example of why both the reconciliation process and the filibuster should be scrapped. The filibuster is not the right to a 60-vote supermajority. It is the right to unlimited debate. And the reconciliation process is not the right to extinguish the filibuster. It is an expedited process for reconciling budgets that limits debate to 20 hours. Which allows senators to oppose the reconciliation process on procedural grounds that are actually pretty legitimate. "Enactment of a cap-and-trade regime is likely to influence nearly every feature of the economy," write the gang of eight. "Legislation so far-reaching should be fully-vetted and given appropriate time for debate, something the budget reconciliation process does not allow." It's a fair objection. You'd want more than 20 hours to debate a cap and trade bill (or, for that matter, a health reform bill). But exceeding 20 hours means you have to find 10 more votes in the Senate. (Obviously, you could say here that the onus, then, is on the minority to vote for cloture and accept the eventual loss, but that's unlikely to happen). Which is why we should do away with both rules. Decide how many votes a bill should require for passage and then make that the limit. For both sides of every argument to constantly try and distort the majority requirements by invoking rules with all sorts of bizarre secondary effects is an insane way to run the business of government.
