Is there something missing after that last "comma"?
 

How about we wait until the Dems are back in the minority before we get rid of the filibuster?
 

I will be interested in reading what Mark and Sandy have to say about this, given their ruminations on a the Senate and other structural failings. I assume this will only add more fuel to Mark's fire. :-)
 

I will correct the typo and change the comma to the intended period.
 

I will be interested in reading what Mark and Sandy have to say about this, given their ruminations on a the Senate and other structural failings. I assume this will only add more fuel to Mark's fire. :-)

I think I said below somewhere that the filibuster bothers me less than it would if we had a truly representative Senate. If a minority of Senators actually represents the majority of the population, I don't worry too much -- that's consistent with the larger view of democracy I want to encourage.

The fact that the filibustering minority might represent 45% doesn't make me feel better, though. The way I see it, modern politics has pretty much ended the era in which one party might gain 2/3 of the Senate (as we saw, for example, in FDR's day). It's been 30 years since either party had 60 seats in the Senate (cite); by that standard, a 55-45 vote is huge. It's also huge considering presidential elections -- few presidents get 55% in a national election.
 

Isn't the basic assumption that democracy is defined by a 50+% vote?

Another assumption is that a vote in the Senate is the same as a vote in an election.

In an election someone has to win, or you could eliminate everyone except the top two and do a re-vote.

But can you compare 50% to pass anything and everything with 40+% to stop "one thing"?

A filibuster only stops "one thing", it can't reasonably stop everything.

At the same time, 40% can't stop anything.

Everyone should recognize that the electoral college could be considered unfair because less than 50% of the population could vote for the winner (even in a two way race). Most of this unfairness comes from the electoral votes which derive from the senate. Every state gets two.

So if the Senate operates on pure 50% votes, it would be, in some cases, even more unfair than the electoral college.

And the unfairness would be polarizing. It would be a big-states/small-states battle, exactly why we have the senate, which represents states with an equal vote.
 

"There are no second acts in American Lives" wrote F Scott Fitzgerald towards the end of his own monochrome career. To me it will bring optimism even when any filibuster foul up, the journey of evolution still continue
 

Mark:

Ok, I'm confused. Once I get past the flu and catch up on my grading, I will reread all your posts on this topic and figure it out.
 

I thought the fact that Republican senators have lately represented more thinly populated areas and thus can use the filibuster power in a more anti-majoritarian way was clear by now. Consider the states won by Bush in 2000.

Wasn't it a 30/20 split? Who won the popular vote? The issue of Dems representing a majority, even if they had less seats, in fact was addressed in a blog post right here, IIRC.

Also, we should factor in that Republicans have been more able to vote in lockstep than Democrats, including when out of power. Telling. Bush pushed for a major tax cut plan in 2001 with much less of a 'mandate,' and many Dems simply went along. They had to votes to filibuster, if they care to do so. The split was 50/50!

Finally, currently, key treasury picks have been blocked by holds. Not by 40 votes or whatever -- by one or two senators. Do away with filibusters, and by senatorial practice things like that will continue. It is in the nature of how they do business.

I believe Mark Field, or someone, is concerned with the breadth of the filibuster -- it covers everything. I think it might be interesting to consider tweaking it, so it has limitations.

But, this might also require a chance of mentality. To the degree Republicans now are overplaying their hand, they need to be smacked down, for in effect abusing what might be a limited good thing.

Three Republicans voting for the stimulus, after clear compromise and discussion (more so than in the last eight years in many ways) underlines that. Maybe, you have to toss out the baby with the bathwater though. I don't want to though. Maybe, I'm naive.

Consider if it, akin to the House of Lords as I believe, it could be used to only delay. This would not work with budgets that need to be passed, but might with substantive legislation of other types. It also might be used for limited things like judicial nominations or the like.

Anyway, I also think the filibuster is not really the biggest structural problem out there. It is easy to alter, but given how things are going, some half-way path is likely the realistic result anyway. So, in effect, the fact I might be wrong about keeping it is besides the point, on some level.
 

I believe Mark Field, or someone, is concerned with the breadth of the filibuster -- it covers everything.

Yes.

I think it might be interesting to consider tweaking it, so it has limitations.

I could even support some limited uses of the filibuster. It'd be hard to define precisely what they'd be, but in general it might involve any law which restricted or limited basic rights under the Constitution such as free speech, equal rights, voting, or habeas corpus. In essence, if these are rights that courts might protect, then the anti-majoritarian argument for the filibuster makes more sense.

A filibuster only stops "one thing", it can't reasonably stop everything.

The increasing use of the filibuster by a united, but impotent opposition party (as we have now) can obstruct most legislation. And, of course, any filibuster actually does stop everything while it's going on (assuming the majority were to force the minority to keep talking like in the old days).
 

"Consider the states won by Bush in 2000.

Wasn't it a 30/20 split? Who won the popular vote?"

You know, I find it annoying that anyone believes this has any significance, at all. They were both trying to win the electoral college, one of them succeeded. And it's not like Gore won a popular vote landslide, he got a half percent more than Bush. 540,000 more votes.

It is entirely within the realm of possibility that, had they both been trying to win the popular vote, Bush would have still been the winner. He could have made up the whole popular vote deficit with nothing more than a bit higher Republican turnout in California.

Attributing any significance to who barely managed a popular vote plurality neither of them were trying for is idiocy. Nothing more.
 

The "basic rights" limit to the filibuster gives away too much of the store, especially when other checks, including a veto of one person covers a lot more. Structural checks aren't just there to protect "basic rights."

As to Brett's comment, the example ("consider") was in response to the discussion of how Republicans control more states than the weight of their numbers overall might suggest. The 30/20 split partially clouded the closeness of the election.

The closeness underlined by the fact that the "20" side won the popular vote. This is sorta relevent to the discussion. It should not be given too much weight, but we are talking a specific context here.
 

Isn't Delaware another one-representative state represented by a Republican?
 

Three cheers for supermajority consensus!

Because of the filibuster, the earmarked chocked double digit expansion of government known as the omnibus spending bill has been pulled from the floor and a stopgap bill funding the government leviathan at last year's levels has been enacted in its stead.

We taxpayers will be spared at least a small part of the $4.5 Trillion in interest the Obama budget predicts we will pay over the next decade.
 

Bart,

An honest person would have noted that the stopgap is a 5-day delay.

Presumably this is so that the Republicans can decide who takes the fall on their side for getting their portion of the earmarks through. Some people seem to be able to see Kabuki theater as cinema verite, while the rest of us see an unconvincing charade. I wonder why that is?

Who will break the filibuster? Will it be Snowe, Collins, or Specter? Note the similarity of this pattern to the California pattern -- which I don't see as coming recommended.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

C2H50H:

Consensus does not always fall precisely along party lines. The RINOs had already caved. Reid's problem was with a fairly open rebellion of members of his own caucus who are facing the voters in 2010. Without the filibuster, this monstrosity would have passed without the votes of Dems up for re-election.

There is always the possibility that the Dem leadership can buy the Blue Dog votes with yet another helping of pork paid for with borrowing against your future. However, that only means that you ought to be giving your Senators hell for mortgaging the country's future. That is if you give a damn.
 

Bart,

Sorry, but I vote in Minnesota, which means I don't have much say right now in what happens in the Senate. Not that I ever did...

You say consensus doesn't fall along party lines, but that's counter to the observed facts, as you must admit. Since there was no vote for cloture, your theory about the blue dogs balking is unfounded on fact.

Under the current rules we, the public, cannot even know who is for or against cloture unless they tell us -- and can be believed.

For my part, I don't care by what means bills are proposed or opposed, so long as they are lawful, and those proposing or opposing are honest and forthright about their positions.

In other words, I'm dead against the kabuki theater that takes place in the Senate every time something remotely controversial comes up.
 

Really, Bart, that is a ridiculous interpretation of what is happening.

I was amused to see this on Bloomberg: A dozen more Republican amendments are pending, including one offered by Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign that would drop a Democratic-sponsored plan to phase out a school voucher program in Washington, D.C. The program, created by Republicans, allows an estimated 1,700 children from poor families to attend private schools at public expense.

So much for budget cutting.
 

C2H50H said...

Bart, Sorry, but I vote in Minnesota, which means I don't have much say right now in what happens in the Senate. Not that I ever did...

You always have a say if you are a voter.

Go call your one seated Senator, Amy Klobuchar, and tell her to vote against this omnibus.

My Senator Mark Udall is coming to a local town meeting and I plan to ask him whether he will apply the pay go he voted for last year to the omnibus bill and Obama's proposed new programs and if not, why not.
 

CTS:

The same money or more would be spent on these students if they were compelled to return to DC's wretched government school system.

Indeed, Obama's kids are going to the same private school as some of the poor DC kids using these vouchers. The only difference here is that Obama is wealthy and the parents of the poor DC kids are not.
 

The linked report is an interesting statistical slice of the parliamentary process in congress, and seems to have potential to reveal much more when it is refined and has a wider data sample. I wondered about the gap for the 107th congress in its presentation, whether the initial output from the program seemed too scattered to interpret, or if the effort was conceptualized to map onto uniform spans of time for each sample, to make the time variable factor out of the output comparisons process. Hopefully, Ben Eidelson has preserved the code for more revisions and a followup post.
 

Mesothelioma
Asbestos
Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma
Asbestos
Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma


Asbestos is the
name given to a group of minerals that occur naturally
in the environment as bundles of fibers
Exposure to asbestos may increase the risk of asbestosis, lung cancer,
Mesothelioma
other cancers, and other nonmalignant lung and pleural
disorders .
Smokers who are also exposed to Asbestos have a
greatly increased risk
of lung cancer .
Individuals who have been exposed (or suspect they have been exposed)
to asbestos fibers on the job, through the environment, or at home via
a family contact should inform their physician of their exposure
history and any symptoms .
Government agencies can provide additional information on Asbestos exposure.
What is Asbestos

Asbestos is the
name given to a group of minerals that occur naturally
in the environment as bundles of fibers and can be separated into
thin, durable threads. These fibers are resistant to heat, fire, and
chemicals and do not conduct electricity. For these reasons, asbestos
has been widely used in many industries.

There are two subgroups of Asbestos
chrysotile, which has curly
fibers and is in the serpentine family of minerals; and amphibole
asbestos, which has straight, needle-like fibers and includes
actinolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, crocidolite, and amosite
asbestos. Chrysotile Asbestos is the form
that has been used
predominantly in commercial applications worldwide .


How is Asbestos
used

Asbestos was
mined and used commercially in North America beginning in
the late 1800s. Its use increased greatly during World War II . Since
then, Asbestos
has been used in many industries. For example, the
building and construction industry has used it for strengthening
cement and plastics as well as for insulation, roofing, fireproofing,
and sound absorption. The shipbuilding industry has used asbestos to
insulate boilers, steampipes, and hot water pipes. The automotive
industry uses Asbestos in vehicle
brakeshoes and clutch pads. Asbestos
has also been used in ceiling and floor tile; paints, coatings, and
adhesives; and plastics. In addition, asbestos has been found in
vermiculite-containing consumer garden products and some
talc-containing crayons.

In the late 1970s, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
banned the use of Asbestos in
wallboard patching compounds and gas
fireplaces because the Asbestos fibers in
these products could be
released into the environment during use. Additionally, in 1979,
manufacturers of electric hairdryers voluntarily stopped using
asbestos in their products. In 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) banned all new uses of Asbestos uses
established prior
to 1989 are still allowed. The EPA also established regulations that
require school systems to inspect for damaged Asbestos and to
eliminate or reduce the exposure to occupants by removing the asbestos
or encasing it.

In June 2000, the CPSC concluded that the risk of children’s exposure
to Asbestos fibers
in crayons was extremely low (1). However, the U.S.
manufacturers of these crayons agreed to eliminate talc from their
products. In August 2000, the EPA responded to reports it received
about the adverse human health effects associated with exposure to
asbestos-contaminated vermiculite by conducting a series of tests to
evaluate the extent of the risk. The investigation concluded that
the potential exposure to Asbestos from some
vermiculite products
poses only a minimal health risk to consumers. The EPA recommended
that consumers reduce the low risk associated with the occasional use
of vermiculite during gardening activities by limiting the amount of
dust produced during use. Specifically, the suggested that
consumers use vermiculite outdoors or in a well-ventilated area; keep
vermiculite damp while using it; avoid bringing dust from vermiculite
use into the home on clothing; and use premixed potting soil, which is
less likely to generate dust.

The regulations described above and other actions, coupled with
widespread public concern about the health hazards of Asbestos, have
resulted in a significant annual decline in U.S. use of Asbestos
Domestic consumption of Asbestos amounted to
about 803,000 metric tons
in 1973, but it had dropped to about 2,400 metric tons by 2005 .
What are the health hazards of exposure to Asbestos

People may be exposed to Asbestos in their
workplace, their
communities, or their homes. If products containing Asbestos are
disturbed, tiny Asbestos fibers are
released into the air. When
Asbestos fibers are
breathed in, they may get trapped in the lungs and
remain there for a long time. Over time, these fibers can accumulate
and cause scarring and inflammation, which can affect breathing and
lead to serious health problems .

Asbestos has been
classified as a known human carcinogen (a substance
that causes cancer) by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, the EPA, and the International Agency for Research on
Cancer. Studies have shown that exposure to Asbestos may increase
the
risk of lung cancer and Mesothelioma (a
relatively rare cancer of the
thin membranes that line the chest and abdomen). Although rare,
Mesothelioma is
the most common form of cancer associated with
Asbestos exposure.
In addition to lung cancer and Mesothelioma some
studies have suggested an association between Asbestos exposure and
gastrointestinal and colorectal cancers, as well as an elevated risk
for cancers of the throat, kidney, esophagus, and gallbladder .
However, the evidence is inconclusive.

Asbestos exposure
may also increase the risk of Asbestos (a chronic
lung disease that can cause shortness of breath, coughing, and
permanent lung damage) and other nonmalignant lung and pleural
disorders, including pleural plaques (changes in the membrane
surrounding the lung), pleural thickening, and pleural effusions
(abnormal collections of fluid between the thin layers of tissue
lining the lung and the wall of the chest cavity). Although pleural
plaques are not precursors to lung cancer, evidence suggests that
people with pleural disease caused by Asbestos exposure may
be at
increased risk for lung cancer .
Who is at risk for an Asbestos related
disease?

Everyone is exposed to Asbestos at some time
during their life. Low
levels of Mesothelioma
are present in the air, water, and soil. However,
most people do not become ill from their exposure. People who become
ill from Asbestos
are usually those who are exposed to it on a regular
basis, most often in a job where they work directly with the material
or through substantial environmental contact.

Since the early 1940s, millions of American workers have been exposed
to Asbestos Health
hazards from Asbestos fibers have
been recognized
in workers exposed in shipbuilding trades, Asbestos mining and
milling, manufacturing of asbestos textiles and other Asbestos
products, insulation work in the construction and building trades, and
a variety of other trades. Demolition workers, drywall removers,
asbestos removal workers, firefighters, and automobile workers also
may be exposed to Asbestos fibers.
However, recent studies do not
support an increased risk of lung cancer or Mesothelioma among
automobile mechanics exposed to asbestos through brake repair . As a
result of Government regulations and improved work practices, today’s
workers (those without previous exposure) are likely to face smaller
risks than did those exposed in the past.

Those involved in the rescue, recovery, and cleanup at the site of the
September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) in New
York City are another group at risk of developing an Asbestos related
disease. Because Asbestos was used in
the construction of the North
Tower of the WTC, when the building was attacked, hundreds of tons of
asbestos were released into the atmosphere. Those at greatest risk
include firefighters, police officers, paramedics, construction
workers, and volunteers who worked in the rubble at Ground Zero.
Others at risk include residents in close proximity to the WTC towers
and those who attended schools nearby. These populations will need to
be followed to determine the long-term health consequences of their
exposure .

One study found that nearly 70 percent of WTC rescue and recovery
workers suffered new or worsened respiratory symptoms while performing
work at the WTC site. The study describes the results of the WTC
Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening Program, which was established
to identify and characterize possible WTC-related health effects in
responders. The study found that about 28 percent of those tested had
abnormal lung function tests, and 61 percent of those without previous
health problems developed respiratory symptoms. However, it is
important to note that these symptoms may be related to exposure to
debris components other than Asbestos

Although it is clear that health risks from Asbestos exposure
increase
with heavier exposure and longer exposure time, investigators have
found Mesothelioma
related diseases in individuals with only brief
exposures. Generally, those who develop Asbestos related
diseases show
no signs of illness for a long time after their first exposure. It can
take from 10 to 40 years or more for symptoms of an california insurance related
condition to appear.

There is some evidence that family members of workers heavily exposed
to Asbestos
face an increased risk of developing Mesothelioma This
risk is thought to result from exposure to Asbestos fibers brought
into the home on the shoes, clothing, skin, and hair of workers. To
decrease these exposures, Federal law regulates work practices to
limit the possibility of Asbestos being brought
home in this way. Some
employees may be required to shower and change their clothes before
they leave work, store their street clothes in a separate area of the
workplace, or wash their work clothes at home separately from other
clothes .

Cases of Mesothelioma
have also been seen in individuals without
occupational exposure, but who live close to Asbestos mines or
have
been exposed to fibers carried home by family members working with
asbestos .
What factors affect the risk of developing an insurance related
disease?
Several factors can help to determine how asbestos exposure affects an
individual, including :
Dose (how much Debt Free an
individual was exposed to).
Duration (how long an individual was exposed).
Size, shape, and chemical makeup of sex fibers.
Source of exposure.
Individual risk factors, such as smoking and pre-existing lung disease.