Darryl Cherness asked:


As election day draws near, it appears extremely likely that Barack Obama will be elected the next President of the United States. In addition, there is a general consensus, even among Republicans, that the Democrats will pickup seats in congress and may even obtain a “filibuster proof” majority in the Senate.

Currently, the Democrats have 49 seats in the Senate. In addition to those 49 seats, there are 2 independents, Joe Lieberman and Bernard Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats, effectively giving them a 51 seat majority. However, in order to get anything done in the Senate, 60 votes are needed to break Republican sponsored filibusters, the process of talking a bill to death and preventing action on urgently needed legislation.

There is general agreement, given the state of the economy, that 2008 will be a Democratic year. If Democrats pick up 5 seats in the Senate, the minimum they are projected to win, they will have 56 votes and will only need 4 Republican votes to break a filibuster. However, if the Democrats pick up 9 votes, difficult but not impossible, they will be able to shut off debate without crossover Republican votes.

What will it mean for the labor movement to have a filibuster proof, Democratic majority in the Senate?

First and foremost, it means that the Employee Free Choice Act will be enacted into law. The Democratic congress will vote for the Employee Free Choice Act and send that legislation to President Barack Obama who will sign it into law. Once the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law and management can no longer manipulate company based representation elections, it is a safe bet that there should be a significant increase in the number of union represented employees in the United States.

In addition to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, a strong Democratic majority in congress can be counted on to periodically raise the federal minimum wage for the working poor. Hopefully, the days of having to wait nine years for small increases in the minimum wage should become a relic of the past.

Other areas where significant changes can be anticipated include revisions in NAFTA to make it more labor friendly, the elimination of tax incentives to encourage American businesses to relocate overseas, greater regulation of the home loan industry to prevent a reoccurrence of the “subprime” housing debacle, and tax breaks for middle income wage earners.

Another significant change will come in the area of job creation. Unlike George Bush, Senator Obama has made it clear that he intends to spend significant sums of money on promoting renewable energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The expenditure of these funds should create thousands of new jobs for working men and women.

Finally, it is my belief that it is absolutely inevitable that the Democratic congress and the new Democratic president will allocate significant resources for “public works” projects; i.e. repair of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewers, water treatment plants, etc. Rather than rely on the marketplace to generate wealth that will “trickle down” to the masses, Obama and the Democratic congress will take direct action to stimulate our economy and return our nation to prosperity by means of these job creating projects.

I believe that the next four years may very well be recorded by historians as labor’s new “golden age.”

Add A Comment

Logged in as Darryl Cherness. Logout »

Garry Gamber asked:


The filibuster as a political delaying tactic has been a part of the American political process since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Though it was not used in the early years of the nation, the filibuster has been used hundreds of times since the 1840’s. Here are a few of the famous filibusters from our political history.

The U.S. Constitution does not limit the length or nature of debate on the floors of the Senate or the House of Representatives. The House has since adopted rules which limit the length of debate since the House has a very large number of Representatives. But the smaller Senate has always upheld the right of a recognized Senator to debate an issue for as long as he or she wishes to hold the floor. Senate Rule 19 and Rule 22, the cloture rule adopted in 1917, create some guidelines for conducting a debate and for closing the debate when it becomes lengthy.

Senator Henry Clay

In 1841 Senator Henry Clay proposed a bank bill that was opposed by Senator John C. Calhoun who began a lengthy, seemingly unending, rebuttal. Calhoun basically created the modern filibuster. Clay threatened to change the Senate rules in order to close debate on the issue. Clay’s colleague, Thomas Hart Benton, rebuked Clay and accused him of trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate.

Through the next few turbulent decades and into the 1960’s the filibuster was used often by Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. The filibuster had been seen by the minority party as a tool to combat the potential “tyranny of the majority,” but the frequent usage of the filibuster by the Southern Democrats became characterized as the “tyranny of the minority.”

Senate Rule 22

President Woodrow Wilson suggested that some limits be placed on the unlimited debate concept. In 1917 the Senate adopted Senate Rule 22, now known as the “cloture” rule. The new Rule 22 provided the mechanism to close out debate on a legislative bill and bring the bill up for a vote if cloture was approved by 67% of the Senate. The 67% requirement remained in effect until 1975 when Rule 22 was amended to allow a 60% agreement to invoke cloture.

Cloture Rule 22 was tested in 1919 when the Senate was asked to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I. The treaty was debated and filibustered, but a 67% majority voted to end the filibuster and to bring the treaty to a vote.

Senator Huey Long

Senator Huey Long, the fiery and colorful senator from Louisiana, made the filibuster famous between 1932 and 1935 when he utilized it several times to stall legislation that he considered unfair to the poor. Long frustrated his opponents and entertained the Senate gallery by reading Shakespeare, reciting shrimp and oyster recipes and talking about “pot-likkers.” An amendment to Senate Rule 19 later required that debate on legislation be germane to the issue being debated.

On June 12, 1935, Senator Long engaged in his most famous filibuster. A bill was before the Senate to eliminate the provision for the Senate to confirm senior National Recovery Act employees. Senator Long opposed the bill because he didn’t want his political adversaries in Louisiana to obtain lucrative N.R.A. jobs. Senator Long spoke for 15 hours and 30 minutes running well into the evening and early morning hours with senators dozing at their desks. Long read and analyzed each section of the Constitution, a document which he claimed had become “ancient and forgotten lore” under President Roosevelt’s New Deal.

After the reading of the Constitution Senator Long offered to give advice to the remaining senators on any subject of their choosing. No senator took Long up on his offer but the gallery patrons began sending notes to the floor for Senator Long to extemporize on. That kept Long going into the early hours of the morning. At 4 a.m. Long yielded the floor in order to use the restroom and his proposal was defeated.

James Stewart brought more fame to the filibuster when he played the role of Senator Jefferson Smith in the 1939 film, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Stewart’s character launched into a filibuster in response to an attempt to ridicule him.

Senator Wayne Morse

Senator Wayne Morse from Oregon was called “The Tiger of the Senate” and served in the Senate under 5 Presidents. In 1952 Senator Morse left the Republican Party, claiming independent status, when he objected to sections of the party platform and Dwight Eisenhower’s choice of Richard Nixon as his vice presidential running mate. Senator Morse claimed that the Republican Party had left him.

On April 24, 1953, Senator Morse began to filibuster against Tidelands Oil legislation. He kept the floor for 22 hours and 26 minutes, breaking the filibuster record of 18 hours held by his mentor, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette.

Senator Morse is remembered through numerous colorful stories. For example, Clare Booth Luce, former U.S. Senator and Ambassador to Italy had to resign her appointment when she made the insulting but funny remark that her problems with Senator Morse began when he was kicked in the head by a horse.

Senator Strom Thurmond

About 9 p.m. on August 28, 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond rose before the Senate and announced, “Mr. President, I rise to speak against the so-called voting rights bill, H.R. 6127.” His own staff had not been informed about Senator Thurmond’s intentions to filibuster the bill, but they knew something was up when they saw Thurmond gathering considerable reading material.

Senator Thurmond had prepared himself for a long filibuster on the Senate floor. Earlier in the day he had spent time in the Senate steam room, dehydrating himself so that he would absorb all the water he drank without having to visit the restroom. His wife packed a steak sandwich lunch for him and she stayed in the family gallery throughout the night. Thurmond brought a quantity of malted milk tablets and throat lozenges from his office.

Senator Thurmond began his filibuster by reading each state’s election statutes. He later read and discussed an opinion by Chief Justice Taft. He also read and discussed the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Washington’s Farewell Address. His staff, concerned for Senator Thurmond’s health, was finally successful in getting him to leave the floor.

After 24 hours and 18 minutes, a record that still stands, Senator Thurmond concluded his remarks with, “I expect to vote against the bill.” The bill was defeated.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

On June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia finished his address begun on the previous day, slightly more than 14 hours earlier. He filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an act which was debated by Byrd and others for 57 working days, including 6 Saturdays.

Senate President Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota needed 67 votes to be able to carry the motion for cloture. Minority Leader Senator Everett Dirksen, the always eloquent senator from Illinois procured the Republican votes necessary to pass the cloture motion. “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come,” he said. “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”

The final roll call vote on cloture resulted in 71 votes in favor and 29 votes opposed. It was the first time in history that cloture had been invoked on civil rights legislation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the most sweeping of its kind in our history.

Justice Abe Fortas

In June of 1968 Chief Justice Earl Warren notified President Lyndon Johnson that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court. This move gave President Johnson time to nominate a successor since he was not planning to seek re-election as President. Johnson nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to replace Warren. At the same time Johnson nominated Texas Appeals Court Justice Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas, a move that was designed to satisfy southern senators.

President Johnson counted on Senators Everett Dirksen and Richard Russell for their support of the nomination. When Abe Fortas testified at his own confirmation hearing, an unprecedented occurrence, it was revealed that Fortas worked uncomfortably closely with the White House staff and the President. Later it was learned that Fortas was being paid a large sum, privately, to teach an American University summer course. At this point Dirksen, Russell, and other senators withdrew their support.

Though the committee recommended confirmation of Justice Abe Fortas, a filibuster ensued on the Senate floor to block his confirmation, the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination. On October 1, 1968, the Senate was unable to tally the 67 votes needed to invoke cloture and President Johnson withdrew the nomination.

The use of the filibuster has increased from 16 filibusters in the 19th century to 66 in the first half of the 20th century to 195 in the period from 1970 to 1995. It is likely that the filibuster will continue to play an important role in the American political process.

Michael C. Podlesny asked:

It has been over two years since hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana and Mississsippi. With many homes still not rebuilt, demolished or renovated, it raises the big question about flood insurance and whether or not there should be reform in the insurance industry.

In the September 2007 issue of Mortgage Banking it is reported that the decision of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee to reauthorize and reform the National Flood Insurance Program by moving the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 in late July and that the decision would curtail the coverage for second homes while adding for windstorm damage. However, the committee explained that the bill would give advantage to small business owners.

Mortgage companies require flood insurance for homes located in flood-prone areas, but homeowners in lower-risk areas may also consider coverage to protect their property, according to Terri Cullen of The Wall Street Journal. Average premiums for a flood insurance is about $600 a year, but those in high risk areas can pay as much as $5,400 a year. Tenants in low-risk areas may pay about $200 a year or $2,200 for high-risk zones. Leading to the fact that it is very expensive to those who really need it, spawning debate as to whether the government should step in and create legislation for flood insurance in those areas that desperately need it such as we`ve seen along the Gulf Coast.

Heightened interest in the natural catastrophe policy is a plus for supporters of the optional federal charter. Congress has dealt with several natural catastrophe related matters, including the House Financial Services Committee`s vote to expand the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind risks. A definite win for those who need it.

National Underwriter / Property & Casualty Risk & Benefits Management`s Susanne Sclafane reports of the decision of the New Orleans federal appeals court on the need for the homeowners to purchase the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in New Orleans, Louisiana. It is triggered by the claims on damages caused by the Hurricane Katrina. Justin Roth, senior federal affairs director of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Cos., said that the flood maps of the nation needs an update to make sure that claims are really due to floods to prevent other claims.

With the U.S. House of Representatives approving the H.R. 3121 legislation that intends to expand the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), by a vote of 38-29, it aims to offer coverage for wind damage as well. It also includes provisions that would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency to revise the country`s flood maps by 2010 ,and terminate the subsidies for structures built before NFIP`s establishment, which Roth feels is vital.

Flood insurance is vital those homeowners and renters along our country`s coastline and those near larger bodies of water. Although many more bills remain being debated in Washington in regards to flood reform, one thing is clear, for those that need it most, reform can not happen quick enough.

By: Michael C. Podlesny

Amelie Mag asked:


One of the main issues related to education under discussion in the US at the moment is the single lender rule for college loan consolidation. Because the costs of higher education are so high in the US, students end up contracting several student loans during their college years. It is usually considered in their benefit to consolidate these loans, meaning that they will replace all their loans contracted with different interest rates with a single loan that has a unique, fixed interest rate. Up to the current debates, loan consolidation came together with the single lender rule. The single lender rule means that students can only consolidate their loans if they are all contracted from the federal government or from the same private company. While consolidation of loans is considered to be highly beneficial for college students and graduates, the single lender rule is often argued to be restricting some of these benefits.

Because not many college students have the time to follow the congressional debates on the single lender rule, many colleges and websites for students offer single lender updates. Given the intricacies of congressional debates, a single lender update may be more helpful than one can imagine. The text of the original bill may change numerous times between the time of its proposal and the time of the final passing of the legislation and a single lender update can keep students informed about the main transformations in the text of the bill regarding the single lender rule. In addition, the single lender update can provide the essential information about the debates on the single lender rule cleansed of the technical legal or financial language that can be too tough to follow and understand for students.

The single lender rule is being discussed under the framework of a larger bill on financial issues related to higher education in the US. This has been a very contentious bill, supposedly opposing the Democrats to the Republicans and the big business interests of the main financial lending institutions to the interests of the students and their families. Among the many aspects hotly debated in the congress, the single lender rule has fared as one of the least controversial, surprisingly enough.

Under the original text of the bill, introduced by a Republican congressman, the single lender rule was supposed to be maintained, in spite of the call for its elimination. Because the congress is Republican- dominated at the moment, there were suspicions that the bill would face a single lender congress and that the cancellation of the single lender rule would not be taken into consideration. In addition, strong lobbying from the main financial lending institutions could turn the congress into a single lender congress. It is in the best interest of these corporations to keep the single lender rule, as it would force the students interested in taking advantage of the consolidation option to contract all their college loans from the same financial institutions. This is likely to be one of the main corporations, whose financial packages receive much better publicizing. These financial institutions have been very present in the debate on the education bill, causing the fears of a single lender congress.

However, even though the bill was introduced by a Republican, whose office has been sponsored, and it faced a Republican-dominated congress, its text was altered to include the cancellation of the single lender rule. The fears of a single lender congress were thus appeased. It was a Democrat congressman that proposed an amendment about the repelling of the single lender rule. While there was some debate about this, finally both Republicans and Democrats agreed that the single lender rule should be eliminated.

It cannot be said, however, that the voice of the financial corporations is not felt in the current form of the bill though. The cancellation of the single lender rule can come into effect only after July 1st, 2004. This means that in this period, the financial corporations will still profit from the enormous benefits of the single lender rule. Because during this period the interest rates are extremely low for student loans, the corporations have the best motive to advertise and push forward their financial packages. The students are constantly told to consolidate now because of the low rates. Consolidating now, however, means doing it under the single lender rule and thus having to deal with a corporation in most cases. Things are not as clear-cut as they appear to be and the consensus of the Democrats and Republicans for the good of the American students is perhaps not as interest-free as it appears to be.