What Proposals From The "Progressives" Will Become Law

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The progressives seem to think that they have a chance for the passage of lots of legislation by the new Congress.

What do you think has a good chance of becoming law? I would remind folks that almost all legislation requires at least 60 votes in the Senate to pass.
================================================
Personally, I think that the answer is almost nothing. There will be lots and lots of changes by Executive Order and by changes in policies in the various Executive Branch agencies.

There will be some compromise legislation on such things as budgets and debt limits (that has to happen or the government closes down). I believe that there will limited compromise legislation on health care and other items.

But these won't please the left. Let me use the example of healthcare. We are not going to see Medicare expansion. More likely is protections for those with pre-conditions, allowing insurers to have policies that are offered in more than one state, purchases of drugs from Canada, and forcing Medicare to have competitive bidding for drugs. DACA folk may be given a path to citizenship, but even legal status by the Congress would help.
 

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Since they made use of the "nuclear option" in the Senate and the Republicans turned around and used it back on them a few years later, I think they'll come to rely on that. This is part of why it is so important for the Republicans to maintain control of the Senate, so it won't even be an option for them. It isn't good for bipartisanship.
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
27,998
19,441
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟488,914.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Since they made use of the "nuclear option" in the Senate and the Republicans turned around and used it back on them a few years later, I think they'll come to rely on that. This is part of why it is so important for the Republicans to maintain control of the Senate, so it won't even be an option for them. It isn't good for bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship is dead.
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The progressives seem to think that they have a chance for the passage of lots of legislation by the new Congress.

What do you think has a good chance of becoming law? I would remind folks that almost all legislation requires at least 60 votes in the Senate to pass.
================================================
Personally, I think that the answer is almost nothing. There will be lots and lots of changes by Executive Order and by changes in policies in the various Executive Branch agencies.

There will be some compromise legislation on such things as budgets and debt limits (that has to happen or the government closes down). I believe that there will limited compromise legislation on health care and other items.

But these won't please the left. Let me use the example of healthcare. We are not going to see Medicare expansion. More likely is protections for those with pre-conditions, allowing insurers to have policies that are offered in more than one state, purchases of drugs from Canada, and forcing Medicare to have competitive bidding for drugs. DACA folk may be given a path to citizenship, but even legal status by the Congress would help.
I suspect that the executive orders will be challenged and end up in the courts where judges will legislate from court to court and from injunction to injunction
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,612
9,330
the Great Basin
✟325,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since they made use of the "nuclear option" in the Senate and the Republicans turned around and used it back on them a few years later, I think they'll come to rely on that. This is part of why it is so important for the Republicans to maintain control of the Senate, so it won't even be an option for them. It isn't good for bipartisanship.

The filibuster still exists for bills, any legislation in the Senate can be filibustered. The Democrats got rid of the filibuster on most appointments by the President (not Supreme Court justices) was removed, by Democrats, in 2013. In 2017, Republicans removed the filibuster on Supreme Court justices.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I suspect that the executive orders will be challenged and end up in the courts where judges will legislate from court to court and from injunction to injunction

Courts have gotten used to acting quickly on Trumper court challenges. The reality is that both Obama and Trump shown just how much can be done through Executive Order.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The filibuster still exists for bills, any legislation in the Senate can be filibustered. The Democrats got rid of the filibuster on most appointments by the President (not Supreme Court justices) was removed, by Democrats, in 2013. In 2017, Republicans removed the filibuster on Supreme Court justices.

I would note that the filibuster does not exist for Budget Reconciliation bills. I suspect that there are a couple of other narrow exceptions.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sketcher
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat

These come to mind. There are lots more

$15 national minimum wage
Medicare for those over 50, or even Medicare are for all
climate legislation, including banning of new coal plants or major overhauls to coal plants
reparations
marijuana legalization
legalization of abortions (rather than just a court ruling)
ending the filibuster
increasing the number of Supreme Court justices
tax legislation increasing corporate rates and those on the rich, lowering rates for the middle class
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The filibuster still exists for bills, any legislation in the Senate can be filibustered. The Democrats got rid of the filibuster on most appointments by the President (not Supreme Court justices) was removed, by Democrats, in 2013. In 2017, Republicans removed the filibuster on Supreme Court justices.

I would note that the filibuster does not exist for Budget Reconciliation bills. I suspect that there are a couple of other narrow exceptions.
Exactly what I was getting at. They'll load those bills with what they want passed the most.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
These come to mind. There are lots more

*$15 national minimum wage
Medicare for those over 50, or even Medicare are for all
* climate legislation, including banning of new coal plants or major overhauls to coal plants
- reparations
- marijuana legalization
legalization of abortions (rather than just a court ruling)
ending the filibuster
increasing the number of Supreme Court justices
* tax legislation increasing corporate rates and those on the rich, lowering rates for the middle class
The question was what will become law. Several of those are very unlikely to pass, even with a Democratic Senate. I’ve marked the ones I think have a reasonable chance. I doubt the specific Medicare plan you suggest will happen, but probably some expansion of government aid to health care. Also, like a big infrastructure bill. With Democratic Senate control, the Equality Act, though the Supreme Court seems to be doing that anyway. Some kind of police reform, I guess, though that may be more a matter of enforcement, so it will be a priority for the Justice Department. Further attempts to reduce prison population.

With a Republican Senate, maybe some climate change rules and an infrastructure bill. Likely nothing else.

I’ve put a minus next to things that are dangerous enough politically that Democrats would be unlikely to try. Marijuana can be removed a schedule 1 by administrative action. Since it's clearly not schedule 1 (there are therapeutic uses) that should be easy.

I'm not sure legislation is needed to handle immigration policy. That's largely left to the administration.

I'm not clear what the situation with abortion legislation. I'm not sure whether Federal law can actually prevent states from making it illegal. If so, Democrats would in principle like to do that. However I doubt if it practice it will happen. Even with a 50/50 Senate, so that it can get scheduled, I'm skeptical that there would be enough support among Democratic Senators to pass it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
One thing I've wondered about is legislation taking on gerrymandering. The Supreme Court says this is a political issue. That leaves it to Congress. The House is a judge of its own elections. I think the House could set standards for apportionment for House elections.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
None, at least in the next two years. The only thing that will make it through the senate will be the bare minimum to fund the government.

With a few shutdowns here and there to spite Biden...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Nithavela
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I suspect that the executive orders will be challenged and end up in the courts where judges will legislate from court to court and from injunction to injunction

Challenged on what grounds?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
These come to mind. There are lots more

$15 national minimum wage
Medicare for those over 50, or even Medicare are for all
climate legislation, including banning of new coal plants or major overhauls to coal plants
reparations
marijuana legalization
legalization of abortions (rather than just a court ruling)
ending the filibuster
increasing the number of Supreme Court justices
tax legislation increasing corporate rates and those on the rich, lowering rates for the middle class

Assuming any of these get done, what's the problem?
 
Upvote 0

Sophrosyne

Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16
Jun 21, 2007
163,213
64,206
In God's Amazing Grace
✟895,522.00
Faith
Christian
One thing I've wondered about is legislation taking on gerrymandering. The Supreme Court says this is a political issue. That leaves it to Congress. The House is a judge of its own elections. I think the House could set standards for apportionment for House elections.
When I was young many years before the age of voting I heard about gerrymandering and the democrats in my state controlled things and gerrymandered it big time for decades and now we have the opposite happening and I'm not going to be sympathetic to democrats being the "victim" of something that IMO they initiated far far before republicans got into doing it. Nobody in the courts stopped it back then why suddenly are they obliged to stop it now that the republicans and no longer the victim of it?
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The question was what will become law. Several of those are very unlikely to pass, even with a Democratic Senate. I’ve marked the ones I think have a reasonable chance. I doubt the specific Medicare plan you suggest will happen, but probably some expansion of government aid to health care. Also, like a big infrastructure bill. With Democratic Senate control, the Equality Act, though the Supreme Court seems to be doing that anyway. Some kind of police reform, I guess, though that may be more a matter of enforcement, so it will be a priority for the Justice Department. Further attempts to reduce prison population.

With a Republican Senate, maybe some climate change rules and an infrastructure bill. Likely nothing else.

I’ve put a minus next to things that are dangerous enough politically that Democrats would be unlikely to try. Marijuana can be removed a schedule 1 by administrative action. Since it's clearly not schedule 1 (there are therapeutic uses) that should be easy.

I'm not sure legislation is needed to handle immigration policy. That's largely left to the administration.

I'm not clear what the situation with abortion legislation. I'm not sure whether Federal law can actually prevent states from making it illegal. If so, Democrats would in principle like to do that. However I doubt if it practice it will happen. Even with a 50/50 Senate, so that it can get scheduled, I'm skeptical that there would be enough support among Democratic Senators to pass it.


I don't think any of the progressive agenda has a chance in the Senate, although in a Democratic Senate, closing some tax "loopholes" might be possible. I am thinking about tax benefits to the oil companies.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Assuming any of these get done, what's the problem?

My point is that NONE are likely to get done. In that case, the progressives will be quite disappointed. That was somewhat true under Obama, but they seem to have more power now. I think that there will be intra-party fights, especially in the House.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
One thing I've wondered about is legislation taking on gerrymandering. The Supreme Court says this is a political issue. That leaves it to Congress. The House is a judge of its own elections. I think the House could set standards for apportionment for House elections.

The House is the judge of voting within the House. They are not in control of the rules of gerrymandering. I believe that legislation would need to approved the same as any other bill: by the House, the Senate and the President.

BTW, I'm not sure what the federal COngress can do with regards to setting the standards for elections. As long as the state rules pass the muster of the courts, I suspect that (per the Constitution) it is up to the states to set the rules.
====
As an aside, the census rules need to challenged in court. We should be counting "all persons" as required before Trump was elected.
 
Upvote 0