Mar 25, 2015

51 Senators Open To Cutting Social Security

     From The Hill:
Senators on Tuesday blocked an amendment from Senate Democrats aimed at protecting Social Security.  
Senators voted 51-48 on a procedural motion, after Democrats tried to override the decision of Sen. Mike Enzi's (R-Wyo.), the chairman of the Budget Committee, to block the amendment.  
The amendment would have required any proposal that cuts benefits or raises the Social Security retirement age meet a “point of order” requiring a supermajority of 60 votes for passage. 
But, Enzi blocked the amendment, saying it was not "germane" to the budget.


Anonymous said...


I am a solid democrat and believe that cutting SS is problematic (although likely necessary at some point in the future).

However, I also believe in the democratic system, which is premised on proposals that receive the MAJORITY of the votes passing. This filibuster/supermajority BS that has been going on in Congress the past few years is ridiculous. Propose a bill, vote, if it gets 51 votes it passes, if it doesn't if fails. Enough with the games.

Anonymous said...

So after several years of Democrat rule and doing it their way, now you want the Republicans to play fair? Hypocrit..

Anonymous said...

It reminds me of an old crooked congressman who once noted, if I know and control procedures I will beat the guys who know the substance every time. Both sides do it when they can.

What you can tell from the maneuvering and the votes is who is against people with disabilities and who is for them. If that might influence what button you push in a voting booth, then take note.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the first anon. Supermajority rules unnecessarily hamstring legislatures when crises hit. They sound like a good idea until governments need to take emergency action. And I lean Democrat too.

Anonymous said...

@ 8:21.

I think that the supermajority requirement is ridiculous, regardless of who is using it.

BTW. When Democrats had "control" of congress, it was the Republicans who kept withholding the required votes (or filibustering) to keep things from passing. Nice revisionist history.