Lame duck session should be used for progressive legislation

[andym]

No matter what happens next Tuesday, the current Congress should try to use the remaining lame duck session to pass progressive legislation, such as capping premiums in HCR (or even adding a public option), repealing DADT, passing Cap and Trade, Immigration reform, perhaps even work bill (like the WPA) etc.

If reconciliation is needed to bypass a Senate filibuster, then use it.

If the GOP gains seats (even if they don't seize control of the House), there will be pressure placed through the MSM to not do anything, but rather respect the voters' "intentions." I think that should be ignored, because the chance of any progressive legislation will be much lower should Democrats lose seats in either House, and non-existent should the GOP take the House.

[indy legend]

1. They should, but they won't. After two years and squandering

an unprecedented opportunity to move this country forward, why would they grow a pair now?

[andym]

2. They'll have nothing to lose

and everything to gain.

[indy legend]

3. We wouldn't be loosing if they had done this from the start.

I just wish our side would,when they get into power, occasionally act like they won.I know it's a crazy concept but maybe if you fight for the people who elected you instead of constantly trying to compromise with the people who didn't, the people who elected you would vote for you again. I don't know. Maybe that's just me.

[TheWraith]

5. Don't start rewriting history.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that if we'd passed a more sweeping healthcare bill, or cap and trade, or other things like that that it would magically woo the notoriously fickle "independent" voters. If the economy had picked up faster, sure.

[Enthusiast]

7. It wouldn't have hurt.

It would have convinced millions of us that President Obama is on the side of the citizenry rather than on the side of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. See, when more people trust the president they have a tendency to vote for his party.

[Pab Sungenis]

9. Our problem is not the independents.

Our problem is our base. We're running the risk of not bringing Democrats to the voting booths in the numbers we need to.

Also, there are a lot of INDEPENDENTS who also believe that we didn't do anywhere near enough.

[depakid]

18. They have cushy corporate and lobbying opportunities to lose

Besides, it would make Republicans angry- and we can't have that when the President is looking forward to working with them in a spirit of bipartisanship.

[Radical Activist]

4. We can't afford two years of delay on climate change.

Either something needs to be done in veto session or the filibuster rule needs to be changed.

[datan]

6. and

pigs can fly

[KharmaTrain]

8. They Call It A Lame Duck Session For A Reason

Just as Democrats did do all they could to stall any GOTB and booosh regime moves in their last days of control, expect the rushpublicans to do the same. With the polarized nature of things, it'll be hard for them to reach agreement on naming a Post Office. The GOTB leadership has already signaled they will continue to obstruct and with more numbers on the way they'll only be more energized to paralyze this administration for the next two years.

[End Of The Road]

10. Exactly! nt

[rug]

11. Hard to pass progressive legislation when you're lurching for cover on the right.

If it wasn't done a year ago, it won't be done now.

[MadHound]

12. If they were interested in passing progressive legislation, they would have already

Why should they pass such legislation when the election has come and gone and they've already got the votes?

[cascadiance]

13. They have passed stuff but it has been blocked by the Senate...

If they pass it now before the end of the year and it gets sent over to the new Senate, it might in fact get passed with new filibuster rules. We really need to come up with some key strategic bills we want passed and get them through the House this lame duck session if the House turns red and the Senate doesn't. It might be the one time in the next two years we can actually get some things through the system... This is where Obama's leadership needs to take a page out of LBJ's book and start hammering on them to do so come November 3rd. Now if the Dems are able to retain the House, then yes, the session will be pretty lame duck, though perhaps then it might the good time for progressives to push for new stuff to be voted on that might be harder with a narrow majority. Probably a lot will depend on how many progressives (ala Grayson) lose their seats versus the Blue Dogs who are probably more apt to lose their seats in swing districts.

[bvar22]

14. Could.

Won't.

The Lame Duck WILL be used to slash Social Security/Medicare in a sickening "bi-partisan" Kabuki because...

"We didn't have the votes,"

"We couldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good,"

"This is historic legislation that will Save our Children."

"Today, we SAVED Social Security,"

and,

"We'll fix it later."

[andym]

15. Point of my post is to ask activists to try to make this happen

by asking Congress to do something. Even if the chances are low, it's still worth applying pressure, especially on congress people who have little to lose.

[dflprincess]

16. Yeah because the pressure we all put on them for access to healthcare

worked so well. They ignored us and passed the insurance bailout instead & that was when they still had their own jobs to worry about.

Do you really think they'll listen to us now?

[andym]

17. As I said, they might listen if this is their last gasp to do anything for two years

or they are going to be replaced anyway and have nothing to lose.

It's a different dynamic than before, but pressure still has to be exerted.

As for really listening to us now, who knows, but where the opportunity exists, even if the chances are low, I believe it is still worth taking, especially when there is everything to gain and nothing to lose but some small amount of one's time.