Senator John Kerry hailed the Senate cloture vote to end debate on the new START treaty as a great bipartisan effort. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

The new START treaty, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, has been approved to be voted on by the Senate. The Senate had seemed to stall on passing the treaty, which reduces American and Russian nuclear arsenals. The START treaty vote was incredibly close.

Senate barely ratifies new START treaty

The U.S. Senate has passed a cloture motion, clearing the way to a final vote on the new START treaty after a tumultuous few days of debate and some harangues between partisan factions. Cloture is a part of parliamentary procedure, which forces debate to wrap up and a vote to be held. The START treaty vote for cloture was incredibly close, as it just barely cleared the necessary two-thirds majority with a vote of 67 for and 28 against, according to the New York Times. In all, there were eleven Republicans who crossed party lines and voted to kill debate. No Democrats voted against it. Though the treaty did pass, it did so by only two votes. There will still be a Democrat controlled Senate in 2011, but the lead will be even slimmer.

Old saw forms basis of objections

The biggest thorn in the sides of Republicans over this bill was mostly over missile defense. Missile defense systems have been a huge issue for decades, especially during the Reagan administration when the Strategic Defense Initiative or the “Star Wars” program, was an enormous national priority, though the program wasted billions of dollars, produced no results and was known to not be feasible to begin with. Senate Republicans wanted to ensure that the treaty did not impinge on the capability to develop and deploy missile defenses at home or possibly in Europe, though John McCain (R-AZ) had assured that it would not.

Final vote still pending

The final vote on the treaty, New START, may take place before Christmas. If the treaty passes, it will reduce the number of U.S. Warheads to 1,550 and number of launchers to 700. Then it must be approved by the Duma, the Russian legislature.

Sources

New York Times

Senator Harry Reid has failed to get cloture. Image from Wikimedia Commons

In order to head off any attempts at a filibuster, the U.S. Senate has tried to invoke cloture to wrap up debate.  The attempt was unsuccessful, and intense debate is expected to continue unabated for some time. It may take longer than previously thought to get the financial reform bill passed and onto the desk of the President.

Reid fails to get cloture

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called for a vote of cloture in order to head off debate over the financial reform bill, according to Reuters.  The vote, which requires a two-thirds majority, failed 57 to 42.  Cloture is a feature of parliamentary procedure and used to be incredibly rare. The U.S. Senate is still debating portions of the financial reform bill, and the potential for filibuster remains, so Senators may want to get personal loans for some cots and blankets.  Cloture has very specific conditions on how it can be brought about.

Haute Cloture

Cloture is a French word, and the word and meaning is derived from the same Latin word English derived the word closure from, clausura.  In terms of parliamentary procedure, it means that after a motion calling for cloture is passed, only a limited amount of debate can take place afterward.  For the Senate, only 30 more hours of debate total can take place, and no Senator may speak for more than an hour. It is a way to stop pointless and long winded debate and is the way a filibuster is stopped.

Senate unable to close debate

The row that had broken out concerned two amendments, one from Chris Dodd and one from Blanche Lincoln.  Lincoln’s amendment would prevent certain trades by banks, which Dodd is not in favor of.  Republicans oppose the amendments under debate, and the outright dropping of the Volcker rule was barely avoided.  The financial reform bill is still not finished, and it will some time before a final version is ready.

The U.S. Capitol Building. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

An amendment to the financial reform bill, which has been in the spotlight lately, has passed the Senate by an incredibly wide margin.  Included in the amendment are protections that preclude taxpayers from bearing the brunt of the expense of helping huge firms that go down in flames. The amendment to the bill passed 93 to 5, which means the changes made to the bill are things both parties are satisfied with Usually, the only bill that passes that quick is a vote to give legislators more payday cash.

Financial reform bill amendment passes Senate

The Senate voted 93 to 5 for the financial reform bill amendment, and lawmakers spent weeks collaborating to come up with regulations that made both sides of the aisle happy.  The amendment, according to CNN, was co-written by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), and only five Senators didn’t vote for it, 2 of which didn’t vote at all.

Too big to pay for

One of the changes that the amendment to the financial reform bill makes is that it places a tax on banks if any bank were to fail in the spectacular manner as several did during the Wall Street collapse.  The previous version would have taxed banks to create a $50 billion emergency fund for failing banks.  The new version still places the burden on investment banks if anyone of their number should fail as badly as they did in this last recession.

Regulatory reforms

There are numerous impacts the financial reform bill amendment would make. The new bi-partisan version of the bill allows the Federal Reserve to lend only to banks that need credit, but otherwise aren’t insolvent.  The FDIC would have to get Congressional approval before paying or guaranteeing any bank debts.  The amendment would also ban from the industry any bank executive or director who engages in illegal or otherwise illicit activity. Also included are new rules that would allow the government to recoup any over-payments on bank debt. In other words, say the government assists a failing bank, but pays a creditor more than they would receive in a bankruptcy.  The government would get the remainder back.

So far, so good, but so what?

At this moment, it’s only an amendment to a bill.  The financial reform bill is not close to passing yet, and it will be weeks before it’s ready to go to the House, never mind the President’s desk. The financial reform bill still has a long road ahead of it.

Sen Jim Bunning (R-KY). From Wikimedia Commons

On March 1st, 2010, Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) launched a one man filibuster opposing an extension on a bill that extended benefits for the unemployed.  It covered unemployment benefits, COBRA insurance, and other aid.  Sen. Bunning opposed the bill on grounds that insufficient funds were on hand to pay for it, and that unused stimulus funds should be used to pay for the $10 billion price tag.  Senate Republicans, along with fiscally conservative Democrats, have been warning that overspending will see the USA running for payday loans before long.  After prodigious coverage of the cantankerously portrayed MLB Hall of Famer, he has yet to agree to compromise.

Democrats and Republicans disturbed over outburst

Though his reasoning is certainly sound, and the national debt is absolutely a looming issue, the legislation that Bunning is obstinately in the way of is seen as a critical item, which will assist thousands during a time of unemployment.  Democrats and Republicans, along with the White House are not exactly pleased with him, and his public image may suffer as a result, as well as any support he has within the Republican Party.

Republican backlash

According to a recent article on CNN, Senator Susan Collins (R – Maine), said the issue is, “so important to senators on both sides of the aisle,” and that Bunning’s opinions “do not represent the majority of the Republican caucus.”  Another GOP senator who declined to be named said about Bunning that “This plays right into the Democratic narrative that we’re obstructionist,” and that “We look insensitive.” He also added:  “To say Bunning is not beloved is an understatement.”

More than unemployment benefits are in the provision

The emergency bill included more than just an extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA health insurance – also included were satellite TV licensing, small business loans, and also an extension of funding for highway projects, the cancellation of which could potentially lead to a furlough of federal highway inspectors, which in turn would lead to construction workers being sent home as well until the bill can be passed.  An emergency bill of this kind often requires unanimous consent (everyone must vote yes) to pass, and this bill was not intended as simply another cash advance for Wall Street.

National debt vs unemployment

Government debts and deficits are bad, as bad if not worse than unemployment.   How governments take on debt is through spending more than they make (taxes).  There is a case for borrowing during recessions.

The Roosevelt administration borrowed heavily to fund World War 2, and to curb the Great Depression, which many economists opine didn’t actually end until 1946.  Obama is simply reacting in the same fashion, but here’s the kicker – how it’s supposed to work is that debt is created to curb a recession, or fight a war, but as soon as that is done, the belt is supposed to tighten and the debt paid off as soon as things return to normal.  Right now, things are not normal – unemployment is at an all time high, which only exacerbates a recessionary period.  The three largest spending constraints on the US are known – and they are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and defense spending.  All three must be curbed if we are to be serious about reforming government spending.

Update – 2/3/2010

Senator Bunning has relented, and the bill, granting the extensions, has passed.

Millions of Americans who can't find work could benefit from the unemploment extension vote.

The unemployment extension vote that took place Tuesday cleared the way for the unemployment extension bill to make its way through Congress. The House has passed the bill, which would allow unemployed workers to collect benefits for an additional 13 weeks beyond what is already allotted.

Originally, the bill specified that only states that have unemployment rates of 8.5 percent or higher would receive the benefits, but that provision has been amended. Because some states with lower overall unemployment rates have areas with very high unemployment, the bill was amended to include all states. Another unemployment extension vote must take place before the benefits will be extended.

Unemployment extension vote sorely needed

The nation’s unemployment rate is hovering uncomfortably near 10 percent, at 9.8 percent, and several million Americans are scheduled to stop receiving unemployment benefits before the end of the year. People who aren’t getting payday cash rely heavily on unemployment benefits.

The bill would provide emergency unemployment compensation for people who are actively seeking work but unable to find it. If the Senate passes the bill when it holds the unemployment extension vote, job seekers would have another three months to try to find jobs while still collecting unemployment insurance.

Why unemployment extension is needed

Out-of-work citizens who are collecting unemployment must actively seek work. In the state I live in, people are require to apply for three jobs per week in order to be eligible for unemployment. Though the jobs the insured applies for do not have to be in the person’s field, people aren’t required to accept job offers unless the pay and position match their previous job.

People in many different fields are having a very tough time finding work during this recession. Many people often think that someone who is collecting unemployment should take whatever job he or she can get, but the reality is that sometimes people can make a lot more from unemployment than they’d make working at Starbucks. Extending unemployment benefits would allow people more time to find a suitable job in the right field of work. This could prevent people from having to uproot their families and move for a job or accept positions below their skill levels.

As anyone who has tried to find a job during this recession knows, the unemployment extension vote could greatly help or hurt millions of Americans.

Drama in the unemployment extension vote

So far, there have been some near scuffles involving the unemployment extension vote. Congress held a cloture vote Tuesday, which is simply a vote agreeing that they should proceed to have a vote on the bill. This was necessary because some members were unable to reach an agreement regarding amendments to the bill.

Sen. Harry Ried at one point threatened to hold a vote at midnight this morning. That would have been the soonest time Congress could legally vote on the bill, as it was 30 hours after the cloture vote. He didn’t follow through with holding the unemployment extension vote at midnight, but the bill passed in House anyway.