The Majority Leader Puts His Foot Down

The gentleman pictured above is the majority leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid (D-Nevada). In 2009 and 2010, Reid went along with the president's repeated attempts to involve the Republicans in a bipartisan effort to govern and shape legislation. It even got to the point where many progressives, including me, thought that both Reid and the president were not just being bipartisan but actually knuckling under to the GOP. I called for Reid to be replaced as majority leader.

But things have changed. Although the president is still open to bipartisanship, he has realized that the Republicans want no part of that. For the GOP, it's their way or the highway. The president has started playing some political hardball, and Reid is right their beside him (refusing to give in on any more ridiculous Republican demands). Reid has put his foot down in the Senate, and is demanding the Republicans keep their word.

Last summer, the Democrats and Republicans agreed to form a "super committee" to find a reasonable way to cut the deficit. They also agreed that if that committee could not agree on a solution, then there would be a 10% across-the-board cut in all discretionary budget items, including the military budget (which makes up nearly half of the entire world's military spending). The committee failed, and now the cuts are due to be enacted -- and the Pentagon is on board with this, saying the cuts will NOT endanger national defense.

The cuts will be hard, but at least they are fair -- and they will reduce the deficit. But the Republicans have now decided to break their word. House Republicans have produced a budget that not only restores the 10% that was supposed to be cut from the military budget, but tacks an addition $8 billion dollars on to the budget for additional military spending (in spite of the fact the Pentagon says they don't need it).

The House would pay for at least part of this additional military spending by making deeper cuts (deeper than the agreed upon 10%) in domestic social programs -- the programs that help the poor and other Americans that have been hurt by the GOP recession. None of the additional spending is offset by any new taxes on the rich (as the Democrats have asked for). Now the bill goes to the Senate.

But Majority Leader Reid is having none of it. He says the bill will not pass without substantial changes. Their will be no additional military spending and no additional cuts to social programs beyond the agreed-to cuts -- unless the Republicans are willing to discuss additional revenues (more taxes on the rich). And Reid is speaking from a position of strength, since all he has to do is keep the House bill from passing (either by voting it down or filibustering it to death).

Reid's position of strength comes from the fact that if Congress does nothing at all, two things will happen automatically -- the across-the-board 10% cuts will kick in (including the cuts to the military), and the Bush tax cuts will expire. And that would be a lot better than the Republican budget proposal going into effect. Personally, I would like to see only the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000 a year, but allowing all of the cuts to expire is better than keeping all of the cuts.

And Reid doesn't need 60 votes this time, or even a simple majority. All he needs is 41 votes -- enough to keep a filibuster alive (and the repeated abuse of the filibuster system by the Republicans leaves them without a leg to stand on).

I'm liking this new iron-willed majority leader (and president also). I hope they keep this up. The Republicans have been allowed to play their silly games with the budget and the economy for far too long.