What happens: 50 -50 Senate

Discussion in 'Politics' started by trumasseur, Oct 21, 2008.

  1. trumasseur

    trumasseur New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    198
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Omaha NE USA
    This is chilling!:stups:
    Which party controls the Senate if there is a 50-50 tie?

    Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that The Vice President is the President of the Senate. The Vice President has no vote unless to break a tie in some matter before the Senate.

    Therefore, if the election leads to a 50-50 party split in the Senate, the Vice-President's vote will give the majority to his or her party.

    Since this is a presidential election year, an interesting event will occur if the Senate does end up tied after the 2008 election. Since the new Senate will be sworn in about 2 1/2 weeks before the new President and Vice-President (the latter pair take the oath of office on January 20th), the Republicans would technically be the majority party in that interim period. If the new Vice-President is a Democrat, the majority would then revert back to the Democrats after the 20th. This actually happened in 2001, with the two parties agreeing on a power-sharing arrangement during those interim weeks before George Bush and Dick Cheney were inaugurated.
     
  2. Zeuhl34

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,104
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    40
    Gender:
    Male
    The Senate won't be tied after this election. The Dems will have between 56 and 60 seats. So there will not be any such conflict.
     
  3. TurkeyWithaSunburn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    3,543
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    252
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    No chilling would be an electoral tie.
    And then the House and Senate not being able to get majorities for Pres and VP
    Then the Speaker of the House is interim? President until there is a clearcut majority. :eek:

    Come on down President Nancy Pelosi! :confused:

    Did that make a big of sense?

    <edit>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5386278&page=1
     
    #3 TurkeyWithaSunburn, Oct 21, 2008
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2008
  4. ripsrips

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Messages:
    668
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Central Coast, CA
    Verified:
    Photo

    This is something you learn in the 6th grade...I don't know why this matters right now?
     
  5. trumasseur

    trumasseur New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    198
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Omaha NE USA
    well, there are glass half-full and glass half-empty perspectives...and people who don't know which is which. religious = clinging to guns??? Did we ever find out what Christ's earthly weapon-of-choice was? LOL
     
  6. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,453
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL

    ah... but rarely would all senators on each hold true to the line... there's a number of sheep's in wolves clothing, and folks worried about re-election. it's a sweet gig. rarely do ppl leave it for a reason.
     
    #6 faceking, Oct 21, 2008
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2008
  7. D_Tully Tunnelrat

    D_Tully Tunnelrat New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hopefully not the "maverick" Palin Party, that would indeed be chilling.

    Seriously, there are always brokered deals on most bills, so at least someone breaks rank for an unknown quid-pro-quo, like subsidies for wooden arrows. It looks like it will be Lunchbucket Joe, however.
     
  8. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    We had a 50-50 senate earlier this decade, in fact. It didn't last long -- from January to June of 2001.
     
  9. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    quite a few are worried about the prospect of a Democratically controlled Presidency and Legislature

    the following article echoes some of my concerns


    • OCTOBER 17, 2008
    A Liberal Supermajority

    Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.


    more in Opinion ยป




    If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
    http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CN357_oj_1de_D_20081017111258.jpg AP


    Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
    The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
    http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AI396_Filibu_NS_20081016214818.gif


    - Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
    Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.
    The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.
    Editorial-page writer Joe Rago explains just how bad it could get in 2009. (Oct. 21)


    - The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.
    The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.
    - Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.
    The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.
    - Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.
    - The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.
    - Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.
    Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.
    - Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

    It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.
    In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
     
    #9 B_Nick4444, Oct 22, 2008
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2008
  10. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,099
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    And why would there even be a 'Liberal SuperMajority' possible? Because of the SPECTACULAR failures of the last 8 years. In other words...

    YOU'RE FIRED!!!
     
  11. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually during the 50-50 Senate tie of 2001, all of the senators did hold true to the line. Members of both parties are sheep who care about power and not governing.


    Let's not give the Democrats too much credit. As the article mentioned, they also controlled the White House, Senate and House from 1993-1995 and didn't do jack. There was also Democratic control of all three from 1977-1979, including a filibuster-proof Senate majority. Nothing of consequence was passed. In fact, Carter had just as much trouble working with other congressional Dems as he did with the GOP.


    The Clinton administration raised taxes and increased regulation and the rest of the decade featured a major economic expansion. The two things are not closely related.


    Seeing as how the Democrats are also highly dependent on campaign contributions from corporations, it's very unlikely that unions will regain the status they had 60 years ago.


    Also not very likely because:

    1) in a recession, no one will want to raise taxes. Every American seems to think they deserve a tax cut, despite the fact that they approve of the federal government spending far more money than it has. As long as this irrational viewpoint persists, the budget won't ever get balanced, even though it's a major reason for the current financial troubles.

    2) Many of the new congressional Democrats elected in 2006 (and who would be in 2008) are from conservative, rural areas in the South and Great Plains. Voting for higher taxes would ensure that they wouldn't get reelected in 2010. They don't have the balls. Without them, there's no majority in either house for tax increases.


    Trillions? Really? Please. Nobody knows how to make trillions off of global warming, especially not the federal government. And the whole point of cap-and-trade -- which by the way, McCain supports -- is that it isn't about bureaucracy. It sets standards and lets the market push capital to the investments that make sense. Whether that would actually reduce global warming or not is an open question, but it wouldn't be a recipe for big government. By the way, big government has been an exclusively Republican strategy over most of the last 20 years, so let's not assume that the Democrats have a lock on it.


    This one is actually true. However, it should be pointed out that despite many opportunities to do so, no Republican governments have repealed any of them, or even made a strong effort to do so. Why? Because they've been popular. The New Deal resulted in Social Security, unemployment benefits, public works projects, FDIC savings guarantees, the electrification of poor rural areas, and employee-provided health insurance. The Great Society created Medicare, job training programs, civil rights protections, and funding for the arts. There were certainly excesses, and some of them have been dialed back, but all of these things remain in some shape or form because Americans want to keep them. And Republicans won't repeal them because they want to be in power, as we saw when GWB proposed privatizing parts of Social Security in 2005.

    That's not to say that the Democrats won't overreach. They probably will. But that doesn't mean they'll manage to change much when they do. And the examples cited by the article are more about conservative whining about popular ideas they didn't come up with than any bearing on the present day.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted