Today, via Twitter, from Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander (D):

Jason Kander ‏@JasonKander

Folks burying 100 year time capsule at state Capitol asked me for a #moleg roster. Couldn’t resist … [….] 10:39 AM – 3 Jul 2015

In the time capsule – from Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander (D).

Hope springs eternal.

Previously:

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City (December 14, 2009)

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 2 (December 15, 2009)

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part 3 (December 16, 2009)

Kander (D) and Flook (r): ethics reform legislation in Jefferson City, part  4 (December 22, 2009)

A majority of the members of the U.S. Senate can change their procedural rules. Today that body did just that, in a reaction to republican minority obstruction, in ridding the body of the filibuster for district court federal judgeships, appellate court judgeships, and administration appointments subject to Senate approval. Bear in mind, a majority of senators must still approve these appointments.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) was one of the members of the Senate who finally had enough of the unprecedented republican minority obstruction and who voted for the rule change.

Meanwhile, a few people have come down with a case of pearl clutching vapors, via Twitter:

Milo ‏@chasbottom

@clairecmc I’ll remember your vote on the filibuster rule when election day is here. You’re Harry Reids vote, right? 2:42 PM – 21 Nov 13

Uh, you’re gonna have to wait until 2018. It’s going to be a while.

Tessa M. Harper ‏@TessaHarper2

@clairecmc Today you put another nail in the coffin of your political career 7:23 PM – 21 Nov 13

Again, it’s a long wait to 2018.

It’s so comforting to know that republican senators agree that the filibuster is one of the most important and inviolable constitutional prerogatives of that body. Oh, wait…

Almost three years ago we asked Senator McCaskill (D) about filibuster reform:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City (January 20, 2011)

….Blue Girl: One in nine federal judgeships, first question here, uh, they, you know, Congress, the hundred eleventh adjourned before the Senate could even consider hundreds of bills, uh, nothing’s been getting done, uh, this did not happen because it takes sixty votes to break a filibuster but because the minority can force the entire Senate to waste up to thirty hours ever, ever, every time the Senate holds a vote. What reforms do you support to stop this obstruction of even the most uncontroversial business?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Um, well the good news is that we did get twenty-two of them through, um, judges through, uh, by, by unanimous consent right before we adjourned. So, that’s good. Um, I do think the secret hold thing is really important because if you own it then you gotta explain it. And what happens is these guys hold these things secretly and then they, of course, vote for the nominees when they’re for, forced to.

Blue Girl: Right.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): So, you having the ability just to gum things up without anybody ever taking ownership is a huge problem. I am optimistic that we are gonna get the rule change on secret holds.  Um, I think that is really hard for the other side to justify as they’re preaching transparency and accountability. I don’t know how they don’t accept a change in the rules to do away with the secret hold. And I think you do away with the secret hold it has an amazing ability to clean some of this stuff up. Now, do we make the changes in the filibuster? I would love to see the people who are filibustering have to be the ones to produce the forty. I’d love to see the people who are doing the filibustering have to hold the floor. I’d love for the people to see an actual filibuster.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Instead of the procedural  way they’ve done it,  which is they quietly object and then they kind of skulk off and the majority is left there to hold the floor and, and for the thirty hours and the staff [crosstalk] is there and so [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: They should read about the Polish Sejm.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Uh, yeah. So, so, um, but the question is, are we willing to break what has been traditional precedent in the Senate and change the rules by a simple majority vote? And once we do that then we need to realize that it can always be done. And that means that the Republicans could do the same thing if they took the majority in two years. And we have to realize the rules they may want to change may not be as reasonable and modest as the rule changes we want. [crosstalk]

Michael Bersin, Show Me Progress: But does, but does anybody expect that, you know, given their past behavior that they wouldn’t do that anyway?

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I think it’s really hard for them to do that anyway. I think it’s very hard. I think, um, it’s, it’s, uh, it’s kind of what happened with the nuclear option. As you remember, there was a group of Republicans that wanted to do this when Democrats, uh, were blocking Bush’s judicial nominees. And it was in fact a group of moderate Republicans that said, no, we’re not gonna do this. And it didn’t happen. If it had happened I don’t know, you know, we probably would have had some significant rule changes along the lines that a lot of people are talking about now. You know, the Republicans make the point, and it is a valid point, how often we fill the tree. Um, we have filled the tree a lot. We have not given the Republicans an opportunity to offer amendments and so it’s almost like an escalating warfare here. Um, and the reason that we fill the tree is because they’re, I think the leadership thought it was a good idea to keep us from having to waste time on voting on amendments that were not germane. What I affectionately call the gotcha amendments.  And [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: Poison pills.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): The, yeah, poison pills. Um, at the end of the day. It’s probably what you signed up for when you go to the United States Senate, that you’ve got to cast difficult votes. And I’m one of the senators that is encouraging leadership to not always fill the tree, to allow open amendment process. Um, so, we’ll see what happens on the rules. But I, I’m gonna be surpri, we’ve all signed  a letter  saying we want these rule changes. And I am supporting these rule changes. And I’m hopeful these rule changes happen. Um, but if they don’t I think we’ve got to, you know, decide, um, how far are we willing to go and what are the consequences of that long term for the Senate and for the minority, not just in the current scenario….

Here’s the thing, anyone who thinks a republican majority in the Senate wouldn’t get rid of the filibuster (for everything) at their first opportunity is delusional.

It took long enough for the current Democratic majority to realize just that.

Yesterday the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a great editorial. The problem it addressed was straightforward: the $500 million plus state budget shortfall. The editorial writers made no bones about the obvious source of the problem:

Digging out of this hole is Missouri’s true challenge. But neither our Legislature nor our governor can get over their “no new taxes” pledges to do anything meaningful about it.

The solution they suggested was just as straightforward:

Mr. Nixon should declare a holiday. A tax credit holiday.

This single action would more than fill the budget hole estimated by legislative leaders to be in the range of $500 million.

Everybody in the Capitol knows that Missouri’s biggest ongoing budget problem, outside of the Great Recession, is the state’s propensity to hand out tax credits like legislative candy along a parade route. Some credits go to good causes, like senior citizens on a fixed income. Most go to developers or corporations as incentives, theoretically, to create jobs.

Unfortunately for the theory that tax credits create jobs, the evidence that they do so overall is just not there. This fact is fairly well known, accounting for the fact that there are folks on all sides of the partisan divide willing to take pot shots at the practice.

Happily, there are some folks who are willing to at least try to take action to rationalize the use of tax credits. Sadly, they aren’t in Missouri. Michigan Democratic lawmakers, referencing the relationship between an educated work force and job creation, put forward a plan to finance free community college tuition for state residents, which would paid for by canceling $3.5 million worth of tax credits:

Study after study after study has emphasized the importance of a highly educated workforce in the economic vitality of any state in the 21st century” said Senate Democratic leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing

So what has our governor decided to do? In spite of the importance of education to our economically beleaguered state, Governor Nixon proposes to partially balance the budget by cutting $89 million from an already mediocre state higher education system.

This year, when you hear talk about the state’s dire budget situation and the pain and suffering it has caused – 860 state jobs will be lost, for just one instance – remember there was a solution staring us in the face, and miracle of miracles, it might even  have garnered some bipartisan support. Also keep in mind that a few days ago, GOP gubernatorial candidate Dave Spence actually proposed a moratorium on tax credits as an important part of his economic plan. He seems to have learned something in those home economics courses.

To give the Governor his due, he’s up against a system that practically dictates that the worst case solution will be the only practicable option. In spite of some GOP criticism of tax credits, others in the legislature have made their unwillingness to reform the state’s program known. Last year, in fact, the Governor was warned by Steve Tilley, who has since become House Speaker, and three other powerful committee chairman – before he even put a budget proposal forward – that they would not permit him to use tax credit reform to balance the budget.

It’s hard not to conclude that once again powerful vested interested are calling the shots when it comes to the distribution of state tax dollars.  Nevertheless, one can’t help wondering just what might be achieved if the Governor had been willing to go out on a limb and show just a little more political courage. Surely there’s a time when we have to fight – even if we’re already backed to the wall? Perhaps that’s when we most need to show some fight.

Making the U.S. Senate actually work via changing the rules, explained in 90 seconds:

Narrator: This legislative summary is brought to you by Main Street Insider. Today we examine the “constitutional option” as proposed by Senator Tom Udall which is a mechanism that opens the door to changing filibuster rules. The Senate’s reputation as the place where bills go to die is becoming increasingly appropriate since two thousand seven.

David Waldman: Major legislation used to face a filibuster about eight to ten percent of the the time as far back as the sixties. These days seventy plus percent of the bills and nominations coming to the floor face a filibuster which really means that the Senate has just become paralyzed.  

Narrator: In response Senator Udall has proposed using a procedural mechanism that allows a simple majority to end a debate on rules changes at the beginning of a new Congress instead of the usual two thirds super majority.

This so-called “constitutional option”, if approved, would apply only on the first legislative day of the session and would require the President of the Senate’s approval. It does not contain any substantive changes to the rules themselves and simply provides an avenue to approve the rules with fifty-one votes.

Supporters say that filibuster reform is crucial to meeting the nation’s many pressing concerns and believe this option presents the best hope to change the rules.

Senator Tom Udall: With the hundreds of bills passed by the House the senate’s to do list keeps growing. the obstruction is irresponsible and far too easily influenced by the special interests.

Narrator: Opponents argue that the filibuster is a longstanding and important tradition that should not be jettisoned so casually.

The measure is expected to be brought up by Senator Udall in the first day of the new session, January fifth, and will require a majority vote, or fifty votes plus Vice President Biden to pass….

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Twitter flurry on republican obstruction and filibuster reform (December 10, 2010)

….And, of course, we chimed in:

@MBersin @clairecmc Then do something about changing the rules in January. #MO 44 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And Blue Girl:

@BGinKC @clairecmc And if the Ds don’t change the rules 1st thing Jan 5th, it stops being their fault and starts being yours. #thatsjustthewayitis 41 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And someone else:

@DoctorD71 @clairecmc You guys need to vote to change the Senate rules to stop the R roadblock. 39 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® in reply to clairecmc

….

Well, Claire, which side are you on?