>endrik Hertzberg in the latest New Yorker seems to think they can:
>bviously, he's not the ultimate authority on this. Is he just wrong?
>Gary Ashwill
Indirectly, he may end up being partially right. The filibuster rules are preventing the GOP from trying to ram the tax cut through the Senate right now, as they are doing in the House. Since it would have to be proposed as a special bill at the moment, the normal filibuster rules apply.
However, once it is included as part of the full budget, as will be done in a month, it then comes under the so-called conciliation rules of the 1974 Budget Act, which, in order to avoid delays and filibusters, put budget votes outside the normal filibuster rules.
On the other hand, by delaying the vote until then and forcing Bush to specify which programs will get cut to pay for his tax cut, it may help kill the momentum for the full tax bill. One reason the Dems have reportedly been playing nice is that they knew they could delay the bill and are saving ammunition for when the vote is closer. Bush is actually losing votes at the moment, since the whole ramming-it-through-Congress approach in the House has actually lost the support of even the more conservative "Blue Dog" members. The bill may pass on a nearly party line vote, so Bush may be about to lose whatever claim to bipartisanship he may have been trying to make.
There is also the ghoulish hope that any delay in the vote may lead to Strom Thumond dying, which would shift control of the rules to the Democrats. In many ways, the office of Senate physician is now the most important information office in the Capitol at the moment.
-- Nathan newman