As I understand it, the rules change modifying or eliminating the filibuster would have to be done at the very beginning of a new congress- which would mean January 2011. Is that correct?

at anytime you can changes the rules by pretending the rules mean something different with 50 votes. but to make a more “legitimate” chance you would do that at the start of each congress.

Would love to see Biden & the Dems take action against the filibuster, but I suspect they’re too timid to do anything more than bitch about the filibuster and use it as an excuse for their failure to get anything done. In any event, it’s a huge roadblock to progress, it’s undemocratic (with a small “d”), and it needs to be eliminated.

OT but I hope Jon has an answer for this. “the way the federal government calculates the reimbursement rate for Medicaid is “the single biggest inequity in federal funding.”

While the federal government pays half the cost in California, the governor noted that it pays 75 percent in Mississippi and 65 percent in Arizona. Altogether, he said, 38 states have higher reimbursement rates than California, which in effect means the Golden State’s residents “are subsidizing the Medicaid program” in those other states.”

“But doctors say only a third of the state’s 60,000 practicing physicians are participating in the program because of low reimbursement rates, and they fear that more physicians will opt out.

“Increasing eligibility for Medi-Cal without increasing reimbursement rates would be catastrophic,” said Brennan Cassidy, president of the 35,000-member California Medical Association. “There’s no place for those patients to go for primary care because doctors aren’t accepting them.”

From here

And add to it all the lack dental and vision coverage in the current proposed bills, CA’s doing away with dental and vision coverage for CA Medi-Cal patients (just have been informed of $1500 worth of dental work I need to get done and that is WITH INSURANCE) and one has to wonder at it all.

No democracy has survived needing a super majority.

Well, Joe, there’s California. Oh, wait…

And by the way, let’s get rid of this stupid Byrd rule, too. There are too many exceptions, complications, and ‘rules’ in the way of that most American of values: majority rule. Let’s get back to basics, shall we?

take down the filibuster and the Byrd rule is no longer important.

You’re easily interested, Mr. Walker.

From where I sit, nothing the least out of the ordinary for Obama/Biden to talk tough with no intention whatsoever of doing anything about it.

Why doesn’t Biden just write a “strongly worded letter?” That’s always been the Democrats first and only course of action.

If Nate is correct and Brown goes down, Biden just may have the perfect opportunity to put his money where his mouth is. I’m not holding my breath.

If the WH had wanted real HCR legislation, vs. corporate-written crap that they pretend is reform, this 60-vote nonsense would have ended a long time ago.

I’m hoping the progressives in MA make this clear tomorrow.

I find it interesting now that the D’s are in power their wanting to end the filibuster. I seem to remember when the FISA vote was coming up quite a few were in favor of it.
I’m still in favor of a filibuster, but a real one that makes these old farts stand for hours and hours and brings everything to a halt to shine light on the bill or the obstructionist that are doing the filibustering.

I am in favor of rules like Quanto promotes.
- If you want to filibuster, you can’t just say it. Prepare to man the podium 24/7.
- If you want a bill read in its entirety, you MAY NOT LEAVE the chamber during the reading.
- No more anonymous holds on anything.

Who do these people think they work for?

Its time to do away with the BULLSHIT excuse for the dignity of the institution. The majority of the Senators are corrupt, putting the interests of the corporate donors ahead of the constituents. The Dems PISSED AWAY a huge opportunity to such corporate interests.

It would be nice to think that this election could act as a wake up call, but we all know that it won’t.

Riiiight, let’s make a horrendously bad situation worse by removing the filibuster! Joe was defending the filibuster back when Republicans wanted to get rid of it.

For Joseph Biden, the Delaware Democrat and a senator since 1973, the Senate remains a place where “you can always slow things down and make sure that a minority gets a voice,” he said recently. And, he added, “the chance to filibuster”—using extended debate in order to block legislation—“is what makes the difference between this body and the other one.”

Now, when his party is in the majority and the Republicans are abusing the filibuster, he wants to get rid of it. And just as the GOP was a few years ago, Biden and the Democrats very shortsighted in assuming that their party will retain control of the Senate. When the GOP wanted to get rid of the filibuster so it could ram its legislation and nominees through with a simple majority vote, Democrats raised a stink — and for good reason. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they’re adopting yet another Republican position. When will these losers learn? Coakley lost what should have been an easy Senate race in large part because Democrats have moved too far to the right and refuse to undo the horrors of the Bush-Cheney regime. Coakley lost because, as she had just enough sense to realize, Democrats now own the Republican status quo and the GOP is now running as the populist party.

So go ahead, clown shoes. Get rid of the filibuster and watch your candy-asses get handed to you for another generation or two because of your rank stupidity.