The filibuster has a long tradition as a tool against progressive policies.
MATT YANCEY
793 words
22 September 1988
The Associated Press
English
(Copyright 1988. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Senate Democrats failed Thursday to break a Republican filibuster of a bill clouded in presidential politics to raise the $3.35 an hour minimum wage for the first time since 1981.
On a 53-43 vote _ seven short of the 60 needed _ the Senate refused to limit to 30 more hours debate on legislation by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., to raise the wage floor to $3.75 in January, $4.15 in 1990 and $4.55 in 1991.
"It's only clear that there is a deliberate attempt to stall action on this bill," said Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., who called the Republican tactics a filibuster.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the leader of the Republican opposition to any increase in the minimum wage that does not include a subminimum wage for new hires, said the issue needs extended debate.
"I know a little bit about filibustering and I've certainly led my share around here," Hatch said. "But I only lead them on very, very important issues where we really have to have extended debate or what I would call extended educational dialogue. This particular bill needs a lot of that."
A couple of points. For one, it proves Republican embrace of the filibuster when they were in the minority. Hatch did indeed say he "led [his] share" of them.
But a broader point -- losing the filibuster may not be the worst thing in the world. It has been used to squash many a progressive bill by minority Republicans. The Democrats will one day rule the Senate, and when the time comes, what goes around comes around.
The GOP once embraced the filibuster, even against judicial nominees. Now, they want it gone. They have a choice to make. Filibuster or no filibuster. Because whatever rules they go for, it's the rules we'll play with. Even when Democrats retake the majority.