Posted on 02/20/2010 5:31:26 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
(As distasteful as a tyranny of the majority, it should compel the Senate to change its filibuster rules.)
There may well be more behind Evan Bayh's announced departure from the U.S. Senate than meets the eye. That doesn't mean that the Indiana Democrat's parting shots about gridlock, loss of comity, unbridled partisanship and general congressional ineffectiveness are any less true.
Congress is paralyzed.
The hard stuff is just not getting done. And there is little reason to doubt, absent reform of U.S. Senate rules in particular or a genuine change in the culture, that what the country has just seen on health care won't be repeated when it comes to the nation's other pressing problems.
Jobs. Economic stimulus. Infrastructure rebuilding. Cap-and-trade or dealing with climate change generally. Immigration reform. The deficit. A looming reckoning on Medicare and Social Security.
They are all - or should be - on Congress' plate. And that's where they will likely stay - with the nation stuck at the window eyeing the morsels longingly.
Distressingly, however, with control of Congress potentially hanging in the balance in November elections, partisans see more advantage in obstruction than true negotiation - though it doesn't take an election year to trigger these base instincts. As others have observed, a culture of perpetual electioneering has descended on Congress - every issue with even the faintest hint of political advantage is held hostage to partisan ideology masquerading as principle.
And that's evident even in the U.S. Senate, the "deliberative body." "Dithering body" is more like it these days.
Blame that magic number: 60.
Sen. Tom Harkin has some other numbers in mind: 57, 54, down to simple majority in a 100-member Senate. The Iowa Democrat has reprised his proposal to change the Senate's filibuster rule. Sixty, of course, is the number of votes it now takes to shut down debate and proceed to a vote for a bill. It wasn't always so. The Senate decreased that from 67 in 1975. And, arguably, the filibuster - unmentioned in the U.S. Constitution - wasn't even intended to block legislation in perpetuity but to simply delay it.
Whether Senate Republicans or Democrats have been in charge, this tool has been misused. But Republicans have developed it into an art form more recently. From 1949 to 1970, there were 30 cloture votes; in 2009, there were 39 alone. There were 112 cloture votes in the 110th Congress, from 2007-2009.
Harkin's proposal - which he first introduced in 1995 when Democrats were in the Senate minority - has merit. Up to a point. And that point for us is 50 + 1, a simple Senate majority.
Built into the Senate by the Founding Fathers is fear of a tyranny of the majority. Rhode Island has the same number of senators as California. And by serving six years rather than House members' two-year terms, senators were thought to be more immune to political expediencies.
Yes, by all means, the Senate should reform its rules as Harkins suggests - the number of votes necessary after two weeks going down to 57 and to 54 two weeks later. But not down to simple majority. A progressive diminishment will, in our view, spur good-faith negotiation as a matter of necessity. But a simple majority would allow the minority to be treated too roughly - to the detriment of a nation whose electorate does show all the signs of being split on major issues.
Most citizens, however, don't elect senators with the thought in mind, "OK, that'll make sure nothing gets done." They elect them to vote convictions - to actually accomplish something by putting country first.
Yes to filibuster reform. Otherwise, what we're left with is a tyranny of the minority, every bit as offensive as the opposite.
Is that really a bad idea? LOL!
Yippee!!!!!!! *\;-)
what source are you quoting ?
This infatuation with bipartisanship just doesn’t hold the same enchantment for us working stiffs.
I think it’s a great checks and balances system to ensure we don’t have a tyranny of any particular one party. Since the majority of the agenda being foisted on the American people since Obama’s inauguration is against their will, I’d say the system which guards against a majority party running roughshod over everyone else is working as it’s supposed to!
You know, it always amazes me that FR lets you forget something when posting! Here’s the link:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/84809967.html
Anyone who thinks setting the Senate loose will do anything other than damage the country at an accelerated pace, is a complete and total, clueless chump.
“I’d say the system which guards against a majority party running roughshod over everyone else is working as it’s supposed to!”
I agree. But we citizens sure have had to scream loud and long for the idiots in DC to hear us...and they’re STILL ignoring us for the most part.
I see another DNC operative is masquerading as an “Editorial Writer”.
These rat b@st@rds BETTER realize that if they “reform” senate rules to cram their “change” thru,we can use them to abolish them and then some!Like the entire leftist welfare system as well as the current “progressive” tax system, the rulings on CO2 as a man made toxin- theres no limit to what WE can do with that!
Right. Because nobody has the integrity and the discipline to stop the madness and do the right thing. Of course it depends on what the definition of "hard stuff" is. I bet there aren't more than a handful in either house who have the integrity or the discipline.
Frankly, outside of GROPac, “reach around politics” just doesn’t cut it these days.
In Wisconsin? You can set your watch by them. ;)
Yes. I’m praying this latest “We’re going to pass this healthcare bill no matter what” effort is just posturing for their base. Can’t imagine this nightmare becoming law!!
Congress trying to do a zillion things guarantees that it does nothing well, and certainly cannot do well the few things that it is supposed to be doing.
But UGH, that lefty rag !
I am sure you can find the same editorial board
damming the GOP for the nuclear option in 2005 !
Another thing that bothers me is the rush to do things as fast as possible.
Our government was designed to work at a snail’s pace for a reason. It prevents stupid knee jerk reactions. The only time speed is required or desired out of government is in the case of a military attack or major national disaster.
LOL, I guarantee these sick scumbags at the Journal-Sentinel never cared about the “tyranny of the minority” when the Republicans controlled both chambers, and when the rat senate minority was holding up most of Bush’s judge appointments.
Some of the “hard stuff”, as mentioned by the writer of this screed, probably should NOT be done.
And I am altogether in favor of reverting to a 67-vote minimum for the cloture votes on any items up for debate in the Senate. The purpose of the Senate IS to serve as a moderating voice on the more, um, unusual, demands on the public’s attention.
If I had to take a guess, this editorial could probably be ascribed to the Madison, Wisconsin, Capital Times. Or maybe the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.