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.
But didn’t they have that magic number long enough to have pushed their bills through as long as no one on their side voted no? So why blame the republicans? Did the democrats not have the balls to do what they really had the votes to do? oh they are reading the people....they just want someone to hide behind if the people get mad.... so they (D’s) don’t have the balls to do what they insist needs to be done. (thankfully)
Diana, you forgot the “mind-numb-moronic-report-of-the-year” alert!
Then have each state legislature to select a senator to represent the legislative authority and each state Governor to select a senator to represent the executive authority of their state.
Each respective senator would serve a period of 6 years, unless removed by the Senate, or removed by recall of 2/3rds of the legislature. Governor would appoint individuals to finish an incomplete term. No senator would be able to serve as a Senator for the same state more than a total of 12 years (two terms). No former Governor or State legislator would be allowed to serve as a Senator. Only individuals who have paid taxes as state residents for the immediately prior 6 years and who have not been convicted of either a state or federal felony and who are citizens of the US, would be eligible to serve.
Compensation for this office to be provided by the State. Office space, housing in DC, transportation and other expenses and staff salaries (equal to the number of congressional districts in the state) to be provided to each senator by the Federal government. Secrete Service to provide security. States may decide to augment these expenses as they see fit.
>>They elect them to vote convictions - to actually accomplish something by putting country first. <<
WRONG, WRONG, A THOUSAND TIMES WRONG. Senators are elected to represent the people. Follow the orders of We the People or find another line of work more suited to your talents. Stoop laborer, sanitation worker, sewer repaairman all come to mind.
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
If the pubbies don’t prevent this bastardization of both our Constitution and our healthcare system then we will have decades of trillion dollar cure ahead of us.
Resisting power grabs is an important part of what we elect representatives for. When it comes to laws, the intrusions into citizens’ lives you STOP are at least as important as the good, reasonable laws you pass.
Don’t change the rules (filibuster) just because your marxist takeover failed. Unless you are looking for a REALLY BIG reaction from the people who have already told you to cease and desist.
“Do they just make stuff up to justify the failures of the Democrat majority in Congress?”
Pretty much so!
But then I’d have to put that on EVERYTHING I post from ‘The People’s Republik of Madistan!’ LOL! :)
DEFINITION OF A REPUBLIC:
“I’d say the system which guards against a majority party running roughshod over everyone else is working as it’s supposed to!”
DEFINITION OF A DEMOCRACY:
“Tyranny of the majority”
The left is all about raw power. They will say or do anything to amass or retain it.
There is no need to look forward, they were doing that in the 2004-2006 timeframe, when they were using minority power to effectively block judicial nominations.
That notion is lost in the simple debate. The bills that draw strenuous objection tend to be extreme. The Democrats often put up bills that they know suck ("but it can be amended," is used to justify the starting point), and rather than adjust the starting point, they just blame the GOP for blocking. In fact, the DEMs know exactly how to reduce the amount of objection, and they won't go for tempering their demands because they prefer the smoke screen.
This newspaper has fond memories for me. As a boy, I cleaned bluegills on the Milwaukee Journal.
The Dims had almost a year in which even the filibuster could not have stopped them. They could have passed anything that was proposed, no matter how loud the voices of opposition.
The fact that they didn’t get their stuff done can only mean one thing: They wanted Republican “cover votes” so their radicalism would appear bi-partisan or some of their so-called “moderates” could vote against the radical bill and the republicans wouldn’t give it to them.
Me too, Sergeant Dave, LOL! :)
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.