The Simple Majority
Apparently, it is no longer enough to have a majority in both houses of Congress and the Presidency in order to accomplish anything.
Last week, a bill to provide health care funding for rescue workers who have health issues related to the 9/11 attacks was defeated. It had a majority in the House -- but the Democrats used a rule requiring a 2/3 majority for passage, and the bill did not (incredibly!) reach that threshold of votes.
It's bad enough that the Democratic majority in the senate has buckled under even the most innocuous threats of filibuster so that any legislation passed now requires 60 votes. (Does anyone remember a significant piece of legislation passed by this Senate with fewer than 60?) But does the House have to play, too?
The Senate has ground to a screeching halt, with filibusters and secret and Senatorial "holds" stopping legislation and nominations at every turn.
There's a step in the right direction coming soon. Senator Claire McCaskill (Democrat from Missouri) wrote a letter demanding an end to the practice of "secret holds" on legislation and nominations. She now has 67 signatures on it. Harry Reid has put it on the legislative docket for this September for a standalone vote. The legislation ending secret holds will pass, so I don't have to write a whole post ranting about them -- with any luck, it will be moot in a matter of weeks!
Now, for the record, I am a fan of the filibuster. (I saw Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.) I think the filibuster was, in the hands of a less partisan Senate, a useful and important tool to prevent the tyranny of the majority. But it is being abused, not used.
When Republicans won the Senate majority in 2001, Democrats set a record, with 34 filibuster attempts (many to filibuster presidential judiciary appointments). In the last session of Congress, Republicans filibustered 61 times. And in this session? 53 and counting -- and there are five months left to go!
If Democrats had the cojones to make the Republicans perform a full-blown filibuster of every bill they threaten to filibuster, this problem might end. There's a big difference between wielding the filibuster as a threat and holding it over the heads of the majority party without ever having to do it, and actually having to filibuster, resulting in missing your trips home (or your evenings in bed), being seen on C-SPAN for the obstructionist you are, and making it clear to the public which senators really don't want to accomplish anything. We've made it far too easy to filibuster, because the Democrats aren't willing to insist on the full-blown, Mr. Smith-style filibuster during which no other business can take place.
The Constitution mandates that the will of the majority be effective. The filibuster is a Senate rule, not a Constitutional requirement. Now that it is being so completely abused, perhaps it's time to do away with it, or at least to modify it.
To put this in perspective: The House has passed over 350 bills this year that have received no consideration in the Senate. Many of these bills passed with huge majorities -- even overwhelming majorities.
The Senate is broken. It's time to change the rules.
Last week, a bill to provide health care funding for rescue workers who have health issues related to the 9/11 attacks was defeated. It had a majority in the House -- but the Democrats used a rule requiring a 2/3 majority for passage, and the bill did not (incredibly!) reach that threshold of votes.
It's bad enough that the Democratic majority in the senate has buckled under even the most innocuous threats of filibuster so that any legislation passed now requires 60 votes. (Does anyone remember a significant piece of legislation passed by this Senate with fewer than 60?) But does the House have to play, too?
The Senate has ground to a screeching halt, with filibusters and secret and Senatorial "holds" stopping legislation and nominations at every turn.
There's a step in the right direction coming soon. Senator Claire McCaskill (Democrat from Missouri) wrote a letter demanding an end to the practice of "secret holds" on legislation and nominations. She now has 67 signatures on it. Harry Reid has put it on the legislative docket for this September for a standalone vote. The legislation ending secret holds will pass, so I don't have to write a whole post ranting about them -- with any luck, it will be moot in a matter of weeks!
Now, for the record, I am a fan of the filibuster. (I saw Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.) I think the filibuster was, in the hands of a less partisan Senate, a useful and important tool to prevent the tyranny of the majority. But it is being abused, not used.
When Republicans won the Senate majority in 2001, Democrats set a record, with 34 filibuster attempts (many to filibuster presidential judiciary appointments). In the last session of Congress, Republicans filibustered 61 times. And in this session? 53 and counting -- and there are five months left to go!
If Democrats had the cojones to make the Republicans perform a full-blown filibuster of every bill they threaten to filibuster, this problem might end. There's a big difference between wielding the filibuster as a threat and holding it over the heads of the majority party without ever having to do it, and actually having to filibuster, resulting in missing your trips home (or your evenings in bed), being seen on C-SPAN for the obstructionist you are, and making it clear to the public which senators really don't want to accomplish anything. We've made it far too easy to filibuster, because the Democrats aren't willing to insist on the full-blown, Mr. Smith-style filibuster during which no other business can take place.
The Constitution mandates that the will of the majority be effective. The filibuster is a Senate rule, not a Constitutional requirement. Now that it is being so completely abused, perhaps it's time to do away with it, or at least to modify it.
To put this in perspective: The House has passed over 350 bills this year that have received no consideration in the Senate. Many of these bills passed with huge majorities -- even overwhelming majorities.
The Senate is broken. It's time to change the rules.
Comments
Post a Comment