Reconciliation and "breaking" a broken Senate

[TayTay]

In 2005 Democrats furiously opposed an effort by the Republicans to deply the "nuclear option" and get rid of the filibuster for certain Senate items. (In that case it was filibusters on nominations to the judicial system.) Republicans were demanding "upper-down" votes on just about everything.

The roles have flipped now that the Democrats have the majority. I have also changed my mind on this. I think we should try and get rid of the filibuster. One way to do that is to press reconciliation on the health care measure. The Republicans are threatening Holy War if the Dems do this. I think we probably need that Holy War to occur in order to break the logjam in the Senate.

The system is broken because no one is accountable for anything. It is far too easy to stop something from happening than to get things to happen. I know that Democrats run the risk of having sacred programs tampered with or abolished when Repubs come into the majority but I think that might just be what we need in order to repair the government.

If the Repubs go through with their pledge to privatize Social Security, it will raise a tremendous outcry in the country and that will show up in meaningful elections. (Right now, elections are not meaningful and the will of the majority cannot be acted upon due to obstructionism.) I think we have to allow accountability back into the system and bear the risk of Repubs putting their agenda out there or the system will remain broken.

What say you?

[karynnj]

1. I like the Harkin proposal

Because it has a set of votes with decreasing numbers of votes required. This will allow the minority to have a voice and if they really make a case, could lead to some modification. It would end the ability of 41 to permanently end legislation. In the best circumstances, it could lead to more bipartisanship. If they see that they can't stop things, they might honestly work to get the compromises that could get more than majority support.

The Republicans by abusing the filibuster have essentially made it impossible to keep it as is.

[Blaukraut]

5. I like Harkin's proposal, too. Plus, bring back the old rules

If you want to filibuster, you have to do it in person, on the senate floor. I'd also add the following rule: A filibuster speech must pertain to the bill being filibustered, it cannot repeat points already made, and must stay on subject. Once you run out of points to make, you are done. Next one up to the podium, same rules.

[karynnj]

6. I LIKE your rules

It would allow the filibuster to do what it should - discuss the issue and, if there are sufficient questions, get them answered.

[beachmom]

2. I agree.

IMO, the Senate has collapsed as an institution.

I gave up on politics for a month, and I simply am not going to follow the day to day affairs like I used to (waste of my time). But even while during the month of February, I no longer read the news, in the back of my mind, I knew something was seriously wrong with our political institutions. Ignoring it is a temporary solution (seriously, it is, serenity prayer and all), but long term if the nation doesn't want to collapse, then this will need to be fixed. And liberals better understand that that could lead to conservative ideas being enacted down the road as well. I'm fine with that. It's kind of like we need to give democracy a try again. We needn't be afraid of it.

[TayTay]

3. It is the fear part that we have to deal with

The system is broken because it is easier to do nothing than do something. And doing nothing carries less risk than doing something. That is insane.

Yes, there are HUGE risks in altering the system. But, we also stand a chance of making the Senate accountable for it's actions and individual Senators accountable for their actions. I think this is a risk well worth taking.

Right now we have a stand-off. Nothing can get done. That is not democratic. I think "blowing up" the Senate might be the only way to save it.

[karynnj]

7. I have no problem with it being harder to do something than kep the status quo,

there is some good in building in something that prevents kneejerk responses. But, what we have now is completely dysfunctional. Unfortunately, I don't think the same thing could ever happen the other way. The odd thing is that the media has not called the Republicans on this at all.

[Inuca]

8. Maybe they are starting to

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35643530/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

[ladym55]

10. Sadly that's not an odd thing

I have come to believe that the media get all their information from the RNC and question NOTHING. And sadder still, many American citizens know so little of history and government that they don't KNOW that a "super majority" isn't necessary or that obstructionism is blocking our way forward.

[Mass]

4. I am not sure I agree with getting rid of the filibuster, but it needs to be changed drastically.

First of all, it needs to be made painful. If somebody objects to sending a bill to the floor or to stop debate, then they should be forced to debate. One of the reasons they got rid of the old rules of filibustering was that no Senator wanted to be seen looking ridiculous on TV reading the phonebook. If they care deeply enough about a bill that they think debate should not be stopped (by opposition to political posturing or game playing), they should be ready to stand and defend their positions. No more agreement to vote on a bill with 60 votes.

Secondly, I think the Harkin proposal is a worthy one. I am somewhat reluctant to get rid of the filibuster totally because a simple majority in the Senate does not reflect a simple majority of the people (it is obviously true as well for a filibuster), and we could get drastic changes with a majority of senators representing at best 30 % of the population. As I don't think there is an easy way to get rid of the 2 senators by state (far more problematic for democracy than the filibuster itself), we need a level of filibuster. But, obviously, we also need a way to stop it, so I think having a filibuster with steps may force senators to negotiate more.

[Inuca]

9. That democracy thing

I agree in principle with what you say. But it's maddening to have 40 (41 :-() senators that represent WAY less than 40% of the population act as unbearably effective blocks to almost everything! Of course things can change, I know....

[sandnsea]

12. I agree with that on the filibuster

Although I like the senate the way it is.

We aren't a direct democracy and I like that. I liked it when we were able to stop drilling in ANWR. It doesn't matter to me whether we do it with 40 votes or one Senator filibustering. We have to be able to do it. If we lose the importance of minority opinion, then I think we lose the basic value of our country altogether.

[ladym55]

11. I'm with making the filibuster painful

It USED to be something that was difficult and challenging to do SO THAT IT WAS USED ONLY IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES. It was NOT meant to obstruct the government from, well, governing.

I want the filibuster to be something that is used rarely LIKE IT USED TO BE. I want to see Mitch McChinless and all the other FINE Senators from those highly populated states (like OKLAHOMA) do their best Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. They need to WORK to filibuster.

I am so tired of the people in this country who are suffering ... needing jobs, needing health care ... continuing to suffer because some very comfortable officials (WITH AWESOME PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE) block legislation over and over.