Another Example of the Need for Filibuster Reform

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Matt Yglesias flags this item, which is a reminder as to why conservative Democrats so often stand in the way of effective policymaking.

Democrat Ben Nelson, a Senator from Nebraska, said the slumping economy and rising joblessness will be factors as Congress considers climate change and health care legislation. They are also driving concerns about the budget deficit, which widened to a record $1.42 trillion in the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, he said.

"When the economy's not strong there's a lot of interest in controlling spending," Nelson said.

Everything about this is ridiculous. Nelson isn't some rookie; he's been a senator long enough to understand public policy basics, and his remarks are substantively gibberish.

Cutting back on federal spending in a weak economy is crazy. When there's a hole in the economy, it makes sense to fill it -- not make it bigger by taking capital out of the system.

Even conservatives should be able to understand this. As Matt explained, "With the economy weak Nelson wants to do ... what? Lay off teachers? Halt infrastructure projects? Make sure that kids whose parents are unemployed end up malnourished? The economy is suffering from a catastrophic collapse in overall spending with households, businesses, states, and municipalities all pulling back. If the federal government pulls back too we're going to go down the drain."

It's a reminder that Ben Nelson, like too many conservatives, simply doesn't approach public policy in a serious way. Indeed, back in February, when policymakers needed to make the recovery efforts bigger and more ambitious, they couldn't -- Nelson wouldn't let them. He said at the time that an $800 billion stimulus, regardless of whether it would help or not, shouldn't pass. "At some point it's just too big," Nelson argued, with the intellectual seriousness of a house plant.

Even the points about health care reform and climate change are nonsensical. Neither increase the deficit, both improve the long-term finances of the country, and both take effect in the future. Nelson's argument is, in effect, that policymakers should scale back their efforts because it just "feels better."

And all of this underscores the larger point about the systemic flaws of Senate lawmaking. Ideally, one conservative Democrat, confused about effective public policy, wouldn't make any difference. There are 60 members of the Democratic caucus, and if Nelson and a couple of others prefer to vote with Republicans on the major issues of the day, so be it.

But the structures of the existing system make that impossible -- every vote requires a supermajority. And Nelson's Hoover-like attitudes -- "When the economy's not strong there's a lot of interest in controlling spending" -- have to be taken seriously to the extent that the majority can't govern without him.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Another Example of the Need for Filibuster Reform

I guess democracy is a bitter pill for for zealots all around, eh?

Edited November 7, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[Pooky 3,930]

So, if you can't get what you want within the framework of the existing rules, change the rules?

What about the checks and balances that the US Governmental system is supposed to be about?

And why stop there? Why not eliminate the Congressional override of the President's powers of veto? Or, conversely, get rid of the President's powers of veto? Or, why not get rid of the President? Or Congress? Or the Senate? Take your pick.

The existing rules are there and have worked in the past to stop either party bludgeoning through policy without first trying to assure it has enough support. People need to quit whining about "filibuster reform" and start working on the root causes behind dissension within parties and attempt to try bipartisan correspondence. Don't laugh. Senator Olympia Snowe is proof that it isn't a totally lost cause.

Just because a Bill won't pass doesn't mean the rules are bad, just that the supporters need to do more work with people to get it passed.

[Aubrey 10]

Actually, I'd say that the intent of the founding fathers wasn't to have a filibuster option to stop bills. It just seemed unnecessary to limit a speaker's time with relatively few senators (13x2 = 26). The number of representatives in the House was far higher, and so a time limit seemed necessary to keep order/things moving. It had just become a way to slow down government and for the minority to make change more difficult. This goes for both sides. I think the filibuster is truly a problem that SHOULD be fixed. A simple majority should be sufficient for passing bills except those intended for 3/4ths votes, etc as provided in our constitution (e.g. amendments).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Actually, I'd say that the intent of the founding fathers wasn't to have a filibuster option to stop bills. It just seemed unnecessary to limit a speaker's time with relatively few senators (13x2 = 26). The number of representatives in the House was far higher, and so a time limit seemed necessary to keep order/things moving. It had just become a way to slow down government and for the minority to make change more difficult. This goes for both sides. I think the filibuster is truly a problem that SHOULD be fixed. A simple majority should be sufficient for passing bills except those intended for 3/4ths votes, etc as provided in our constitution (e.g. amendments).

well said.

[DEDixon 39]

So, if you can't get what you want within the framework of the existing rules, change the rules?

What about the checks and balances that the US Governmental system is supposed to be about?

this is nothing new from steven. he also wants there to be a simple majority instead of 2/3 to pass the budget in california and to raise taxes. he wants this all the while knowing that the dems have had a majority in CA for many decades so basically, he wants no opposition to whatever the dems decided is right for CA. anything that gets in the way, he wants it reformed to suit his party's politics. i'm thinking he doesn't really like democracy.

no offense steven, just saying it like it is.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, if you can't get what you want within the framework of the existing rules, change the rules?

What about the checks and balances that the US Governmental system is supposed to be about?

this is nothing new from steven. he also wants there to be a simple majority instead of 2/3 to pass the budget in california and to raise taxes. he wants this all the while knowing that the dems have had a majority in CA for many decades so basically, he wants no opposition to whatever the dems decided is right for CA. anything that gets in the way, he wants it reformed to suit his party's politics. i'm thinking he doesn't really like democracy.

no offense steven, just saying it like it is.

Requiring a super majority to raise taxes in California has proven to be a catastrophic disaster and one of the main reasons our state is in trouble. I have faith in a system where if you allow the majority who voted into office set out to do what they were elected to do and they fail, then you simply vote them out. Prop 13 has created a political stale mate where no majority except a super majority can fix the budget crisis....so blaming the Democrats for not having a super majority because the Republican Party forgot what bipartisanship meant, is faulty logic.

[DEDixon 39]

So, if you can't get what you want within the framework of the existing rules, change the rules?

What about the checks and balances that the US Governmental system is supposed to be about?

this is nothing new from steven. he also wants there to be a simple majority instead of 2/3 to pass the budget in california and to raise taxes. he wants this all the while knowing that the dems have had a majority in CA for many decades so basically, he wants no opposition to whatever the dems decided is right for CA. anything that gets in the way, he wants it reformed to suit his party's politics. i'm thinking he doesn't really like democracy.

no offense steven, just saying it like it is.

Requiring a super majority to raise taxes in California has proven to be a catastrophic disaster and one of the main reasons our state is in trouble. I have faith in a system where if you allow the majority who voted into office set out to do what they were elected to do and they fail, then you simply vote them out. Prop 13 has created a political stale mate where no majority except a super majority can fix the budget crisis....so blaming the Democrats for not having a super majority because the Republican Party forgot what bipartisanship meant, is faulty logic.

prop 13? if only prop 13 was changed? if only and then CA would have no budget issues? everything would be fixed? the pols wouldn't project rosy property tax revenues so that they could justify more spending? what about today's crisis, property taxes are going down, it isn't a solid source of reliable income because of prop 8. prop 8 kicked in in 1992 also. i know, i know, kill prop 8 too, anything for the dems to turn california/america into a socialist state.

the only thing prop 13 does is force CA to get its revenue from other sources. just as nevada and other states don't get any income tax, they get it from other sources. just as delaware doesn't get sales tax, it gets revenue from other sources. they make up for it somewhere else, they always do. in CA, bonds is the way they do it.

you really don't like democracy. one sided politics will kill any country.

what prop 13 does is keep retirees in their home and in their home state instead of forcing them to move to florida or texas to survive.

[SMR 368]

Matt Yglesias flags this item, which is a reminder as to why conservative Democrats so often stand in the way of effective policymaking.

Democrat Ben Nelson, a Senator from Nebraska, said the slumping economy and rising joblessness will be factors as Congress considers climate change and health care legislation. They are also driving concerns about the budget deficit, which widened to a record $1.42 trillion in the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, he said.

"When the economy's not strong there's a lot of interest in controlling spending," Nelson said.

Everything about this is ridiculous. Nelson isn't some rookie; he's been a senator long enough to understand public policy basics, and his remarks are substantively gibberish.

Cutting back on federal spending in a weak economy is crazy. When there's a hole in the economy, it makes sense to fill it -- not make it bigger by taking capital out of the system.

Even conservatives should be able to understand this. As Matt explained, "With the economy weak Nelson wants to do ... what? Lay off teachers? Halt infrastructure projects? Make sure that kids whose parents are unemployed end up malnourished? The economy is suffering from a catastrophic collapse in overall spending with households, businesses, states, and municipalities all pulling back. If the federal government pulls back too we're going to go down the drain."

It's a reminder that Ben Nelson, like too many conservatives, simply doesn't approach public policy in a serious way. Indeed, back in February, when policymakers needed to make the recovery efforts bigger and more ambitious, they couldn't -- Nelson wouldn't let them. He said at the time that an $800 billion stimulus, regardless of whether it would help or not, shouldn't pass. "At some point it's just too big," Nelson argued, with the intellectual seriousness of a house plant.

Even the points about health care reform and climate change are nonsensical. Neither increase the deficit, both improve the long-term finances of the country, and both take effect in the future. Nelson's argument is, in effect, that policymakers should scale back their efforts because it just "feels better."

And all of this underscores the larger point about the systemic flaws of Senate lawmaking. Ideally, one conservative Democrat, confused about effective public policy, wouldn't make any difference. There are 60 members of the Democratic caucus, and if Nelson and a couple of others prefer to vote with Republicans on the major issues of the day, so be it.

But the structures of the existing system make that impossible -- every vote requires a supermajority. And Nelson's Hoover-like attitudes -- "When the economy's not strong there's a lot of interest in controlling spending" -- have to be taken seriously to the extent that the majority can't govern without him.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

I perfectly agree that when the economy is in a slump, you need to fill the hole. However, the government doesn't have capital. The government just takes capital from one place and puts it somewhere else. The government is just moving the holes around minus overhead which just makes the holes bigger. While borrowing in a way allows the government to move capital from the future to the present, the overhead for this is ridiculously high. And stealing from your children is really pretty morally reprehensible in my opinion.

On the subject of raising taxes in California, California already has some of the highest taxes in the nation. If that is the reason that the budget doesn't balance, how come other states balance the budget with lower taxes? California simply needs to control spending. The requirement for a super majority is the only thing keeping taxes somewhat in check.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, if you can't get what you want within the framework of the existing rules, change the rules?

What about the checks and balances that the US Governmental system is supposed to be about?

this is nothing new from steven. he also wants there to be a simple majority instead of 2/3 to pass the budget in california and to raise taxes. he wants this all the while knowing that the dems have had a majority in CA for many decades so basically, he wants no opposition to whatever the dems decided is right for CA. anything that gets in the way, he wants it reformed to suit his party's politics. i'm thinking he doesn't really like democracy.

no offense steven, just saying it like it is.

Requiring a super majority to raise taxes in California has proven to be a catastrophic disaster and one of the main reasons our state is in trouble. I have faith in a system where if you allow the majority who voted into office set out to do what they were elected to do and they fail, then you simply vote them out. Prop 13 has created a political stale mate where no majority except a super majority can fix the budget crisis....so blaming the Democrats for not having a super majority because the Republican Party forgot what bipartisanship meant, is faulty logic.

prop 13? if only prop 13 was changed? if only and then CA would have no budget issues? everything would be fixed? the pols wouldn't project rosy property tax revenues so that they could justify more spending? what about today's crisis, property taxes are going down, it isn't a solid source of reliable income because of prop 8. prop 8 kicked in in 1992 also. i know, i know, kill prop 8 too, anything for the dems to turn california/america into a socialist state.

the only thing prop 13 does is force CA to get its revenue from other sources. just as nevada and other states don't get any income tax, they get it from other sources. just as delaware doesn't get sales tax, it gets revenue from other sources. they make up for it somewhere else, they always do. in CA, bonds is the way they do it.

you really don't like democracy. one sided politics will kill any country.

what prop 13 does is keep retirees in their home and in their home state instead of forcing them to move to florida or texas to survive.

You missed my point. It's a question of whether you support a simple majority for passing legislation or a super majority. We already have a veto system with the Governor. So no tax increase would pass unless both the state legislature and the Governor were on board with it. The problem with a super majority is the numbers. If a party that is overrun by ideologues who essentially believe in the ineffectiveness of government, and they know that statistically, voters are pretty much along a 55/45 split, nothing will ever move forward, which would help further the argument by the one party who doesn't believe government can do anything anyhow. And on top of that, they will then blame the ineffectiveness of government on the party with the simple majority...or at least try to. That's basically why our state is in the sh!ts.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Libs always want to do away with filibuster when they have the senate. So did repubs. Bottom line is that Dems are in power now and big fat hypocrits because they wanted filibuster under Bush and Repub control. And vice-versa

[SMR 368]

So, if you can't get what you want within the framework of the existing rules, change the rules?

What about the checks and balances that the US Governmental system is supposed to be about?

this is nothing new from steven. he also wants there to be a simple majority instead of 2/3 to pass the budget in california and to raise taxes. he wants this all the while knowing that the dems have had a majority in CA for many decades so basically, he wants no opposition to whatever the dems decided is right for CA. anything that gets in the way, he wants it reformed to suit his party's politics. i'm thinking he doesn't really like democracy.

no offense steven, just saying it like it is.

Requiring a super majority to raise taxes in California has proven to be a catastrophic disaster and one of the main reasons our state is in trouble. I have faith in a system where if you allow the majority who voted into office set out to do what they were elected to do and they fail, then you simply vote them out. Prop 13 has created a political stale mate where no majority except a super majority can fix the budget crisis....so blaming the Democrats for not having a super majority because the Republican Party forgot what bipartisanship meant, is faulty logic.

prop 13? if only prop 13 was changed? if only and then CA would have no budget issues? everything would be fixed? the pols wouldn't project rosy property tax revenues so that they could justify more spending? what about today's crisis, property taxes are going down, it isn't a solid source of reliable income because of prop 8. prop 8 kicked in in 1992 also. i know, i know, kill prop 8 too, anything for the dems to turn california/america into a socialist state.

the only thing prop 13 does is force CA to get its revenue from other sources. just as nevada and other states don't get any income tax, they get it from other sources. just as delaware doesn't get sales tax, it gets revenue from other sources. they make up for it somewhere else, they always do. in CA, bonds is the way they do it.

you really don't like democracy. one sided politics will kill any country.

what prop 13 does is keep retirees in their home and in their home state instead of forcing them to move to florida or texas to survive.

You missed my point. It's a question of whether you support a simple majority for passing legislation or a super majority. We already have a veto system with the Governor. So no tax increase would pass unless both the state legislature and the Governor were on board with it. The problem with a super majority is the numbers. If a party that is overrun by ideologues who essentially believe in the ineffectiveness of government, and they know that statistically, voters are pretty much along a 55/45 split, nothing will ever move forward, which would help further the argument by the one party who doesn't believe government can do anything anyhow. And on top of that, they will then blame the ineffectiveness of government on the party with the simple majority...or at least try to. That's basically why our state is in the sh!ts.

Congress is divided into districts. Your argument would be true if Congress was simply allocated by having a popular vote of everyone and then allocating the representatives and senators proportionally. But each representative is elected by a simple majority in his corresponding constituency. Checks and balances are also designed to protect a geographical area from being ruled by people in other areas who may not have their best interests at heart. If all regions agreed by a simple majority, then there would be a super majority in Congress.

[DEDixon 39]

So, if you can't get what you want within the framework of the existing rules, change the rules?

What about the checks and balances that the US Governmental system is supposed to be about?

this is nothing new from steven. he also wants there to be a simple majority instead of 2/3 to pass the budget in california and to raise taxes. he wants this all the while knowing that the dems have had a majority in CA for many decades so basically, he wants no opposition to whatever the dems decided is right for CA. anything that gets in the way, he wants it reformed to suit his party's politics. i'm thinking he doesn't really like democracy.

no offense steven, just saying it like it is.

Requiring a super majority to raise taxes in California has proven to be a catastrophic disaster and one of the main reasons our state is in trouble. I have faith in a system where if you allow the majority who voted into office set out to do what they were elected to do and they fail, then you simply vote them out. Prop 13 has created a political stale mate where no majority except a super majority can fix the budget crisis....so blaming the Democrats for not having a super majority because the Republican Party forgot what bipartisanship meant, is faulty logic.

prop 13? if only prop 13 was changed? if only and then CA would have no budget issues? everything would be fixed? the pols wouldn't project rosy property tax revenues so that they could justify more spending? what about today's crisis, property taxes are going down, it isn't a solid source of reliable income because of prop 8. prop 8 kicked in in 1992 also. i know, i know, kill prop 8 too, anything for the dems to turn california/america into a socialist state.

the only thing prop 13 does is force CA to get its revenue from other sources. just as nevada and other states don't get any income tax, they get it from other sources. just as delaware doesn't get sales tax, it gets revenue from other sources. they make up for it somewhere else, they always do. in CA, bonds is the way they do it.

you really don't like democracy. one sided politics will kill any country.

what prop 13 does is keep retirees in their home and in their home state instead of forcing them to move to florida or texas to survive.

You missed my point. It's a question of whether you support a simple majority for passing legislation or a super majority. We already have a veto system with the Governor. So no tax increase would pass unless both the state legislature and the Governor were on board with it. The problem with a super majority is the numbers. If a party that is overrun by ideologues who essentially believe in the ineffectiveness of government, and they know that statistically, voters are pretty much along a 55/45 split, nothing will ever move forward, which would help further the argument by the one party who doesn't believe government can do anything anyhow. And on top of that, they will then blame the ineffectiveness of government on the party with the simple majority...or at least try to. That's basically why our state is in the sh!ts.

you should relate very well to this. i don't know why you can't understand it since you are way left you are also overrun by idealogue as well. from your posts, it is obvious that you see no middle ground in politics, your view is extreme left and seemingly so much in favor of a 1 party system or you have a very low tolerance for democracy.

if you want the repubs in CA to get off their ideologues stump at least be someone who doesn't stand on one as well.

i might have missed your point, but what i said still applies. killing prop 13 does not balance CA's budget, it doesn't get CA out of any messes now or in the future. CA can and will make up the difference from bond measures... retirees will stay in their home and their home state.

light a candle for democracy steven.

again, no offense, you are what you are and we need liberals just like you, but in terms of ideologue, you have no ground to stand on really.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, if you can't get what you want within the framework of the existing rules, change the rules?

What about the checks and balances that the US Governmental system is supposed to be about?

this is nothing new from steven. he also wants there to be a simple majority instead of 2/3 to pass the budget in california and to raise taxes. he wants this all the while knowing that the dems have had a majority in CA for many decades so basically, he wants no opposition to whatever the dems decided is right for CA. anything that gets in the way, he wants it reformed to suit his party's politics. i'm thinking he doesn't really like democracy.

no offense steven, just saying it like it is.

Requiring a super majority to raise taxes in California has proven to be a catastrophic disaster and one of the main reasons our state is in trouble. I have faith in a system where if you allow the majority who voted into office set out to do what they were elected to do and they fail, then you simply vote them out. Prop 13 has created a political stale mate where no majority except a super majority can fix the budget crisis....so blaming the Democrats for not having a super majority because the Republican Party forgot what bipartisanship meant, is faulty logic.

prop 13? if only prop 13 was changed? if only and then CA would have no budget issues? everything would be fixed? the pols wouldn't project rosy property tax revenues so that they could justify more spending? what about today's crisis, property taxes are going down, it isn't a solid source of reliable income because of prop 8. prop 8 kicked in in 1992 also. i know, i know, kill prop 8 too, anything for the dems to turn california/america into a socialist state.

the only thing prop 13 does is force CA to get its revenue from other sources. just as nevada and other states don't get any income tax, they get it from other sources. just as delaware doesn't get sales tax, it gets revenue from other sources. they make up for it somewhere else, they always do. in CA, bonds is the way they do it.

you really don't like democracy. one sided politics will kill any country.

what prop 13 does is keep retirees in their home and in their home state instead of forcing them to move to florida or texas to survive.

You missed my point. It's a question of whether you support a simple majority for passing legislation or a super majority. We already have a veto system with the Governor. So no tax increase would pass unless both the state legislature and the Governor were on board with it. The problem with a super majority is the numbers. If a party that is overrun by ideologues who essentially believe in the ineffectiveness of government, and they know that statistically, voters are pretty much along a 55/45 split, nothing will ever move forward, which would help further the argument by the one party who doesn't believe government can do anything anyhow. And on top of that, they will then blame the ineffectiveness of government on the party with the simple majority...or at least try to. That's basically why our state is in the sh!ts.

you should relate very well to this. i don't know why you can't understand it since you are way left you are also overrun by idealogue as well. from your posts, it is obvious that you see no middle ground in politics, your view is extreme left and seemingly so much in favor of a 1 party system or you have a very low tolerance for democracy.

if you want the repubs in CA to get off their ideologues stump at least be someone who doesn't stand on one as well.

i might have missed your point, but what i said still applies. killing prop 13 does not balance CA's budget, it doesn't get CA out of any messes now or in the future. CA can and will make up the difference from bond measures... retirees will stay in their home and their home state.

light a candle for democracy steven.

again, no offense, you are what you are and we need liberals just like you, but in terms of ideologue, you have no ground to stand on really.

Come on DE - at least try and counter argue the point I'm making. For ALL legislation EXCEPT tax increases, all is required to pass is a simple majority. Hell, I'd even consider letting ALL legislation require a super majority like tax increases so that maybe then California voters will realize how this jacks up our state.

Why don't you want to let those who are elected do their job and then if their policies fail, vote them out? Requiring a super majority (as in the case of tax increases in CA) or to become filibuster proof in Washington, makes it nearly impossible to get anything done, which is what the Far Right want on most issues. They don't want government to succeed because their whole ideology would fall apart like a house of cards.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Another Example of the Need for Filibuster Reform

I guess democracy is a bitter pill for for zealots all around, eh?

He's a sore-winner.