The Filibuster Continues to Ruin America

There Are 34 Responses So Far. »

1. Comment by JayBandit on 4 February 2009 at 10:11 am:

   you’re right, we should take away veto points so people can just pass stuff through willy-nilly

2. Comment by Joshua on 4 February 2009 at 11:14 am:

   Cant ever amend away the senate w/ out permission from all 50 states

3. Comment by James Prescott on 4 February 2009 at 12:20 pm:

   And it is patriotic to dissent through any legal means available, and any attempts to curtail those means of dissent is unpatrotic and borders on immoral.

   At least that is what democrats have been saying for the past 8 years.

4. Comment by Buck B. on 4 February 2009 at 1:48 pm:

   There’s nothing wrong with the filibuster per se, if you ACTUALLY MAKE THEM FILLIBUSTER.

   I would LOVE to see someone like Jim DeMint standing on the floor of the Senate reading from the Bible or whatever. An actual filibuster would look like pure obstructionism, not a principled stand.

   It’s time the Democrats in Congress made the opposition put their money where their mouth is. There will be a lot of important bills coming up in the next few months, and if the Republican Party wants to use the filibuster to stand in the way (as is their right), the least the majority party can do is make it as visible and difficult for them as possible.

   Also, Harry Reid is a worthless fucking pussy.

5. Comment by Brandon on 4 February 2009 at 3:08 pm:

   I dunno. The country’s still here. A bit messy, pretty strained, but it’s still here. Filibusters are part of the Federalist Constitutional framework. It was meant to be undemocratic. The Senate is meant to be undemocratic. The president was meant to be undemocratic. If it were ruining America, there would never have been an America to ruin because it would have screwed things up from day 1. It makes things more difficult, it makes the opposition have out sized authority, but it’s a bit much to say it’s ruining the country.

6. Comment by chrism on 4 February 2009 at 3:16 pm:

   CEO BONUSES ARE RUINING THE COUNTRY NOT FILIBISTERS!!!!!11!!!!! AAAAHHHH!!11111!!!oneone!!!1

7. Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 4 February 2009 at 3:54 pm:

   Actually, I think it should take 70 or 80 votes in the Senate to pass a new law. The filibuster works well in supporting freedom. Since I believe that the “stimulus bill” may do more harm than good (as Hoover’s and the Congress’s did in 1931), I’m all in favor of it being delayed or cancelled.

8. Comment by Joshua on 4 February 2009 at 4:51 pm:

   Buck, I’m not an expert on Senate procedures, but I don’t think it’s as simple as forcing a filibuster and waiting for the person to no longer be able to talk to push legislation. I think that’s the Hollywood version of the procedure, but not really accurate in practice.

9. Comment by Buck B. on 4 February 2009 at 5:25 pm:

   Maybe I wasn’t clear here, but I’m not talking about “forcing a filibuster and waiting for the person to no longer be able to talk to push legislation.”

   I’m talking pure politics here, Republicans visibly obstructing a popular president all over cable news. The longer it continues, the worse they look.

10. Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 4 February 2009 at 5:32 pm:

    Buck, if the bill is truly wrong, a person of conscience would fight it whether they look bad or not. It’s a year and three-quarters to the next election. If one is right and the good of the country is at stake, who cares about elections–isn’t that what the Obama years are supposed to be about?

11. Comment by Buck B. on 4 February 2009 at 5:35 pm:

    Yes, because the Republican party is acting in the best interests of the country and not looking for political gain.

12. Comment by James Prescott on 4 February 2009 at 6:14 pm:

    So is it haste makes waste for everyone but Congressional Democrats? There are plenty of bona fide reasons to be concerned about, and if every concern is going to be written off as partisan then this is going to be a long and pointless 4 years.

    Some might want to be slavish devotees of President Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTQawLBC59g), but others believe that Obama received an office, not a mandate from heaven. And besides, Buck, I thought cynicism was a childish thing that needed to be put away. Doesn’t your above comment compel you to say 20 “yes we cans” and read two chapters of “Audacity of Hope” as penance?

13. Comment by Brian Pierce on 4 February 2009 at 7:02 pm:

    Yes, “ruining America” was hyperbole. The point is that there are a whole lot of points along the way at which a bill can fail to become a law. If you’re Tom and you want the government to do next to nothing, then that’s a good thing. If you’re like me and you wish it were easier for government to experiment and act and react, then things like the filibuster ought to be done away with. Compared to a parliamentary system where there is no such thing as the executive and the legislature being from different parties, our system is pretty obstruction-oriented. That’s not everywhere a bad thing, and I’m not saying we should eliminate the presidency, but there are definitely things in the way of Senate procedure or committee structure that could be changed to decrease obstructionism. Elections ought to mean something, and initiatives with popular support ought not be consistently blocked because of minority partisan political interests.

    I also agree with Buck that the Dems should make the Republicans actually filibuster rather than just cave in and make the stimulus smaller and less effective.

14. Comment by James Prescott on 4 February 2009 at 7:34 pm:

    I can’t disagree with Brian more. This, I am sure, is a stunner for anyone and everyone who has consistently read this blog.

    People, especially groups of people who are facing difficult times, make rash decisions without due consideration because something “needs to be done.” Compound that with the fact that no one knows for a certainty what any effect this package will have on the economy in the short or long run, and there is no genuine argument for rushing this bill, especially when the vast majority of the spending contained therein won’t have an immediate short term effect anyway.

    As for using popular support as a justification, the “people” have absolutely no idea about economics, taxes, or any subject matter that would be necessary to have a background in to form an actual opinion. You might as well ask school children for their opinion on the topic, and you’ll get just as nuanced a response. The whole point of a republic is to put people in power who are more nuanced, educated, wise and smart to make decisions on arcane and complex issues. Merely following what the “people” want would defeat the whole purpose of the system, at which point I would suggest not merely abolishing the Senate and the Presidency, but all representative bodies and just conform to a full fledged democracy.

    In short, Brian says that in times of widespread agreement and crisis it is vital for a government to respond immediately with whatever it feels best without hindrance or burden. I say that at those times, delay and deliberation is vital to minimize long term crisis.

    One more point. It is easy to “experiment” with other people’s money. But the US does not have the resources at this time to participate in half baked, non-thought out experiments. This is not 8th grade chemistry; the federal government does not have poorly thought out plans.

15. Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 4 February 2009 at 10:51 pm:

    Holy crap, Prescott, you’re a genius.

16. Comment by James Prescott on 4 February 2009 at 11:13 pm:

    Addendum. Last sentence is supposed to read: This is not 8th grade chemistry; the federal government does not have TIME TO FOOL with poorly thought out plans.

17. Comment by Brian Pierce on 5 February 2009 at 4:19 am:

    Everybody would agree that there should be SOME veto points along the way, and everybody would agree the courts should keep a vigilant eye on the actions of both the executive and the legislature, and everybody would agree that it’s important to preserve a republican form of government. I merely think other systems with fewer veto points function a lot better.

    Think of all the major legislation in America that has been blocked – immigration reform, health care reform, entitlement reform, tax reform. We have important checks and balances in our constitution, but the filibuster isn’t one of them, and it adds a level of obstructionism that too often completely paralyzes the government. I mean, right now Democrats have control over the White House, the House, and the Senate, and their control in the House and Senate is very strong. For one party to have this much electoral support is quite rare, and STILL it’s difficult to get things passed. When a more typical situation exists and the parties are more evenly divided, it’s practically impossible. We can preserve a republican form of government without it being THIS hard to do anything.

    I agree that the “people” don’t have expertise in public policy and that’s why we have a republic instead of a direct democracy. But the “people” still know what they’re doing when they go into the voting booth – they may make stupid decisions a lot of the time, but they understand the basic philosophical differences between the parties. They know Democrats want bolder action on the economy than Republicans, and they chose Democrats pretty overwhelmingly. A few years ago they wanted Republicans, and believe me I wasn’t terribly happy about it, but I still thought their votes should mean something, and that a minority party shouldn’t hold all the cards as long as they have at least 40 members in the Senate.

18. Comment by Josh's Friend on 5 February 2009 at 6:43 am:

    If the senate really is the “saucer”, then it should act like one. The filibuster helps to cool the partisanship in the House, so I’m okay with it. Although, I do agree that the minority threatening a filibuster should be forced to put their money where their mouths are every once in a while. What happened to cots being rolled into the cloak room?

    It’s interesting to see both Tom and Prescott so strenuously in favor of the filibuster. It seems that you both are arguing the ends (killing the stimulus) justify the means (filibuster).

    Not to pick a fight, but rather only because I’m actually curious, I wonder if either or both of you supported the “Nuclear Option” during the Roberts/Alito confirmation battles. Had the Democrats filibustered either nominee, would you have accepted it?

19. Comment by Buck B. on 5 February 2009 at 7:33 am:

    I’d welcome an honest debate on this. Of course there are many bona fide reasons to be concerned about a spending bill approaching $900 billion. Except Republicans are not negotiating in good faith.

    It would be different if they had the balls to say “Yeah, we reject Keynesian economics and we think Bush had it right. The entire concept of a stimulus bill based on spending is stupid. Let’s just cut taxes and wait for the economy to right itself. If employment goes up to 12 percent, so be it. Government action will just make the problem worse.”

    While there are certainly some on the right making this argument, congressional Republicans are not among them. Instead, they quibble about spending provisions that amount to less than 1/700 of the bill. They propose lowering mortgage rates, as if the whole situation could be solved by re-inflating the housing bubble and hoping consumers will leverage themselves even further and consume our way out of this. They talk about lowering the capital gains tax, for christ’s sake.

    Certainly there are some on the right with legitimate concerns who want to engage and make this bill more targeted and effective. But these are not the voices dominating the opposition party.

    And despite what you say, Prescott, this is not a bill Congress has pulled out its ass in the last few weeks. This has been worked on since before the election. Could it be improved? Obviously, but as Obama said yesterday, we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the essential. The jobs report comes out Friday, and odds are it will push us over 8 percent unemployment. Time really is of the essence.

    But instead of trying to craft an effective bill, the Republican Party wants to play chicken with the worldwide economy and take a chance that things will magically reverse themselves before we become Japan circa 1990. (A country which, by the way, has STILL not recovered from its recession). Some of them because of pure ideology, some because they do not even have a rudimentary understanding of modern macroeconomic thought.

    That’s fine, they’re certainly entitled to their views. But those views earned them back-to-back electoral ass whoopings. As Brian said, though the voting public might not know much about public policy, they do know things are really bad right now and something needs to be done. They delivered government into the hands of the Democratic Party for a reason, and the idea that a stimulus package that Obama explicitly campaigned on can be thwarted by an opposition filibuster is, frankly, undemocratic.

    I welcome the Republicans’ constructive input, if they ever get around to providing some. Democracy works much better with a fully engaged opposition party working for the common good. But it’s time to get the fuck out of the way and let Democrats govern. If they mess things up worse than Bush and Co. did, so be it. But let’s try it. Honestly, can things get worse at this point?

20. Comment by Brian Pierce on 5 February 2009 at 9:07 am:

    I agree wholeheartedly with Buck, except to say I don’t think it’s ideology or ignorance keeping the GOP from trying to intelligently contribute to the stimulus. It’s in the interest of the vast majority of GOP senators to vote against this thing, no matter what. If it passes and succeeds, Obama will get the credit whether the GOP voted for it or not. If it passes and fails, the GOP gets to blame the Democrats. If it just doesn’t pass – well, that’s where there’s some risk that the GOP will take a hit IF public perception is that the bill failed b/c the GOP was obstructionist. Which is why it would be a good idea for the Democrats to force the GOP to filibuster this thing rather than just caving into their inane demands.

21. Comment by chrism on 5 February 2009 at 9:13 am:

    You keep talking about “the people” electing Democrats as if any more than 55% of the country is pro-Dem and happy about what’s going on. It’s scary that you believe a Democrat majority, mostly that was elected something similar to 55%/45% or closer, should have free reign to pass all kinds of crap.

22. Comment by James Prescott on 5 February 2009 at 10:33 am:

    Fine. Lets address Buck’s and Brian’s issues.

    First, you overstatate your popular support for the stimulus. According in a poll by Gallup on Tuesday, 17% are against the thing entirely, and 37% want the stimulus only if it undergoes significant changes. Only 38% want it passed as proposed, which is decidely not a majority. Do the people still know what they want?

    As for why the republicans lost the past two elections that has less to do with Democrat ideas than Republican screw ups. Barack Obama was not chosen because of his thoughts on the stimulus package but because he was a non-Republican under 60 who people identified with. So lets not confuse the whys and hows for the past two elections. (Also, I get to be cyncial and still make fun of liberals who do, because I don’t buy into the Obama theology).

    Also, I am against Keynesian economics for a whole host of reasons, but mostly because it is a pale weak justification for old arguments; namely to pay off the barbarians at the gate in hopes that they will leave you alone. I think it is weak in the short run and does more damage in the long run, and it satisfies humanity’s base needs to a) feel comfortable and b)feel like they are doing something without necessarily concerning themselves if they ARE doing something.

    But even if I were a staunch Keynesian , I would still have a significant problem with this package. 60% of all proposed outlays would not be spent for 2-3 years. This is a function of start up and the nature of federal beauracracy. Buildings need to be designed, forms filled out, and for a lot of the tech initatives, the underlying technology needs to be developed and produced. The 40% that will be spent is mostly tax cuts, and increased aid to the welfare state and the state states, which honestly are looking more and more alike by the day. This is nothing but an excuse to pass a bunch of other programs that the republicans dasn’t deny or else be against hard working americans and economic recovery. This is cheap political cowardice at its base. If Obama really wants these programs, and he believes in their necessity, he should push them in separate bills and force the republicans to vote them up and down separately. It sure would help with the actual stimulus portion of the stimulus package and get everyone the aid they need all the sooner.

    But hey, at least it looks like President Obama has learned how to tap into the politics of fear! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/congress_stimulus_126

23. Comment by James Prescott on 5 February 2009 at 11:08 am:

    I apologize for all of the bad grammar and typos above. Thats what you get when you try to do three things at once.

24. Comment by Buck B. on 5 February 2009 at 11:12 am:

    Prescott, I don’t know where you’re getting your numbers, but they’re not from the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that $525.5 billion of the $816 billion in the House bill (almost 65 percent) would be spent in the first two years.

    I also don’t believe the Gallup poll is an accurate representation of national opinion. Nate Silver breaks it down.

    Also, you seem to be quite confused about what economic stimulus means. All government spending is by definition stimulus. The U.S. economy is projected to contract by at least $1.2 trillion over the next two years, and the whole point of a stimulus bill is to counteract as much of that as possible. (GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending)

25. Comment by James Prescott on 5 February 2009 at 12:12 pm:

    I saw the CBO’s numbers. I think they are crap. I ran my own break down. The $164 Billion in Safety Net Spending, the $79 billion for state bailout, the $32 billion in business tax cuts, and I am going to estimate that $70 billion from the $144 billion in “make the work pay” tax cut will be actual stimulus, in that people will actually spend the amount. That is $345 billion of the $816, which would be a little over 40%, so I guess I overstated that part. Sorry. I didn’t give full credit for the tax cut because I suspect most of that will saved for a rainy day since those businesses will be concerned about short term growth.

    And I am not confused about what this plan means in terms of economic stimulus. I too took Macroeconomics; I know the definition of GDP. I just think that the definition of stimulus for this administration is naive, simplistic, and just plain wrong. Let me put this plan in corporate terms. A new president takes over a publicly traded corporation which has undergone some recent problems. The president takes the helm and says “I am here to represent the shareholders. They have elected me to protect their investment and I am going to do that by driving up the share price, the measure of the value of the company. To do this, I am going to take out a whole host of loans to drive up our short term production, which should have the effect of driving up the price in the short term. Long term, well, we’ll be saddled with a bunch of debt and we won’t have achieved any significant production development, but that is ok. This particular type of debt won’t be included in how we calculate our profit for the next 5 years because I got a deferrment on when we have to pay. Stock price is determined by current earnings, not future debt responsibilities, so hey! Let the good times roll.”

    But yes, by all means, lets defer the pain of development and resolving the underlying issues so we can feel good about ourselves today. The GDP calculation is woefully inadequate for measuring the long term prospects of a country’s economic development and should not be used as a sole justification for any plan. This is accounting gamesmanship, plain and simple.

26. Comment by James Prescott on 5 February 2009 at 12:19 pm:

    Also, the link you gave me took issue with Rasmussen’s data, not Gallup’s which I cited. Also, the article is out of date, as the Gallup Poll I referred to came out hours after Silver’s piece was written. But yes, polling is messy, as everything that deals with the people is. So how about we leave the people out of this, since most have absolutely no idea how the American tax system and economy works?

27. Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 5 February 2009 at 2:36 pm:

    Brian, in reference to your 4:19am comment–the ability to filibuster has been in the constitution since its inception. I cannot believe that the specific time limitation on debate in the House and the need for cloture in the Senate were not an intentional method by which a higher level of agreement on an issue in the upper chamber is necessary.

    Josh’s friend:

    The filibuster is an established method of requiring a large level of agreement on a subject. I see it as a method by which government power is limited. Therefore, it’s not the “ends justify the means” but that this method creates ends beneficial, in the long run, to the majority of the people of the nation. I don’t care which of the two halves of the bicameral American ruling party is in power–the limitation saves our ass.

    One final remark about the stimulus package. In 1930, Herbert Hoover created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which loaned secret and unaccountable government funds to failing banking and other financial institutions. In addition, the Hoover Administration and Congress raised the Federal Spending by a full thirty percent in 1931 with an eye on stimulating the economy. (hat tip to Vox and his economics class)

    Sound familiar? It’s not going to work this time, either. The way that the market works in a world governed by real economics is that the financial crisis is going to continue until the failing institutions who have not adjusted to the new realities of the 21st Century are gone or altered, just as the agrarian society of the US had to be changed into a post-WW2 industrial society before prosperity could return.

    It took twenty-five years for the Dow, adjusted for inflation, to regain the value that it lost in 1929–and some of that was by substitution of new stocks of higher value for ones that had gone out of business. I am not sure if the US will be in any form close to familiar by the time this market rebounds.

28. Comment by Buck B. on 5 February 2009 at 2:57 pm:

    Tom, what the hell are you talking about? The filibuster is purely a Senate rule. It is not mentioned in the COnstitution at all.

29. Comment by Tom Trumpinski on 5 February 2009 at 5:28 pm:

    Buck, debate in the Senate was purposely not limited *at all* in the Constitution, while it was time-limited in the House. I conclude, therefore, that the Founders wished that the ability to prevent legislation by continual discussion be innate. This is why I propose increasing the numbers needed for cloture to seventy or eighty to safeguard our liberty and pocketbooks, instead of the mere sixty that it is now.

30. Comment by Brandon on 5 February 2009 at 7:39 pm:

    “Buck, debate in the Senate was purposely not limited *at all* in the Constitution, while it was time-limited in the House. I conclude, therefore, that the Founders wished that the ability to prevent legislation by continual discussion be innate. This is why I propose increasing the numbers needed for cloture to seventy or eighty to safeguard our liberty and pocketbooks, instead of the mere sixty that it is now.”

    Tom that’s a terribly off-mark conclusion to draw. The House was meant to reflect the will of the people rough and ready. They were the demos. The Senate was supposed to be the aristokratia. Their role was to be a deliberative body. They were supposed to talk to work out the best solution for the problem presented, not endlessly delay. If endless delay results, it’s not because it was purposely a delay tactic. If the number hit 80 we’d see either a constitutional amendment or a revolution against a paralyzed government. Believe it or not, all bitching aside, I’d bet that 90 odd percent of Americans want a government that can actually do *something*. What shape and form is another question, but Americans don’t want to have a paralyzed state. And it is silly to assume they’d sit idly by and watch it happen. If you want a real life illustration see California. If the legislature can’t get the 2/3 (ridiculous requirement) for the budget to pass we may be headed for a state constitutional convention or initiative.

31. Comment by Buck B. on 13 February 2009 at 9:12 am:

    Looks like us filibuster haters were wrong here. While I still think Republicans should be made to stand up and actually filibuster next time they want to block a bill, there’s a completely different reason for the 60-vote threshold on the stimulus bill (or really any spending bill).

    From Congress Matters:
    

    The bill will be subject to a point of order due to its deficit spending, but the point of order can be waived by a 3/5 vote of the Senate. So that means passage would ultimately have required 60 votes whether Republicans filibustered or not.

32. Comment by Brian Pierce on 13 February 2009 at 12:10 pm:

    Well, yeah, technically, but the Senate rules on deficit spending can be changed just like the filibuster rules can be – I’m saying we should get rid of ALL that crap.

33. Comment by Mike H. on 18 February 2009 at 3:40 pm:

    The trick may not be in removing the filibuster. Instead, rather than give in to filibuster threats, the majority should force the minority to actually conduct a filibuster. That’s why the Stackhouse scene and Mr. Smith scenes are actually moving. It’s the filibuster in use, which should be reserved for only those issues that the minority feels so strongly about that they are willing to hold up business on absolutely everything else.

    I think the filibuster is anti-democratic in the sense that it has the potential to defeat the will of the majority. But that is precisely the point and I can foresee situations where that is a good thing. However, it should be an extraordinary measure, and should not be threatened lightly. If it is threatened, the majority should call the bluff.

34. Pingback by Don’t fear the filibuster | Think it Through on 23 February 2009 at 8:58 am:

    [...] filibusters, but has been limited by more 60-vote agreements than any in the history of the Senate. Some commentators have looked at this sorry situation and concluded the remedy is to eliminate the [...]

Post a Response