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.

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.

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.

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.

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.