Ending the Abuse of the Supermajority Rule
Dec 21st, 2009 | 45 responses
The difficulty of ending a filibuster because of the 60-vote rule, combined with the increasing abuse of the filibuster itself, has made the Senate a place where it is next to impossible to get anything done.
Paul Krugman is hardly the first person to make this observation, but he is certainly one of the most eloquent:
Some people will say that it has always been this way, and that we’ve managed so far. But it wasn’t always like this. Yes, there were filibusters in the past — most notably by segregationists trying to block civil rights legislation. But the modern system, in which the minority party uses the threat of a filibuster to block every bill it doesn’t like, is a recent creation.
[...]
Some conservatives argue that the Senate’s rules didn’t stop former President George W. Bush from getting things done. But this is misleading, on two levels.
First, Bush-era Democrats weren’t nearly as determined to frustrate the majority party, at any cost, as Obama-era Republicans. Certainly, Democrats never did anything like what Republicans did last week: G.O.P. senators held up spending for the Defense Department — which was on the verge of running out of money — in an attempt to delay action on health care.
More important, however, Mr. Bush was a buy-now-pay-later president. He pushed through big tax cuts, but never tried to pass spending cuts to make up for the revenue loss. He rushed the nation into war, but never asked Congress to pay for it. He added an expensive drug benefit to Medicare, but left it completely unfunded. Yes, he had legislative victories; but he didn’t show that Congress can make hard choices and act responsibly, because he never asked it to.
The “rule of 60″ is not immutable. For Krugman’s ideas on how to change it, read the rest of his column.
45 Responses to “Ending the Abuse of the Supermajority Rule”
Kathy
Are you and Krugman crazy? What would happen if majority ruled? Chaos I say Chaos!
The constitution is specific where more than a majority is required. If you want to control where the country is going, win more seats than the other side. Perhaps the one exception would be for judges whose selection is for life. Other legislation can always be removed with a new congress and new president.
I'm sure you be hearing sage advice why this minority should drive the business of America; of course, that advice will be coming from that minority.
HemmD – while I support the 60 vote rule (I actually support the original 2/3, or 66 vote rule, and going back to State Legislators electing Senators, but neither will ever happen in my lifetime at least), it is not a Constitutional issue at all, except to the extent the Constitution provides for the Senate to determine its own rules.
Of course, I am sure you probably know that.
The only legislation that I've seen repealed lately is Glass-Steagall. As I've asked before, have you seen congress repeal any bad legislation? (emphasis on words that I had to correct based on feedback from last time)
Both sides are right on this.
There is value in having a filibuster rule to avoid tyranny of the majority, as alluded to by AR. That is consistent with our principles of majority rule within the context of respecting the rights of the minority. It is a valuable safeguard for particularly important or critical legislation with a long term impact.
The other side is abuse of the tool by creating an everyday roadblock to relatively pedestrian legislation which, as HemmD observes, could be easily overturned after the next election.
The true issue is not so much that filibuster exists as a legislative tool. It is the way it is currently administered. By allowing the simple announcement of an intent to filibuster to force a 60 vote majority, it becomes too easy to abuse (as D's did with judicial appointments and as R's are now doing on other issues). The actual performance of a fillibuster is more difficult than a mere threat. Force those who would fillibuster to talk for days on end, and fillibuster would be used far more judiciously as it has been historically. AR did a nice recitation on this a few days ago, though there may have been some apples and oranges in trying to compare actual fillibusters of the past to mere fillibuster threat of the present age.
Finally, no matter what the rules, the health care legislation would have been subject to fillbuster because of its long term impact and the passion of opposition to it.
What if, say a Rep. majority wanted to reinstate the draft or wanted to make Viagra mandatory, or forced everyone to vote, or whatever, would you still want to eliminate the 60 rule?
I do agree with tidbits(and AR) about judicial use of the filibuster. The problem of course is that it is now used to block everything.
I guess compromise in good faith is out of the question.
Kathy,
Of course, you're criticizing supermajority rules now that Democrats are in power and you are sympathetic to the legislation they wish to pass. But somehow, I don't think you'd be singing the same tune if Republicans controlled 230 seats in the House and 55 seats in the Senate.
Were you this eager to get rid of supermajority rules when Republicans controlled the Senate?
And more importantly, can you not foresee a future possibility when Republicans again have control of the Presidency and both houses of congress and that supermajority rules might be the only thing standing in the way of Republicans passing a truly bad piece of legislation?
In many ways the filibuster is similar to the judges legislating from the bench canard. The relative support for it depends on whose ox is being gored today.
But it certainly favors the side wishing to maintain the status quo, since they would consider no action to be good. And currently that would be the conservatives. After thirty years of control they presumably have the country pretty much the way they want it.
But it seems to me the arguments for the filibuster ignores the fact that the Senate, by design, is not truly representative. The small states, which currently run conservative, have a disproportionately large representation. I think currently a citizen in the smallest state has something like 15 times the voting strength of a citizen in the largest state.
Well, first of all, the second two examples are pretty silly, but having said that, if the majority party wants to pass any specific piece of legislation, they do it by getting a majority vote. There's no reason to have to have a supermajority for every bill that comes down the pike.
Were you this eager to get rid of supermajority rules when Republicans controlled the Senate?
As others here have been saying the problem is not the rule of 60 in and of itself; it's the abuse of it. In the past year (almost) since Obama took office, Republicans have demanded a supermajority for every single piece of legislation Congress has tried to pass. The line between preventing tyranny of the majority, and obstructionism, may be a fine one, but it's there, and I don't think it's open to reasonable argument that Republicans have crossed it. Tyranny of the minority is no more desirable than tyranny of the majority.
And more importantly, can you not foresee a future possibility when Republicans again have control of the Presidency and both houses of congress and that supermajority rules mght be the only thing standing in the way of Republicans passing a truly bad piece of legislation?
Again, no one is objecting to a judicious use of the filibuster. Democrats in Congress have never abused the filibuster the way Republicans are doing now. Requiring a supermajority for every single bill that comes before Congress? Did the Democrats do that? No, they didn't.
This isn't so much to you as to all who have brought up this point before. When the Rep's did control congress, did any bills pass without Democrat support?
..and flashlights make horrible can openers. The Senate was supposed to represent the states (actually the state governments), not the people. It's purpose has been mangled, but it still serves a useful, if sometimes unpopular, function of slowing down legislation.
two examples are pretty silly”
They are meant to be, that's the point, and you avoided it very nicely. You still have an unpopular proposed bill that the minority could oppose.
They're meant to be silly, that was the point, and I avoided it nicely? What is there not to avoid about silly questions that are meant to be silly? I'm sorry, I don't understand.
I'm shocked. You don't understand. Well, others have made my point so I'll back off.
Define “judicious use.” That is the problem. Just like one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, what constitutes “judicious use” depends on where one sits.
Changing senate rules to end the filibuster requires a simple majority yet there doesn't appear to be much stomach for it in the Senate. The reason is obvious – the filibuster is a convenient political tool for both sides. The Democrats in the Senate seemingly don't think their agenda is important enough to change this Senate rule – doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about their relative priorities? The GoP is just, for now, the flip side of the coin.
Does anyone here think Kathy would have written this piece if Republicans controlled Congress like in 2005? Not I.
So if the GOP gets control of both houses of Congress in 2010 by the narrowest 51% to 49% margin, you think they should be entitled to repeal any healthcare reform as they see fit?
Just curious.
*cough*
Judicial nominations
*cough*
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2003/11/17/democra…
“has made the Senate a place where it is next to impossible to get anything done.”
I keep hearing that but I don't buy it. Major societal changing legislation should be difficult to be passed. Every day business continues and the govt continues to function.
Well, Andy, let's just say when you need 60 votes to get *anything* done in the Senate, it's being overused. I don't think there's a magic number. I think it depends on why it's being done. If there's really principled opposition to a bill, that's one thing. But when every single item on the majority's agenda is filibustered, you start to wonder if the filibuster is being used less to prevent the minority from being railroaded and more as a political tool to prevent the party that was put into the majority by the American people from being able to keep any of its campaign promises.
In addition to the above, I'll just point out that right now Senate Republicans are doing the equivalent of forcing the Democrats to play the bottom of the ninth when the Democrats are ahead and the Republicans have no chance to score anymore. That's what's going on right now in the Senate. That's what's been going on since the moment when Harry Reid got Ben Nelson's agreement to be the 60th vote. Republicans are continuing to slow walk the bill by invoking every possible arcane Senate rule, even though they know at this point that they have no chance — none — of stopping the bill. It's a done deal. The Democrats have their 60 votes. There is absolutely no reason to be doing this except pure malice. And as a matter of fact, I just heard on Rachel Maddow's show that some members of the Republican caucus have been leaning on Mitch McConnell to end it already because, you know, it's three days before Christmas and they are getting a lot of pressure from their families to come home, and are also losing a lot of money from fundraisers they could be doing back home. My point is not that I'm sympathizing with the Republican caucus; the point is that it's simply extraordinary that Republican leaders are even doing this, when there is totally no point to it.
Now, I know that Democrats filibustered Republican judicial nominations, but (a) they did not make it literally impossible for the Republicans to get anything done without 60 votes; and (b) they certainly did not EVER push things to the point of obstructing legislation that they literally had no power to stop or change anymore.
And I think one would have to be a pretty far-gone partisan to shrug that off.
Krugman, elegant? Kathy, you are still struggling, desperately (even if you don't realize it).
* * *
“I actually support the original 2/3, or 66 vote rule”
Reform is an age-old, fascinating subject (including all the details of what might be reformed or changed in the parts and the “mechanics” of our system of government). I'm not a Golden Numberist, but will note here once more that 60 per cent, or 2/3, are close to the natural supermajority that ought to be employed where such a thing is appropriate. (Ratio of dissenters to assenters is same as assenters to the whole — approximately 61.8 per cent, or 62 Senate votes for approval of something)
You actually have no evidence on which to base that assertion, but I have the evidence right in front of me, with your words, that you are doing exactly what you speculate that I am doing.
That's exactly the margin by which George W. Bush was elected to a second term in 2004. So if you can give me a real example of a real law passed previously by Democrats that GWB repealed, you can ask me some question about it as relates to me personally and I'll try to answer it. But I still won't understand what the connection is to the increasing use of the filibuster over the last few decades.
Nope. But go ahead try and show me. I demonstrated on another forum that I was critical of the Tom Delay tactics used by the GOP when in power, from part of a piece i Wrote back in November of 2005 I think. Maybe you should find that thread and read it.
Kathy,
I don't really disagree – if it were up to me, the 60 vote requirement would be gone because I think it's produced all kinds of nasty and negative second and third order effects – but again, these issues are really in the eye of the beholder. The GoP, for whatever reason, is doing what you say they are doing, but it's not like the Dems have given them much choice. The Dems never offered any meaningful input to the GoP, with the exception of some occasional bones to possibly peel away Snowe/Collins, etc., so what choice do they have? Their choices are obstruction or irrelevance – the political choice in that case is an easy one to make and I think if roles were reversed, we'd see the Dems do the same thing. That's not to excuse GoP actions, but, politically speaking, this is all they've got. And if the polling for the next election cycle is remotely accurate, then it will probably work for them in the end.
The real problem here isn't solely GoP intransigence – the real problem, IMO, is that our political class, as a whole, isn't interested in engaging with ideological enemies, much less forging compromises with them. Ted Kennedy was probably the last of that breed of compromisers. The result is hyper-partisanship and the passage of bills with bare majorities on party-line votes. The problem is one of attitude – it used to be that legislators would try to build broad support for landmark legislation and fight to get as many votes as possible, but today the goal is to “win” through slim majorities and as little compromise as possible. This is a pox that afflict both houses and both parties, in my opinion, and nothing good will come of it.
Red herring, the manner of Presidential elections is covered by the Constitution, just like the Senate making its own rules is.
You will have to do much better than that I'm afraid.
It realtes to your position that:
Unless your really just saying that Republicans have found a new way to continue to abuse the filibuster like the democrats did with judicial nominees. I wont argue that. I will add, however, that the democratic filibuster was stopped by a group of bipartisan minded Senators “The Gang of 14″ and the Republican one was stopped by buying the needed votes with earmark bribes and granting special treatment of Americans living in some areas and denying it to the rest of the nation not represented by holdout Senators.
You still have an unpopular proposed bill that the minority could oppose.
It doesn't matter anymore if the minority opposes it. The Democrats have 60 votes.
Or, maybe you should practice what you preach here and now, rather than trying to rebut my point by telling me that you were critical of Tom DeLay, years ago.
The Dems never offered any meaningful input to the GoP, with the exception of some occasional bones to possibly peel away Snowe/Collins, etc., so what choice do they have? Their choices are obstruction or irrelevance -
That is actually not true, on many levels.
First, it's not true that the Democrats have not tried to involve Republicans or allow them to be part of the process. They have bent over backwards to do that very thing, throughout the entire process — I mean, to the point where many progressives thought they were bonkers because they kept trying to appease people who were going to vote against health care reform no matter what Democrats gave them.
Second, your suggestion, or assumption, that the Republicans *had* constructive ideas that they wanted to incorporate into the legislation, or that they *wanted* to improve the bill and make it better, is mistaken. I mean, look at the Gang of Six — three conservative Democrats, three Republicans. Max Baucus's committee. Baucus worked his tail off for weeks — weeks and weeks and weeks — changing and adding and deleting and tweaking his version of the bill so the Republicans could support it — and after all that work, they still rejected it. Look at the 160 amendments the Democrats put in at Republicans' request, to make the bill more to their liking. They still tried to hold the defense appropriations bill hostage to keep health care from being voted on, and then they demanded to spend eight hours reading the Managers' Amendment out loud, and then they still voted in complete partisan unity against the cloture vote. Democrats ceded ground on abortion, on the public option, on the Medicare expansion buy-in, and *still* Republicans and a few conservative Democrats refused to support the bill.
And third, even if all of the above had not been the case, it's just not true that Republicans did not have a choice. Of course they had a choice. They could have chosen to put their partisan ideology aside for the sake of a larger value — reforming health care delivery for 300 million Americans. They did not have to do what they did.
There is absolutely no way outside of a fairy tale that anyone can make the case that Republicans “had no choice” but to filibuster and slow walk the bill every step of the way. There is no way to look at what happened and say Republicans could not get input any other way. They're not getting input now, for one thing! They're just droning on and on, over and over again, about how terrible the bill is, and how it should be scrapped. They're not making any attempt to make the bill better (of course now it's too late), and they never did. From the start, their goal was to kill health reform, not make it better. That's just the obvious conclusion from everything they've said and done.
Red herring, the manner of Presidential elections is covered by the Constitution, just like the Senate making its own rules is.
Incomprehensible answer to YOUR question: “So if the GOP gets control of both houses of Congress in 2010 by the narrowest 51% to 49% margin, you think they should be entitled to repeal any healthcare reform as they see fit?”
You ask a question that doesn't make sense, and then you reply to my attempt to answer with a reply that also doesn't make sense.
Unless your really just saying that Republicans have found a new way to continue to abuse the filibuster like the democrats did with judicial nominees.
Well, yeah, I guess you could call it a new way. Like I said before, Republicans have filibustered everything the Democrats have tried to do since January 20, 2009. Everything. So. Everything means everything. A new way, I guess. Whatever you want to call it.
I never called your answer incomprehensible, I called your answer a red herring and pointed out that the Constitutional requirements were different. Sorry if you didn't understand this, perhaps a rereading of the Constitution will help you.to see the difference in requirements in Presidential elections and senate proceedings. Given that the 60% vs 51% argument you try to use regarding the 2000 Presidential election and the filibuster doesn't apply.
DLS – in what universe do you live where 60% = 2/3 of 100???
<blockquopte> Or, maybe you should practice what you preach here and now, rather than trying to rebut my point by telling me that you were critical of Tom DeLay, years ago.
Oh I think from time to time I've been critical of the GOP and sided with the Democrats on this forum. If you choose to have selective memory its not very worrisome to me. But since the issue being discussed was hyper partisan majority tactics the appropriate comparison was to an era of GOP control of Congress. Sorry for choosing an appropriate example.
The question and answer both make perfect sense.
So, is it your unwillingness to engage thoughts different than your own, an innate inability to understand thoughts different than your own, or a lack of normal comprehension capabilities that prevent you from answering?
I have noticed this new trend of yours, Kathy. When challenged strongly by a good rhetorical or direct rejoinder, you now feign an inability to understand the question or point, and claim they make no sense.
OK, well, maybe indeed you are not feigning ignorance. It is really hard to tell at times.
On your first point and second points, I simply disagree. The Democrat's outreach was rather limited and they made it clear that only peripheral issues would be subject to compromise. The goal was to give an aura of bipartisanship by obtaining a few moderate GoP votes and little else. The Democrats did not cede ground on abortion, the public option, etc. in order to garner GoP support, they did so to prevent other Democrats from voting with the GoP. Those “compromises” were therefore clearly part of a minimalist strategy to only compromise to the point where a bill would barely pass and even then the Democratic leadership had to essentially buy the last couple of Dem votes. It's strikes me as very difficult to claim the Dems “involved” the GoP when support from their own party was so tenuous.
Your third point is simply a partisan argument. Restated it's simply, “you don't support my bill therefore you are putting partisan ideology ahead of the needs of 300 million Americans.” That's nice rhetoric but there are many reasons to oppose this bill beyond ideology and these bills are not polling very well in the popularity department.
Finally, I come back to the question of attitude. Our political class is no longer interested in garnering wide support for landmark legislation. Both parties are engaged in the kind of Karl Rove minimalist divisional politics where the goal is not to be as inclusive as possible but to compromise as little as possible. Back in the last century when the Dems had almost perpetual majorities, things were different and the majority sought to create legislation that was as inclusive as possible of the minority's concerns. The result was wide and deep support for critical landmark legislation like Medicare, civil rights, social security, etc. I think politicians back then realized that such important and landmark legislation required the broadest political support possible and not a bare majority reached through minimum compromise. That doesn't seem to be the case today with either party who have become increasingly dependent upon base constituencies which don't represent the interests of the majority of Americans.
A demonstratable lie (or utter ignorance, again), Kathy:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress – 1st Session (2009)
You have said in the past that too many facts confuse you when I link to them, so I will help. The Senate Roll Call (that is the official recording of Senate votes) shows you to be wrong. Again.
Maybe he is referring to the value of your dollar after HCR/Fin. Ref./Everything Reform.
I give her the credit of feigning.
A.R. 60 and 2/3 are two different values that lie near a similar, more interesting one (phi).
I prefer pho to phi.
I'm deliberately unsophisticated and am highly partial to pad Thai. (vegarian when I'm with my DC friend)
“I prefer pho to phi”
No New Agey reputation-baggage to sidestep or wade through…
Your third point is simply a partisan argument. Restated it's simply, “you don't support my bill therefore you are putting partisan ideology ahead of the needs of 300 million Americans.”
That was my weakest argument; I will acknowledge that. I could have left it out, for sure.
Our political class is no longer interested in garnering wide support for landmark legislation. Both parties are engaged in the kind of Karl Rove minimalist divisional politics where the goal is not to be as inclusive as possible but to compromise as little as possible.
Yes, Andy, but whose doing, in the main, is that? I think that for the most part this polarized, cutthroat, zero sum politics is most clearly the hallmark of the Republican Party. This goes back over decades. I'm not saying Democrats don't or can't play hardball, but from everything I have observed and learned from following politics over decades — with the previous (well, almost previous!) decade standing out in this regard — Rovian politics is, well, exactly that. Rovian politics.
Kathy,
I would agree the GoP is worse, but that's not much of an endorsement for the Democrats. My entire point is that our political culture has changed for the worse regardless of partisan affiliation.