Since When Does The Minority Rule?
Thanks to the Senate rule requiring a 60-vote super-majority to get any bill to a vote, this country has become virtually ungovernable. Is it time to do away with, or at least modify the fillibuster rules that has brought the federal government to a political standstill?
Political satirist Jon Stewart joked on a recent “Daily Show” broadcast about how Scott Brown, the 41st member of the minority party in the U.S. Senate, had become the most powerful person in Washington when he was elected to take the seat long held by the liberal icon and health care reform champion, Ted Kennedy.
It’s actually no joke. Without that tenuous 60-vote super-majority, the Democrats are powerless to get any legislation passed–at least as long as the Republicans’ only policy is to “Just Say No” and refuse to go along with any Democratic initiative.
I know democracy does not necessarily mean majority rule–the fact that the U.S. Constitution gave equal votes to small states and large in the Senate is testimony to that.
I also realize that the Founding Fathers were intent on creating separation of powers as well as checks and balances, and that the Senate was created in part to counteract the more fleeting, populist views of the House of Representatives.
While the 60-vote super-majority required to end Senate debate and vote on a bill is not in the Constitution, but is instead an internal Senate rule–one that is not easily modified–I understand that to urge a change might be reckless and short-sighted.
For one, the majority party frustrated with the rule today could very well be the minority party depending on that same super-majority roadblock tomorrow to keep the new power brokers from railroading their agenda through the Senate.
For another, since the Founders obviously expected the Senate to be a more deliberative body–a legislative speed bump, if you will–even though they did not put this super-majority rule into the Constitution, theoretically they might not have been averse to the idea, given that a super-majority requires broader consensus.
(Remember, when the Constitution was written, there were no political parties, and George Washington warned against the establishment of such divisive political forces–to no avail. The super-majority rule, for better or worse, forces the majority to at least hear out the minority’s views.)
Still, given the evolution of our politics into an “Us Versus Them” mentality, I can’t help but wonder if the rules should be altered, even if that takes the so-called “nuclear option”–in which a simple majority votes to change the Senate’s rules.
For the moment, President Barack Obama is taking the huge upset in Massachusetts in stride. There is no call from the White House to blow up the Senate’s longstanding rules, even if it did derail the President’s health care reform initiative, and threatens his quest to reform financial services oversight.
Instead, he’s taken Republicans at their word, challenging them to take the hot seat with him by actually governing, rather than just grandstanding and stalling for time until the next election. He started by urging a new era of cooperation in his State of the Union address, then walked into the lion’s den by taking questions and responding candidly at a House Republican retreat.
Now he wants Republicans to join him later this month to hash out where to go from here on health care reform. Instead of just waving the white flag and surrendering to those who prefer to keep the status quo, he expects Republicans to work together with he and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill to craft a bipartisan bill.
He even wants to televise the meeting (as his Q&A with Republicans were broadcast last month) to show the country how he’s trying to get his opponents to work with him on a compromise bill that both parties can live with.
The Republicans complained that President Obama and Democrats in Congress wanted nothing to do with their ideas on health care reform. He contests that claim, and is calling their bluff by opening up the process and inviting them to sit at the table and hash this all out.
Is this a political stunt? I don’t think so. Certainly, he’d seize on Republican intransigence to make a case against their candidates in the November elections and beyond? So what? Why shouldn’t he?
However, if he can actually get a compromise bill passed, it will help tens of millions struggling to survive the current shell game called health insurance.
This country is sick of political gridlock. Politics is the art of compromise. It’s time we actually got some action out of Washington to cover the millions without health insurance, protect the coverage of those lucky enough to have it now, and lower costs for all.
What do you folks think will come of all this?
Entries (RSS)
It is a total stunt by the President. Campaign on having a health care debate “televised on C-Span” (not just a throw away line) and then allow it to devolve the way it did. Now that he is in trouble, he wants to call in the cameras. Totally transparent but he just might get away with it.
To me, I want much more than 60 votes if we are going to overhaul 1/6 of the economy. The fact that the President and his Congressional allies cannot get even one Republican (and can only get all Democrats via bribery) tells one all we need to know about this bill. It stinks.
Hell – Bush pushed through significant tax cuts and other changes AFTER Jeffords moved from the Republican party.
If the President is serious, he would start from scratch and be open to other viewpoints rather than continue with the straw man arguments. But, I think that his ego is too big for this and this thing is going down. That is OK by me.
The Founding Fathers and those who made up the 60 vote rule were geniuses beyond what we could possibly know. It’s called the will of the people, and that’s not based on a 53/47 popular vote majority or a 60/40 majority.
The true will of the people, especially for something this important, is somewhere around 75%+.
The current health care bill has nowhere near that support in Congress or with the people. Same goes for climate change.
By the way, both of those took precious energy away from the real people’s priority–jobs and the economy. The President chose to push health care ahead of doing something meaningful to stimulate private sector jobs. His agenda is out of step with the people’s, simple as that.
That he is having trouble getting something through his own party is telling–nobody to blame but himself/themselves, unfortunately.
“It’s time we actually got some action out of Washington to cover the millions without health insurance, protect the coverage of those lucky enough to have it now, and lower costs for all.”
..and you expect the US Congress to do this?
This is no stunt by the President, but it may be a last-ditch effort to get this thing done.
I find it amazing that the Republicans can say that the President has ignored their input on health care reform. What was their input when they had the majority and their guy was in the White House?
The Republicans want no part of this. Today’s conservatives are the heirs of those who opposed Medicare and Social Security.
Many of today’s elected conservatives are the ones who rubber-stamped Medicare Part D. Sen. Chuck Grassley was the chief architect of that bill, the largest government expansion of healthcare coverage, which is entirely funded by deficit spending.
Now those guys and their ilk are accusing Obama of “ruining America.” The whole thing makes me sick.
I believe that the President’s current goal, devised by his handlers, is to lure the Republicans into an ambush where the media can record tons of sound bites to be used this fall.
As you know any discussion will have to address hot button issues, and to reach any compromise you have to start with ideas–many that will sound cold and cruel when taken out of context as you know they will be.
I say the Republicans should challenge the Democrat leadership to show up and actually create a blueprint for a series of joint meetings of both parties to start from scratch and build a bill that once agreed to cannot be changed in any way.
Post it online 72 hours prior to submitting it to both the House and Senate for an up or down vote, with no dealmaking allowed. Leave the President out of the process as he only serves to polarize both sides and he can cast his vote last.
Meanwhile the President should stay out of the discussion and concentrate on getting the economy rolling by pressing for making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, abolishing the estate tax, and pushing for a flat tax with the only exemption being for deferrals to a Health Savings Account.
Talk about jump starting the economy–the cumulative relief throughout the nation would unleash some of the spending that is currently being held up due to the uncertainty created by the Democrats’ desire to tax everything so government can solve the perceived social ills.
Once the economy starts rolling jobs will be created and many of the jobs will have benefits such as health insurance.
More people working means more tax revenue for all governments, more money circulating creating profits, and more taxes and more investments creating more jobs and on and on.
The real party of NO is the Democrat party which says no to profits, no to lower taxes, no to real reforms, and no to a strong economy/more jobs with benefits.
It’s funny how opinions change depending upon who is in the White House. When Bush was trying to get his Supreme Court nominees through, there were plenty of filibuster threats coming from the Left and as much grumbling coming from the Right. When the shoe is on the other foot, the parties trade their views.
To point the finger and blame the filibuster procedure misses the greater issue.
From my perspective, the threat of filibuster from the Republicans should be viewed in the context of Obama’s campaign promises of Transparency, Earmark Reform, Removal of Special Interest Influence, and Renewed Efforts at Bipartisanship.
When one looks at the facts surrounding the legislative process of the Health Care Bill, he has broken each of these promises. The public know this and polls show that they are not in favor of this bill. Most people, and probably most Senators, can’t even explain what is in it, nor are they happy about the manner in which the bill was negotiated and presented.
If there were ever a case in favor of a filibuster, the Health Care Bill would be the poster child.
Typical extreme right wing responses coming in early – and I expect the usual chorus of readers who call for voting rights to be apportioned based on income to weigh in soon as well.
In virtually every single poll taken in the last decade between 60% and 70% of Americans favor nationalized health care – the most extreme overhaul option that was never even on the table. Then again these poll aren’t limited to “real” Americans – meaning whites who make more than the median income.
The “liberal” media is warning policymakers and the public alike that the election of Scott Brown in MA was a message that the country is fed up with the overreaching Democrats’ agenda. Nevermind that Scott Brown voted for universal health care in MA, ran as an independent and won against a weak opponent in a special election that was not representative of the general electorate.
Forget 15 months ago when the Democrats slaughtered the Republicans in every single major contest – for god’s sake winning Virginia and North Carolina. It’s desperate how they cling to any shallow victory as a litmus test of public opinion.
Then again, thse people think they are under seige from liberals despite having Republicans in charge of the House, Senate and White House for the majority of the last 30 years. Any dissent from the status quo is essentially treason to them.
The Founding Father’s may have been geniuses, but many of their ideas have at best not stood the test of time and at worst were actually quite heinous.
While our system of governance is among the best in the world and shouldn’t be done away with on a whim, the idea that there is no room for improvement is simply lunacy. These are the same men that permitted slavery, that denied women the right to vote and that stacked the deck in the favor of the rich and powerful (the only minority they really intended to protect) in crafting the foundations of the system we have today.
They and their ideals were far from perfect in the year 2010. We shouldn’t throw everything out but we should evaluate what can and should be changed.
It’s worth noting the hypocrisy of people who hide behind the brilliance of men dead 200 years as these are overwhelmingly the same people who claim to take the Bible literally.
After all, their objection to the privilege of marriage for gays is because the Bible outlaws homosexuality. The Bible also says you shouldn’t wear fabric made of two materials and that failure to keep the sabbath holy (which includes watching football) is punishable by death. Like two paragraphs later. Funny they don’t insist on taking those parts literally.
Call a spade a spade – people look for justifications in everything (religion, political philosophy, etc) that conforms to their preconceived world view. It has nothing to do with ideals and morality, it’s what you are comfortable with and how much you want to force others to live like you.
When the Democrats whispered at filibustering a Bush appointment there was universal condemnation from the same people who have now simultaneuosly painted themselves as both the majority and as David fighting Goliath.
As for global warming, refer to my analogy above. I have yet to personally meet someone who thinks that global climate change science is a hoax who doesn’t also believe in a 6,000 year old Earth.
These people hate science, reason and democracy whenever they threaten their perception of the world let alone their piece of the pie.
There are “equal votes” for small states? Last time I counted, Rhode Island didn’t have the same number of reps in the House as N.Y.…hmmm.
There is nothing wrong with a 60 vote super-majority in the Senate. A simple majority is used in the Senate most of the time our senators vote. The exception of a 60 vote super-majority rule is meant to be employed for the handful of times the rules note it should be used, such as “setting aside procedures and prohibitions of the Congressional Budget Process” (senate.gov) which health care legislation does.
The super-majority rule “forces the majority to hear out minority views”? Actually, the opposite occurs. A super-majority shuts out minority debate.
In 2009, a super-majority existed with Democratic senators for an entire year allowing them to block Republican input.
You’ll recall Senate Democratic leaders tried to buy the votes of fellow Democratic senators in Nebraska, Louisiana, etc. with promises their states would have free health care by having the rest of the states pay for theirs. Doesn’t this tell you there is something wrong with the legislation when one party having a super-majority can’t pass something on their own?
With the change in the political climate, the President has agreed to finally allow Republicans into the health care debate, unlike their first meeting in 2009 when he told them only “I won.”
Let’s hope the President and Democrats allow into the debate major Republican ideas of (1) tort reform, (2) selling insurance across state lines and (3) allowing the public to buy health insurance directly from carriers instead of it being controlled by employers (Thank you Rep. Shadegg for crusading for that last one for many years).
With new transparency, maybe the country will finally have bipartisanship.
Apart from this discussion, can anyone point to a study which presents positive facts as to why the current federally funded Medicaid system operating throughout the States should be replaced by a federally funded Medicaid system operating in Washington, D.C.?
Do any of you know the successes and failures of your state operated health care programs?
SAM RESPONDS:
As for the states having equal votes regardless of size, I was referring to the U.S. Senate, which is what this debate is all about (being that in the House, only a simple majority is required to bring a bill to a vote). Thus, Rhode Island does indeed carry the same weight (two votes) as N.Y.
As for “allowing” people to buy directly from health insurers rather than through their employers, what happens if one has a pre-existing condition, or simply is getting into middle-age? Would coverage be affordable, or even available at any price? I doubt it. It is the protection of the herd–the spreading of the risk across a wide group (like a bunch of employees) that helps even out premium costs for all and makes coverage affordable for all.
I can’t believe that more people can not see that the Rebublican don’t want to do anything. They don’t want to fix healthcare because to them it is not broke. Go on their Web site that they so often talk about and see that they don’t want to change anything. The health care system is not broken in their opinion.
The only people that can’t get healthcare are the poor and middle class, and they really don’t care about them. They care about themselves and their buddies.
Why would they care if someone can’t get health coverage or has to stay in a bad situation to keep the health care that they have because the person has a pre-existing condition?
The Republican legislators have health care and will continue to. They care about one class of persons–theirs. I think that it is pretty juvenile behavior to throw a tantrum like they have in the past year.
The country wanted a change and voted for that change, but they have been having a tantrum in that that they are not doing anything to help the nation because people think differently than they do.
I have seen better behavior from my 3 yr old nephew.
The legistature needs to get a clue. This nation is right above some Third World nations with how we treat our poor.
I am always amazed at the crap that they come up with. One of the things that I have heard about is that they don’t want the government choosing which doctor you see. Get a clue. Right now the company that you are insured with does that with the PPO.
You can go see another doctor, but if they are not in your network you pay through the nose. Come on–what is the difference?
They worry also about insuring all the people and that it will raise the rates. Get another clue. We are already paying for these people in the present system. They just put it in the bill that we receive because they treat the uninsured, but they will still make money so they pass it on to the people that have coverage.
There is no way the Republicans will again submit to a televised debate about healthcare or any other subject they disagree with Obama on. The way he “schooled” them at the Republican Caucus shows blatantly that their only agenda is to maintain the status quo and bring him down –at the expense of the good of the country, if necessary.
Already as I write this, they are saying they will only debate him publicly on health care if they can have it all their way….scrap the whole plan in progress. Where is there any hint of any compromise? Why would they not jump at the opportunity to at least make the bill better if not perfect if they were truly interested in anything but the status quo? Face it, they want no change because their corporate partners want no change.
Also, did you notice last week that the Republican sponsors of the “pay as you go” spending plan all voted “no” on it the minute Obama endorsed it? Until they show any willingness to compromise in the spirit of good government, Democrats really have no choice but to move on without them to the best of their ability.
It’s clearly a last ditch trick/effort/ambush devised by the White House in an attempt to change the subject… being a majority of citizens do not support the one party bill being offered by the Dems.
This isn’t about healthcare or health insurance and never has been. It’s about the continued expansion of the government providing the “basics” of living to a larger & expanding group of citizens, and sticking those outside that group with the bill. That group pays no income tax, and will aways vote to support the expansion of these entitlements since THEY don’t have to pay for it.
Our present government is in a race with the electorate to get a majority of the county “enrolled” in some entitlement program, no matter what. When the “entitlement group” is in the voting majority, then those of us who pay taxes will no longer be able to stop or change the paradigm, and our taxes will escalate until it drives those who can to leave the country. If you think I’m overreaching, look at the current flight from California of people, companies, & jobs to states with a better business climate. California has already lost more people than they gained back during the dust bowl days of the Great Depression. Those who can leave are leaving by the droves.
I think the 60 vote “requirement” in the Senate is good. It forces “bipartisan” solutions if used correctly to carve a voting block out of the middle. The Dems approach of trying to bribe one or two Republican senators to make it “bipartisan” isn’t the way the Senate was designed to work. The best legislation over the last several decades has occurred with one party in majority in the House and the other party in majority in the Senate. That way, the more moderate members of each steer the ship of state rather than the wingnuts of either party trying to yank the country where it has no business going.
There are lots of Republican ideas for tweaks to our health care delivery system, but there is no Republican health care reform plan. They’re too fractured, they’re not even unified about whether the system should be reformed. Even the Democrats, who do want reform, are struggling.
The Republicans (House or Senate) can’t stop the Senate bill, only the Democrat House can do that. So, here’s my guess about what the President’s “plan”:
Republicans are challenged (collectively and independently) to be specific about what they think should be done differently than they would be under the Senate bill. The House passes the Senate Bill “as is” after Republicans have been invited to introduce separate pieces of legislation to accompany a Democrat bill representing what would have been the House/Senate reconcilliation compromises (which would include tax reductions and abortion restrictions vis-a-vis the Senate Bill, “as is”). At that point, Democrats get credit for action and reform and any the failure to correct the flaws in the original (Senate) reform bill becomes Republican obstructinism.
But, to your original topic, super majorities. Perhaps what needs to occur is the majority (51) needs to stop responding to filibuster threats and demand that their oppenents actually publicly engage in them.
I am with JR that the parties should respond to filibuster threats by actually demanding a filibuster.
Sam, thanks for pointing out you did specify Senators, not Representatives in your sentence regarding equality.
Still wondering why no one has responded to the fact that a super-majority can do anything it wants to. For an entire year, Democrats didn’t require any Republican votes to pass any legislation. I’ll say it again, for 365 days, Dems needed 0 votes from Republicans to pass laws.
As far as pre-existing conditions, a “fix” would have to be addressed but in the future, if individuals controlled their own insurance they could take it with them from employer to employer.
In order for this to happen, Congress would have to reverse the law that gave employers the control over their employees’ health care.
Insurance companies would still be managing large groups of insureds–they just wouldn’t be managing them within the confines of single companies, so the profit they would gain from larger groups would allow for their acceptance of pre-existing conditions.
SAM RESPONDS:
I don’t know, Sue….If one gets their health insurance via their employer group (as do I and millions of others), they are separated from the herd and do not get the benefit of a group rate. Nor the protection of the group (in that the insurer cannot single out a particular employee with a preexisting condition for a higher rate or non-coverage).
I’d have to see what kind of “fix” you have in mind for this before I could sign on to your idea of leaving all individuals to the not so tender mercies of the “free market” in health insurance.
As for your other point, on how the Democrats could not ram health reform through despite having 60 votes, your point is well taken.
I think the big problem was that the Democratic Party–or at least a signficant section of it, is actually to the left of its leader, President Obama.
Despite all the nonsense about President Obama being a “socialist,” in fact he gave up the dream of most Democrats for universal health insurance via a single-payer (the government) pretty easily, in order to deal with the more moderate elements in his party that wanted to keep the private sector front and center.
Then the moderates wouldn’t go for the so-called public option. So there was a split in his own party.
The Democrats have always had a much bigger tent and much bigger divides internally that the Republicans. (At least the modern Republicans! How I long for the days when you could actually have “liberal” Republicans like Rockefeller and Javits in the party!)
What we really need is a “super-majority” of Americans standing tall and insisting that the system be fixed. Not just health care, but the entire system, starting at the top.
My suggestion is to clean house. Dump every politician right out of office at their next election and replace them with new ones.
Wouldn’t that be something? An entirely new group in Washington! Instead of people who have sat and languished in their seats, some for 30 to 50 years, doing little to move the country forward.
Let them see they can, and will, be replaced, and watch them squirm to get things done.
Democrat or Republican isn’t the point. Obstructionists are on both sides of the aisle and it’s not going to get any better in the foreseeable future.
Instead of improving OUR country, they fight like a bunch of litle school children and waste trillions doing so.
Probably the current snow emergency in Washington, although stated to cost $100 million a day, is actually saving us money these self-centered politicos would waste anyway.
SAM RESPONDS:
BJ, while I sympathize with your sentiments, and can appreciate your “throw the bums out” mentality, the fact is WE THE PEOPLE of these United States must take ultimately responsibility for the government we have.
We indeed have the government we deserve. I say that because while people SAY they want politicians to be Philosopher Kings, acting solely based on the good of the country (although what’s best for us is a matter of opinion, depending on your point of view–thus the two parties’ vastly different visions), in fact, people want politicians who will ask nothing of them and never take anything away from them.
When a politician even hints at raising taxes or cutting a pet program, they run the risk of being run out of office at the next election.
People are furious about the soaring deficit (supposedly), yet they wail like stuck pigs whenever a pet project is tossed.
Perhaps the only solution is term limits. Two terms for U.S. Senators and six for U.S. Representatives, giving them no more than 12 years each….Or better yet, just one term/three terms, respectively, for a total of six years. Perhaps lame ducks are more likely to do what’s necessary to get this country back in shape.
Of course, critics will say (perhaps correctly) that the lobbyists will really rule the roost then, since they will be able to bribe lame duckers with promises of fat consulting or fulltime jobs if they vote their way. If politicians know they have a veritable lifetime job, they, like Supreme Court judges, might feel more free to vote their consciences, and in the best interests of their constituents.
Democracy is indeed a messy way to run things, but it’s the best system we’ve got. There are so many checks and balances, I wonder sometimes how anything gets passed, ever!
The Founding Fathers feared tyranny more than anything else, and for good reason, after suffering under the whims of a distant King and a Parliament where they had no representation. Did they go overboard in checking the powers of central government. If so, better to be safe than sorrry, I imagine they would say today.
Sam,
Your politics is showing Sam. The strength of this Democracy is that ideas must be good. There were 60 Democrats in the Senate last year, they could have had their way. The point is 60 Senators did not think the idea was good enough to vote yes. Seventy percent of Americans either want them to start over or keep what we have for health care. That is Majority rule.
dale
Well, let’s see how to begin.
It is funny how the Left never complains when they have a 60-vote majority, but when they don’t have it then the gloves come off and we hear how this rule should be changed–very hypocritical, to say the least.
What the American people are upset about is buying a senator’s vote, i.e. Louisiana and Nebraska. Why are you not upset with that blatant disregard for our money? It is our money–we the taxpayers.
According to the polls of late, the people do not want this 2000-plus page health care bill.
I want health care reform, not free health care for all. Because once some get it for free, then eventually all will.
Deal with the pre-existing condition issue, deal with the reimbursement problem to providers, deal with the malpractice issues and the trial lawyers, deal with the fraud in the billing, allow carriers to offer policies in all states, make providers list the charges for treatment and procedures, and finally health insurance should pay for physicals because it costs less the sooner a problem is found then when the person gets sick.
Health insurance cannot be thought of like other types of insurance that pay only when something bad happens.
That did not take 2000-plus pages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SAM RESPONDS:
You are absolutely right about the “bribes” paid to certain senators to get their vote…..Do you have a suggestion on how to stop politicians from being hypocritical and greedy???
Sam, as for the greedy part. one way would be to ban earmarks.
I would be in favor of their pay being proportioned to their attendance, plus the votes and legislation they work on, so they get paid for each vote the cast, each bill they sponsor.
Some will take a huge pay cut!
The only way to get rid of the hypocrites is to vote them out of office, and for the record it is on both side of the aisle.
It may be that for controversial legislation, like health care reform, at least 60 Senators must agree to exactly the same course of action. But, that doesn’t or shouldn’t mean 60 Democrat Senators or 60 Republicans Senators or 30 of each or any other particular combination.
We seem to have lost sight of the twin facts that 20 or 40 Republican Senators were unable to convince 40 or 20 Democrats to agree with them, but 60 Senators did agree and (such as it is) pass a health care reform bill that the President has indicated he’d accept. What neither those Senators or the President have done yet is gotten the House to accept it.
Large majorities of both the House and Senate have turned over since the need to address health care and a variety of other issues have been recognized.
I’m not advocating the retention of any particular elected representative. But, with all due deference to those among us who simply advocate throwing out (by electing replacements or imposing term limits) all the incumbents in favor of new blood, I fail to see why they think this will accomplish anything positive. Or, that if we did what they suggest, why we would expect those replacements (independently elected, as they would be) to suddenly have or be able to reach levels of consensus the current incumbents could not.