Well, it’s finally here, just what you’ve been waiting for — the 112th Congress convenes its first session this Wednesday. Big deal. Hooray!
If you can get past all the headlines about the House GOP preparing to hold a vote to repeal the health care legislation, you might have noticed that there is a movement afoot in the Senate to change that chamber’s filibuster rules. Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) have spearheaded the movement to curb the usage of a rule that allows endless debate (effectively killing the bill being debated) unless a “cloture” vote succeeds (ending debate), allowing for the legislation to proceed to a floor vote for passage. (Cloture requires three-fifths of the senate or 60 votes, a super-majority.)
These Democratic senators, as well as a few Republicans throughout the years, contend that the filibuster rule has been badly abused and prevents the majority–and, hence, the will of the voters–from enacting important legislation. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 22, “To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser.”
The chart illustrates the rise in frequency of cloture motions in order to break a filibuster. The mid-60s and early 70s is when the use of the filibuster substantially increased. Source: Common Cause, http://www.commoncause.org/
I think it’s easy to accuse Harkin and Udell of trying to make it easier for Democrats to pass legislation in the Senate after being clobbered in November. But I also think they realize that the party is somewhat up against it in the House, so not much is going to be sent to the president’s desk during the next two years without some form of compromise.
There are also those Democrats who worry that if they change the rules now, what will happen if they lose power in the future? My answer: Deal with it. Elections count for something, just as they did when Dems swept to power in 2006, Obama was elected in 2008, and Reps took the House in 2010. Elections are how U.S. citizens hold their officials accountable. If you don’t want to lose power, here’s a novel idea – govern as well as you possibly can! (Is it any wonder why Congress’ approval ratings are in the toilet consistently around 20%.)
Personally, I think something needs to be done about the filibuster. The constitution is specific as to when a super-majority vote is required and, while it’s true that the Senate can make its own rules, there is some debate as to whether the Founders ever thought a super-majority vote was needed to simply pass legislation. Of course, some of the plans I’ve read are somewhat vague in their prescriptions, ranging from more transparency to requiring Senators to actually speak on the floor to a reduction in the votes needed for cloture over a set period of time.
I don’t have a problem with a simple majority vote in the Senate. With 100 members, it will still remain a more deliberative body than the House. And, lest we forget, there remains judicial review and a presidential veto to provide checks and balances. But I don’t think most politicians think like that.
Hammer-strung Blog 