This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 25, 2009.
It's Time to Kill the Filibuster
A few weeks ago in these pages, I took issue with those who insist we live in a democracy, explaining that a democracy is not an ideal system for a population of any significant size. Our system of representative democracy, where we hire, or elect, people to represent us, is a much better way of running a government.
Along with this indirect form of representation, we have protections in our system to ensure that the majority does not act as a tyrant. Our constitutions, for example, protect the freedoms of all, especially those of the minority.
Given all this, I feel the time is right to rail against one of my least favorite "features" of our legislative process — the filibuster.
The word derives from a Dutch term for a type of pirate. The term was first applied to American adventurers who sought to overthrow Central American governments in the 19th century, and was transferred to Senators who attempt to do the same to legislation.
The filibuster has a long history. At their inception, both houses of Congress allowed for unlimited debate — which is a fancy way of saying that a member of Congress could talk for as long as they wished, on any subject. While the member spoke, no other business could be conducted. If you could get two-like minded members to team up, that house of Congress would grind to a halt.
This is the exact opposite of a democratic principle, a tyranny of one.
The House long ago did away with this practice, as the number of Representatives rose. The Senate, however, retains the practice. For over 100 years, there was no way to stop debate. In 1917, the Senate created the cloture rule. Under the cloture rule, if enough Senators vote to stop debate, it stops. Originally, the number needed to invoke cloture was two-thirds, or 67 Senators in today's Senate. In 1975, the number needed to invoke cloture was reduced to three-fifths, or 60 Senators.
There have been several famous filibusters through history. Some are the stuff of legend — Huey Long, Democrat of Louisiana, filibustered the Senate multiple times in the 1930s, as he railed against legislation he felt gave too much to America's upper class. He entertained the nation by reading the phone book, Shakespeare, and the Bible into the public record.
Some filibusters had nothing short of evil intent. Strom Thurmond, Democrat (and Republican) of South Carolina, filibustered for over 24 hours to stop civil rights legislation in 1957. Other anti-civil rights filibusters were the norm until 1964, when the Senate was finally able to move the issue forward.
We have made some progress from the tyranny of one, to the tyranny of the third, to the tyranny of the two-fifths. I am a proponent for the protection of the minority, but the main protection for the minority is the Constitution, not an arcane Senate rule. It is time, has been time for a long time, to remove this technical procedure altogether.
Lest you think that this is just some sour grapes, the result of the recent close vote on cloture to allow the Senate's version of the health care bill to come to the floor, I admit that's part of it. It isn't like I sit around mulling over the filibuster and cloture every day.
But the recent vote only brought the issue to the foreground. I've disliked the filibuster and cloture for as long as I can remember. I would support doing away with it when the Senate is controlled by Republicans, too.
Not only is the filibuster anti-democratic, it is also ripe for abuse. Recent reports that Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu's vote for cloture was bought with a $100 million gift to Louisiana is just another side of the problem — to get to cloture, the majority party might be willing to buy votes.
Whether that happened here or not is not relevant — what is relevant is that it can happen, that it has happened before, that it will happen again.
I'm thankful that the Senate voted to allow the health care bill to come to the floor for debate. It is a good step in the right direction. Once we have this important piece of legislation properly vetted, debated, amended, and passed, hopefully the Senate will take a close look at its rules, and decide that the time of the filibuster has long since gone.
Note: The orginally published text said "tyrrany of the quarter" — this text corrects that to "tyranny of the third."
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Legislating our way to prosperity?
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 5, 2009.
Legislating our way to prosperity?
Just two weeks into the job, President Barack Obama is hitting something of a stride, despite the best efforts of some.
The mouthpiece of the Republican opposition, Rush Limbaugh, has already indicated that "I want him to fail," the "him" being Obama. His "damn the torpedoes" philosophy would rather see the economy in ruin than see Obama succeed.
Not every Republican finds kinship with Limbaugh's divisive opinions. One notable challenger is Republican stalwart Bill Bennett, who said that Limbaugh's "locution" was not what the nation needed.
However, challenging Limbaugh seems to be for brave-of-heart only. Republican Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia made a public apology to Limbaugh after saying that he should "back off" the rhetoric.
As Bennett notes, such obstructionism is not helpful, especially as Obama and his team face the train wreck that is the American and global economies.
I definitely do not want Obama to fail. I want to keep my job and want to see my friends, family, and neighbors keep their jobs. The real question is, will the administration's current plans succeed in doing just that.
Of course, the President does not make law - he can only make coherent and thoughtful suggestions, and then sit back and watch the Congress mangle the plan into a chaotic mess, with bits of pork, poison pills, and totally unrelated measures added here and there.
The first version crafted by House Democrats was put before the full House and with the input of House Republicans, pared down in places and expanded in others. Of course, that input into the process didn't convince a single House Republican to vote for the $819 billion package. But with a sizable Democratic majority, the bill could stand to have no Republican support, and even a handful of Democratic detractors, and still pass.
The House's plan is now in front of the Senate, where it will get a much closer look. In the Senate, the Republicans have a considerable measure of power. This is good for the nation, because as I've written before, it does none of us any good to have bad bills railroaded through, even if there is majority agreement with them.
The sober second look the Senate will take (and, indeed, was designed to take) will end up being something Democrats and Republicans equally like and hate, a sure sign it is a good bill.
The end result must stimulate the economy. It must spend money on things to put people to work, now and in the future; on things that will entice or force banks to begin lending again; on things that will make a real difference.
As of this writing, the bill has a higher price tag than the original House version: $900 billion. The bill is divided into two parts: spending increases and tax cuts.
Welcome to the wonderfully confusing and seemingly paradoxical world of macroeconomics: while spending more, we need to take in less.
The strategy of tax cuts is to give consumers and businesses more money in their pockets, and then hope neither group sits on the new-found funds. If people are out there buying things, orders for new things will increase. If businesses have more orders, they will increase inventory, inventory that will have to produced by people. Hiring more people will lead to more people working, with more money to spend, and so on.
The strategy of increased spending is more direct - the government funds projects that require businesses and employees to complete, and more projects means more productive workers. Of course, more workers means more income tax, hopefully enough to balance out the tax cuts and some of that extra spending.
Case in point: the Census Bureau's plans to open shop in Williston, a possible boon for many of our recently-laid off.
It's the adage "You've got to spend money to make money" writ large.
The outlay of $900 billion scares me in its scope, but the consequences of doing nothing scare me even more. If the president has his way, the bill will be finalized and passed within a couple of weeks. The Congress has time to craft a final bill worthy of passage, worthy of signature. I hope that their sense of what's right, and not a Limbaugh-esque sense of spite, takes over and we get a bill that will help us claw our way out of this crisis.
Legislating our way to prosperity?
Just two weeks into the job, President Barack Obama is hitting something of a stride, despite the best efforts of some.
The mouthpiece of the Republican opposition, Rush Limbaugh, has already indicated that "I want him to fail," the "him" being Obama. His "damn the torpedoes" philosophy would rather see the economy in ruin than see Obama succeed.
Not every Republican finds kinship with Limbaugh's divisive opinions. One notable challenger is Republican stalwart Bill Bennett, who said that Limbaugh's "locution" was not what the nation needed.
However, challenging Limbaugh seems to be for brave-of-heart only. Republican Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia made a public apology to Limbaugh after saying that he should "back off" the rhetoric.
As Bennett notes, such obstructionism is not helpful, especially as Obama and his team face the train wreck that is the American and global economies.
I definitely do not want Obama to fail. I want to keep my job and want to see my friends, family, and neighbors keep their jobs. The real question is, will the administration's current plans succeed in doing just that.
Of course, the President does not make law - he can only make coherent and thoughtful suggestions, and then sit back and watch the Congress mangle the plan into a chaotic mess, with bits of pork, poison pills, and totally unrelated measures added here and there.
The first version crafted by House Democrats was put before the full House and with the input of House Republicans, pared down in places and expanded in others. Of course, that input into the process didn't convince a single House Republican to vote for the $819 billion package. But with a sizable Democratic majority, the bill could stand to have no Republican support, and even a handful of Democratic detractors, and still pass.
The House's plan is now in front of the Senate, where it will get a much closer look. In the Senate, the Republicans have a considerable measure of power. This is good for the nation, because as I've written before, it does none of us any good to have bad bills railroaded through, even if there is majority agreement with them.
The sober second look the Senate will take (and, indeed, was designed to take) will end up being something Democrats and Republicans equally like and hate, a sure sign it is a good bill.
The end result must stimulate the economy. It must spend money on things to put people to work, now and in the future; on things that will entice or force banks to begin lending again; on things that will make a real difference.
As of this writing, the bill has a higher price tag than the original House version: $900 billion. The bill is divided into two parts: spending increases and tax cuts.
Welcome to the wonderfully confusing and seemingly paradoxical world of macroeconomics: while spending more, we need to take in less.
The strategy of tax cuts is to give consumers and businesses more money in their pockets, and then hope neither group sits on the new-found funds. If people are out there buying things, orders for new things will increase. If businesses have more orders, they will increase inventory, inventory that will have to produced by people. Hiring more people will lead to more people working, with more money to spend, and so on.
The strategy of increased spending is more direct - the government funds projects that require businesses and employees to complete, and more projects means more productive workers. Of course, more workers means more income tax, hopefully enough to balance out the tax cuts and some of that extra spending.
Case in point: the Census Bureau's plans to open shop in Williston, a possible boon for many of our recently-laid off.
It's the adage "You've got to spend money to make money" writ large.
The outlay of $900 billion scares me in its scope, but the consequences of doing nothing scare me even more. If the president has his way, the bill will be finalized and passed within a couple of weeks. The Congress has time to craft a final bill worthy of passage, worthy of signature. I hope that their sense of what's right, and not a Limbaugh-esque sense of spite, takes over and we get a bill that will help us claw our way out of this crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)