Dear lefty Obama haters/skeptics, or those convinced that the Democrats are worthless: Please consider this alternative scenario.
Had the filibuster not applied, the United States would have a market-based system to control carbon emissions, which would limit the damage from global warming, vitalize the clean technology sector, and challenge other large polluters like China and India to do the same. The new health care law would have a public option. Children of undocumented immigrants who served two years in the military or went to college could become US citizens. Women paid less than their male colleagues because of their gender would have broader legal recourse against their employers. Billionaires would not be able to manipulate the political system from behind a veil of anonymity.
I suppose you can blame Harry Reid et al for the continuation of the filibuster; however, considering that a GOP takeover of the Senate is well within the realm of possiblity, the Affordable Care Act would be much easier to repeal, much less Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Think on it.
Discuss
21 Comments . Leave a comment below.The system is supposed to require a majority vote of Senators to pass legislation, not a super-majority. Team Obama should have pushed to end the filibuster as their first order of business after the election victory. That, combined with a failure to re-regulate the banks, may go down as key Roads Not Taken.
Rather than historical counterfactuals, however, is is more constructive to focus on the issue at hand, which is: Romney, or Obama. There is no question whatsoever which choice is better for Massachusetts: Obama by miles.
I voted for Obama in 08 but voted for Mitt in 02. Both are bright guys. Both men inherited messes and deficits when they took office. I look forward to the debates.
you can send a little Scott Brown’s way. Our Republican junior Senator has voted overwhelmingly in support of right-wing Republican partisan obstruction in the U.S. Senate during his brief tenure.
but I don’t recall Obama supporting a public option. Wasn’t that one of things he negotiated away with big Pharma or the health insurance lobby before the congressional debates even started?
… was largely based on what he thought he could pass.
But he’s a compromiser, not a fighter.
Just got word if you have the majority in the senate, you control the chamber and can do whatever you like. Don’t believe me, just ask SomervilleTom, he wrote it on another article with the graph showing the Bush tax cuts blowing a hole in the deficit beyond 2013, even though they expire at the end of this year. Weird right?
Democrats have been reluctant to misuse the filibuster to degree the Republicans have.
At least in the way it currently operates. I’ve noted before that for those assemblies that use Robert’s Rules it actually takes a 2/3 vote as opposed to 3/5 to close debate, but that requires actual debate to be ongoing. Holds are no good either, especially the secret kind. I’ve looked through Senate rules a few times and I have yet to find where it explicitly says this is how it’s supposed to happen. Obama could have done a couple of things: send Joe Biden to preside and ask him to rule in such a way to keep this from happening, thus put the Senate in the position of fighting it, or gone to the states of obstinate Senators and campaign so hard said Senators will be begging him to leave.
The Senate is a deeply unrepresentative body.
Those votes wouldn’t have numbered the way they did if the filibuster wasn’t there as a backstop to keep the bills from actually passing.
My understanding is that a simple majority can end or alter the practice of filibuster. Since it’s being abused, Democrats should do this.
I could be wrong on both counts, I’m sure someone smart will let me know if I am.
Given that Democrats still stand proudly to the right of most 1970s Republicans, and to the right of Bush on education and restriction of civil liberties, I am not completely sold. I imagine many of the usual suspects would have found other excuses not to keep their promises had the filibuster not been available (I have it on good authority the courts would strike this down….the bond markets wouldn’t like it, etc.)
To my knowledge, implementation of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security was neither helped nor hindered by the existence of the filibuster. Strom Thurmond tried to obstruct the Civil Rights Act with the filibuster but he was only successful temporarily.
I think the most impact the filibuster has ever had, nor will ever have, is to slow the inevitable but it really can’t stop it. I used to think it was of vital importance to the state but I no longer think that. I think it just slows the inevitable. I think, at yet, it’s provide a good excuse for the Democrats not to truly stand their ground.
Reconciliation exists, and the GOP could have used it (and some wanted to use it) to end Social Security in 2005. They didn’t because no Democrats would sign on to that–so all the pain from Social Security would have a Republican brand on it.
I say let the filibuster go, and the Republicans would all of a sudden find out what it means to be held accountable for their actions.
Obama + Filibuster Reform. Let’s get it done
It was a huge mistake not to remove the filibuster. You can be sure that it if the Republicans take control of the Senate, it will have a lifespan measured in nanoseconds.
Let’s get rid of the filibuster just as the GOP is ready to take a majority in the US Senate that will be run by Tea Party nuts. Good plan.
You are, I hope, familiar with the old warning about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater… At some point, however, the bathwater has to be thrown out. Threatening the baby, in order to save the bathwater, is senseless.
Of course, removing the filibuster might increase the pool of swing votes in the Senate… Instead of just Scott Brown holding the swing vote there might be opportunities for other players to maneuver and Scott Brown is going to be left swinging in the breeze. The present setup might just constrain each side: one side can’t break the filibuster, but the other side can’t quit it… The filibuster is, in fact, simply a tool of party discipline. If you remove the tool you might weaken party discipline in a way that is not expected.
The filibuster doesn’t need to be removed. It needs to be restored to the role it had for generations: Senators need to actually speak.
The problem, in my view, isn’t the filibuster itself. It is, instead, that the Democrats have (for whatever reasons) allowed it to be too easily invoked. The result is that EVERY piece of remotely controversial legislation now needs 60 votes instead of a simple majority.
If the Tea Party ends up controlling the Senate, the filibuster will be the LEAST of our problems.
We’ve all seen reports of senators voting against cloture (the filibuster) on bills they expressed support for… This the tell: there is nothing to suggest that votes against cloture map at all cleanly to the actual votes on legislation.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Tue 21 May 8:11 AM