Post #318,884
12/20/09 11:08:24 AM
|
Fallows on the filibuster.
http://jamesfallows....d_family_full.php
[...]
The significant thing about filibusters through most of U.S. history is that they hardly ever happened. But since roughly the early Clinton years, the threat of filibuster has gone from exception to routine, for legislation and appointments alike, with the result that doing practically anything takes not 51 but 60 votes. So taken for granted is the change that the nation's leading paper can off-handedly say that 60 votes are "needed to pass their bill." In practice that's correct, but the aberrational nature of this change should not be overlooked. (The Washington Post's comparable story is more precise: "A bloc of 60 votes is the exact number required to choke off the filibuster, the Senate minority's primary source of power, and the GOP's best hope of defeating the bill.")
Again, this is a very well-explored issue in the academic literature and much of the blog world. For blog and magazine discussions, see here, here, here, here, and here. An authoritative academic treatment came from David Mayhew, of Yale, in his 2002 James Madison lecture for the American Political Science Association. It is available here in PDF and very much worth reading. Sample passage:
"That topic is supermajority rule in the U.S. Senate-- that is, the need to win more than a simple majority of senators to pass laws. Great checker and balancer though Madison was, this feature of American institutional life would probably have surprised him and might have distressed him....
"Automatic failure for bills not reaching the 60 mark. That is the current Senate practice, and in my view it has aroused surprisingly little interest or concern among the public or even in political science. It is treated as matter- of-fact. One might ask: What ever happened to the value of majority rule?
Everything I have mentioned here is familiar, including the fact that this newly-invented "check" was not part of the original check-and-balance constitutional design. But somehow it isn't familiar, in the sense of being part of general understanding and mainstream coverage of issues like the health reform bill. Talk shows analyze exactly how the Administration can get to 60 votes; they don't discuss where the 60-vote practice came from and what it has done to public life. I have a gigantic article coming out soon in the Atlantic -- long even by our standards! but interesting! -- which concerns America's ability to address big public problems, compared in particular with China's. The increasing dysfunction of public institutions, notably the Senate, is a big part of this story.
As I think my article will make clear, this isn't a partisan question -- even though in any given administration it presents itself as one. (For the record, I support the health-care plan and am glad the Administration found the 60 votes.) Also for the record, as the chart below shows, the huge increase in threatened filibusters came from the Republican minority, after the Democrats took back the Senate in 2007. Since the time covered by this chart, the number of threatened (Republican) filibusters has shot up even more dramatically. Still, whoever is in control, this is a more basic and dangerous threat to the ability of any elected American government to address the big issues of its time. And the paralysis of working through the legislature is all the worse because of the contrast with modern presidents' de facto ability to make war-and-peace decisions essentially on their own.
[...]
I'm honestly a little torn about this. Based on the change in usage, something does appear to be broken with the filibuster. Ultimately, the majority must be able to rule in the Senate. But we have seen how a bare majority can take the country in a direction which can be argued is unconstitutional (e.g. W's administration argument about the "unitary executive", etc., etc.), so checks in the Senate are necessary. Some have argued that if the minority wants to filibuster, then they should be forced to do so by standing up and speaking for hours on end. Others have said that while superficially appealing, in fact that makes things harder for the majority. I dunno. We should also remember that the Senate is an institution designed to protect the interests of the small states, and by extension, minority opinions. There are good reasons to keep elements of that history.
Based on how some "obvious" reforms have worked in the past, I would argue that caution is necessary in changing the filibuster. It may be academic, since changes will require at least 60 votes, and the pundits are saying the Democrats likely will not have that many votes after the elections next year...
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #318,922
12/21/09 7:15:08 AM
|
Krugman on the filibuster; and Harkin's 1995 Amendment.
He makes some very good points today - http://www.nytimes.c...krugman.html?_r=1
On January 5, 1995 the Senate debated Tom Harkin's proposal to modify Rule XXII, to slightly shorten the time that a bill could be filibustered, and reduce over time the number of Senators needed to overcome a filibuster. It seems like a good proposal. He apparently is considering introducing it again.
C-SPAN transcript from 1995: http://www.c-spanarc.../77531&id=7082494
"AMENDING PARAGRAPH 2 OF RULE XXV"
[...]
But our proposal says--and let me make it very clear what our proposal or our amendment says--that on the first cloture vote you need 60 votes to end debate. Then, if you do not get the 60 votes, you can file another cloture motion. You have to wait 2 more days, you have another vote. Then you need 57 votes to end cloture. If you do not get it, you can file another cloture motion--again you need the 16 signatures to do that--wait 2 more days and then you get another vote and then you need 54 votes to end debate. If you do not get that, you can file one more cloture motion, wait 2 more days, and then you need 51 votes to get cloture and move to the merits of a bill.
Utilizing the different steps along the way, this would provide that, to get to the merits of a bill, a determined minority of the Senate who wanted to filibuster could slow it down for 19 days, 19 legislative days, which would be about a month. That is just getting to the bill.
There are other hurdles as a bill goes through the Senate. In fact there are six. There is the motion to proceed, there is the bill itself, there is the appointment of conferees, insisting on Senate amendments, disagreeing with the House, and then there is the conference report. So there are a minimum of six hurdles. That is not counting amendments.
Of course, when a bill comes to the floor someone could offer an amendment and that amendment can be filibustered. All we are saying is that in that first initial time you need 19 days. If you added up all the hurdles under our proposal you could slow a bill down for a minimum of 57 days, 57 legislative days.
That would translate into about 3 months. So it is a modest proposal. We are not saying get rid of the filibuster, but we are saying at some point in time a majority of the Senate ought to be able to end debate and get to the merits of the legislation.
[...]
I'm more comfortable with this than proposals to simply cut it to a simple majority from the outset, but it might actually be too small a change...
(You can also find information about the bill and the debate on Thomas at the Library of Congress, but it seems to use temporary URLs so cutting and pasting isn't practical.)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #318,924
12/21/09 9:35:39 AM
|
60 days would be better
no legislation other than a declaration of war would be harmed by a 60 day wait
|
Post #318,925
12/21/09 9:35:47 AM
|
Just noticing the obvious
The problem with filibusters right now is the lack of a price. Under the old system it took multiple Senators to get a full filibusters simply because one person can talk for only so long. Plus, the filibuster blocked all Senate action, so you had to be so opposed to the current bill that you where willing to shut down the government to block it. And, since your actions put a high price on every Senator, they where motivated to vote against your filibuster, even if they intended to vote against the final bill.
The countdown to simple majority would work, but I'm not sure it's the right solution. The problem is spiking out of control right now because the GOP has set itself up as an obstructionist party. They are filibustering every item of significance, and putting a time clock on how long they can filibuster won't really stop them. It is likely to encourage them to filibuster everything to slow things down as much as they can. And in the long run, the countdown system would encourage the majority to simply plan to wait out the countdown by introducing major legislation earlier.
However, I don't like the idea of a Senators getting a particular allotment of filibusters per session either. The problem with that is that a determined party could simply introduce variations of the same bill over and over until the filibusters run out. You would see Senators intentionally throwing sacrifice bills out first, with the intent of drawing filibusters.
I have not come up with a good solution yet, but the general idea is obvious. It has to be something that imposes a price on the Senators that they really don't want to pay, but isn't so high that they can't.
Jay
|
Post #318,926
12/21/09 9:46:05 AM
|
Oh for cacks sake
The problem is spiking out of control right now because the GOP has set itself up as an obstructionist party. do you have no memory of the democrats doing exactly the same thing during the first bush term? Does the words juidicial nominees ring a bell? Do you not remember what the "Nuclear" option was and why the republicns didnt pull that particular trigger because they knew once invoked the democrats in power could do the same thing?
How does an election or two create a mind wipe of the electorate, sheesh
|
Post #318,928
12/21/09 9:56:10 AM
|
Take a look at this table, and tell me it's the "same thing.
http://www.senate.go...clotureCounts.htm
Senate Action on Cloture Motions
Congress Years Motions Filed Votes on Cloture Cloture Invoked
111 2009-2010 64 36 32
110 2007-2008 139 112 61
109 2005-2006 68 54 34
108 2003-2004 62 49 12
107 2001-2002 72 61 34
106 1999-2000 71 58 28
105 1997-1998 69 53 18
104 1995-1996 82 50 9
103 1993-1994 80 46 14
102 1991-1992 59 47 22
101 1989-1990 37 24 11
100 1987-1988 53 43 12
99 1985-1986 40 23 10
98 1983-1984 41 19 11
97 1981-1982 31 30 10
96 1979-1980 30 20 11
95 1977-1978 23 13 3
94 1975-1976 39 27 17
93 1973-1974 44 31 9
92 1971-1972 23 20 4
91 1969-1970 7 6 0
90 1967-1968 6 6 1
89 1965-1966 7 7 1
88 1963-1964 4 3 1
87 1961-1962 4 4 1
86 1959-1960 1 1 0
85 1957-1958 0 0 0
84 1955-1956 0 0 0
83 1953-1954 1 1 0
82 1951-1952 0 0 0
81 1949-1950 2 2 0
80 1947-1948 0 0 0
79 1945-1946 6 4 0
78 1943-1944 1 1 0
77 1941-1942 1 1 0
76 1939-1940 0 0 0
75 1937-1938 2 2 0
74 1935-1936 0 0 0
73 1933-1934 0 0 0
72 1931-1932 2 1 0
71 1929-1930 1 0 0
70 1927-1928 1 0 0
69 1925-1926 7 7 3
68 1923-1924 0 0 0
67 1921-1922 1 1 0
66 1919-1920 2 2 1
Total 1183 865 370
The Republicans are using it a lot more than the Democrats ever did.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #318,929
12/21/09 11:32:04 AM
|
Re: Take a look at this table, and tell me it's the "same th
107 2001-2002 72 61 34
106 1999-2000 71 58 28
who had the senate?
|
Post #318,931
12/21/09 11:41:11 AM
|
Let's see...
107 2001-2002 72 61 34
106 1999-2000 71 58 28
That's 35-36 motions filed per year around 10 years ago.
Now:
111 2009-2010 64 36 32
110 2007-2008 139 112 61
That's 64-70 a year now. (The 111th is not quite half over.)
Not quite the same, eh?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #318,932
12/21/09 12:41:42 PM
|
And what motions are we getting during that time
National Watermelon Month?...establishing the 7th of whatever to be Soda Free School Day?
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #318,933
12/21/09 1:46:07 PM
|
Say what argument you're making, please.
|
Post #318,941
12/21/09 4:35:46 PM
|
sure, republicans and democrats agree on
taking away our rights, military industrial society funding and no bid contracts to their stockholders.
If the republicans had tried to pass mandatory prayer in schools. Tossed out roe v wade and abolished the NEA commerce department and stopped food stamps for the leeches the dems would be filibustering like crazy.
The dems are promoting their hard agenda, that even members of their own party think is too far left and are taking massive payouts to pass them, no wonder the republicans are filibustering. Keep it up an they wont need to filibuster after the midterms
|
Post #318,945
12/21/09 4:52:52 PM
|
Far Left?
Are you shitting me? I'll tell you what I'm coming to. Most of this fricking country is ready, nay eager, to don the brown shirts and march to the corporate sponsored tunes their government is ringing into our ears.
Fsck 'em. If that's what we've come to, we deserve what we get.
|
Post #318,946
12/21/09 4:59:17 PM
|
Re: Far Left?
left of dodd nelson et al etc
|
Post #318,948
12/21/09 5:01:21 PM
|
Dodd? Nelson?
Hell, why don't you just say "Left of Mussolini"?
|
Post #318,950
12/21/09 5:15:39 PM
|
:-D
|
Post #318,959
12/21/09 6:34:29 PM
|
ok left of mussolini
leaves you stalim and adolf (yes left, it was the national socialist democratic party)
thanx,
bill
|
Post #318,962
12/21/09 6:39:59 PM
|
Nit.
http://en.wikipedia....ational_Socialism
The term most typically refers to Nazism, which was the ideology of the German Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party), which was led by Adolf Hitler.
As a generic concept, National Socialism opposes capitalism, communism, democratic socialism and liberalism.[1]
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #318,963
12/21/09 6:47:00 PM
|
wrong source, gotta watch that, here is the platform
sounds like the democrats to me as well as being left of mussolini :-)
http://www.hitler.or...itings/programme/
We demand therefore:
11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
The breaking of the slavery of interest
12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.
|
Post #318,965
12/21/09 6:53:38 PM
|
I'm not going there - sorry.
How about EB?
http://www.britannic...ational-Socialism
National Socialism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with a socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movement—albeit a largely negative one. Rejecting rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above. It also emphasized the inequality of men and races and the right of the strong to rule the weak; sought to purge or suppress competing political, religious, and social institutions; advanced an ethic of hardness and ferocity; and partly destroyed class distinctions by drawing into the movement misfits and failures from all social classes. Although socialism was traditionally an internationalist creed, the radical wing of National Socialism knew that a mass base existed for policies that were simultaneously anticapitalist and nationalist. However, after Hitler secured power, this radical strain was eliminated.
Don't confuse an (apparent) campaign program with actual policies.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #318,974
12/21/09 7:49:41 PM
|
Party Platform vs the writings of the victors
mein kampf is full of socialist communist ideals and at the end of the day the reich was identical to stalins russia except for the race hate.
|
Post #318,968
12/21/09 7:22:50 PM
|
You gotta watch your sources.
This is an often misconstrued part of Nazism. For those inclined to equate the far left (mensheviks, Troskyites and, arguably, bolsheviks) with the far right (nazis, corporate democrats, republicans, etc.:0) there is far too much emphasis placed on the fascists demand that people "surrender themselves to the State". This is often mis-guidedly equated to leftist socialism (not to be confused with Communism, which shares a lot more with Anarchism than it does with either Socialism or Fascism).
Communism is the ultimate "Power to The People" brigade, Democratic Federalism is "Communism Light" and the Plutocratic/Oligarchic/Nazist state is what we have now which eliminates the rights of the individual (except for those who are more equal than others - read board of directors members) that we have now.
My History Prof back at UNCC gave the best description ever of the differences between the far left and the far right. He said either group was capable of the very same atrocities as the other. However, "the Far Left is morally superior because the Leftist commits those atrocities because he is convinced that everyone will be better off for his efforts. The Far Rightist commits those same horrors because he is convinced that he will personally be better off."
I'm not nearly the Marxist I once was. But, at 50, I do believe this. Capitalism has its place. It is a wonderful incubator for original ideas that benefit the whole. However, once it matures, once a "company" becomes a corporation that employs more than 20, 30 or 50 people or so, it becomes an entity that stifles innovation. When we (the USA) were infants, the adage used to be "Build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to you door." But we matured beyond usefulness. If we were to re-write that adage today it would read something like, "Build a better mouse trap, but be sure you never worked for a mouse trap related company, one of its subsidiaries, nor one of its suppliers and then, if you don't have a non-compete agreement signed with your former employer, maybe you can sell your improved mouse trap. But, only if you have enough cash to fend off the giant mouse trap producers because they will sue you, a legitimate claim not being necessary, on the bet that you will run out of money for legal expenses before they do." That's where we are. And the fat cats own our government. We don't have enough money to put their toadies out of office and because we are a xenophobic group, we cannot find enough common ground to protest conditions with the numbers that would be required.
With apologies to Mr. Schultz, "We're Doomed."
|
Post #318,975
12/21/09 7:51:24 PM
|
thanx, made my point better than I did
|
Post #318,980
12/21/09 8:55:17 PM
|
box, yer head is so far up yer arse...
that it's sticking out from your collar. This level of ignorance does not occur spontaneously: it must needs come about of set purpose and after sustained effort. Almost better to have marlowe back in our little ecosystem to plug this niche of idiocy into which you've contrived to lodge yourself.
|
Post #318,987
12/22/09 11:01:11 AM
|
Oh dear, rand was late for red beret march and picnic
it appears to have made im testy :-) like ash and others I takes my fun where I can find it
|
Post #319,007
12/22/09 5:00:13 PM
|
As always, you mistake accuracy for fun-with-dumbth slogans.
|
Post #318,935
12/21/09 2:22:45 PM
|
There is a difference between opposition and obstruction
When Bush Jr was in office, the Democrats abused the system, but not on the scale the Republicans are now. In fact, if you look at the numbers, it looks like the Democrats blocked fewer bills under Bush then the Republicans did under Clinton but a small margin. But the current rate looks to be double the previous number, which was already too high.
The same pattern holds for Judicial nominations. The Republicans complain about it constantly, but they abused the system more then the Democrats did.
Both parties have corrupt members and both have even more that manipulate and abuse the system. And historically there have been times when the Democrats where more corrupt then the Republicans. But I can not think of any type of corruption where the Democrats abuse the system more then the Republicans right now.
Jay
|
