Keep the 60 Vote Rule
congress, Nation, Senate 9:16 AM
by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics.
A great travesty is mounting on Capitol Hill. At issue: Lawmakers and pundits – mostly but not entirely on the Left – are calling for a change in Senate rules to allow cloture by only 51 votes, down from the current 60. This move would be a huge, huge mistake for America.
With the recent election of Scott Brown (R-MA), the Democratic “supermajority” of 60 seats has fallen to 59. No longer can Democrats alone pass legislation or end a filibuster. They must now gather a modicum of Republican support to move their bills. The horror!!! For reference, a filibuster is endless debate on a bill intended to stop its passage by never allowing it to come for a vote. Minority parties often mount these filibusters, and their use has grown in number in recent decades.
In Tuesday’s WSJ, Gerald F. Seib opines that “50 is the new 60” referring to the majority required to pass legislation or end filibusters. That’s simply not true. Since the rules changed in 1975, 60 has become the new 67. It is in fact easier to end a filibuster today.
But let us think of the role of the Senate for a moment.
Seib says, “Legislation goes to the Senate to die.” That statement holds some truth, and with good reason. As the upper chamber of our legislature, the Senate is effectively the “adults” of the branch. They advise and consent on appointments, where the House does not. They are fewer in number (on purpose), isn't supposed to initiate new taxes (unless Woodrow Wilson asks them to), and tend to be focused more on the country as a whole than on state-based issues. The Senate is the "big picture" group. The House, their counterpart, is more focused on their districts. 435 in number compared to 100, they are closer to their constituents. The term “back home” literally means neighbors to House members. The House, it is said, will pass anything. Throw in some pork and it’s a done deal. The adults in the Senate can and must put the brakes on House overreaching by either party.
While complaining about Senate rules, Seib simultaneously mentions that, “if there is a rough consensus on a matter…filibusters are a futile gesture.” He adds, “They are worth mounting only in a highly partisan, highly polarized environment.” He concludes, “And that is precisely the environment the nation – not just the Senate – has right now.” How right he is on all of these counts, though his conclusion leaves one puzzled.
Can there be a worse time to pass sweeping and transformative legislation than during a time of hyperpartisanship and polarization? Take for example the health care overhaul commonly referred to as “Obamacare.” Instead of the Democrats getting exactly what they want and excluding what they don’t, shouldn’t a compromise be preferred? Wouldn’t that better reflect the concerns and needs of America as a whole? Why not give both parties half of a loaf rather than leaving Republican voters starved? This Congress rode to power on the coattails of a presidential candidate promising a new era of post-partisanship and togetherness. But instead the unholy Pelosi-Reid duo shut the doors on any and all Republican ideas.
Is it any wonder that the Evan Bayhs of the Senate are running for the hills while the Arlen Specters can’t figure out which devil to get in bed with? For Members without rigid and lockstep ideology, any vote is a no-win situation. If they vote with the Democrats, Republicans will say it’s just another sign of their “tax and spend, big government liberalism.” If they join the Republicans on some vote, Democrats say they’re standing “against change, against the little guy, for big business, for the wealthy.” Both parties target centrists for defeat in every election. It’s a huge mess for so-called moderates, which would only get worse if we further carve out the middle.
In highly charged times like these, where emotions are running high, it is best to find compromise and move forward only legislation that can garner some support from both parties. Now is exactly the time to empower those who would find common ground and leave our left and right fringes wanting. Neither party should be able to ram their most radical agenda down the throats of the American public. With the most liberal president and House this country is likely to see for decades, Senate rules are currently the only shield America has against ideological steamrolling.
That is why the 60 vote filibuster must remain.
After 220 years of our country’s history, the basic foundations of law have long-since existed. We don’t need Congress cranking out new laws to create new departments of government or subsidize ice cream shops. We certainly don’t need Congress doling out gifts to either party’s special interest groups like organized labor and trial lawyers. These are the times for basic, popular, responsible legislation that benefits most Americans. The Democrats shouldn’t get everything they want while stiffing every constituent right-of-center.
Minority parties love to complain that they do not have enough power, and elections do indeed have consequences. We choose as Americans which party we wish to hold the majority and which to keep from power. But even with a bare majority, Democrats would have control of everything in the Senate from the Committee to Buy Paperclips on up to the Senate Majority Leader who chooses what comes up for a vote and when. But with a slim majority, bills would require some bipartisan support.
Is that such a travesty? Only a short jog down memory lane incites images of Democrats complaining and Stonewalling over the Bush White House using its Senate Majority to get tax cuts and Medicare Part D passed over the stern opposition from the then-minority party. Were there any complaints over the 60 vote rule then? No. Rather, Democrats raised unholy Hell and filibustered when Lott’s Senate majority used budget rules to get their prized legislation through with only 51 votes.
Where are their complaints now over the use of a bare majority? We’ll see how many opinions turn around on the matter of 60 votes when Republicans take back control of the Senate. What will be Mr. Seib’s view on the matter then? We would all do well to take a long view of history before acting with haste.
There's ALWAYS something new happening at Drawnlines Politics.
For videos and archives visit our homepage
Check out our new Election Center!
A great travesty is mounting on Capitol Hill. At issue: Lawmakers and pundits – mostly but not entirely on the Left – are calling for a change in Senate rules to allow cloture by only 51 votes, down from the current 60. This move would be a huge, huge mistake for America.
With the recent election of Scott Brown (R-MA), the Democratic “supermajority” of 60 seats has fallen to 59. No longer can Democrats alone pass legislation or end a filibuster. They must now gather a modicum of Republican support to move their bills. The horror!!! For reference, a filibuster is endless debate on a bill intended to stop its passage by never allowing it to come for a vote. Minority parties often mount these filibusters, and their use has grown in number in recent decades.
In Tuesday’s WSJ, Gerald F. Seib opines that “50 is the new 60” referring to the majority required to pass legislation or end filibusters. That’s simply not true. Since the rules changed in 1975, 60 has become the new 67. It is in fact easier to end a filibuster today.
But let us think of the role of the Senate for a moment.
Seib says, “Legislation goes to the Senate to die.” That statement holds some truth, and with good reason. As the upper chamber of our legislature, the Senate is effectively the “adults” of the branch. They advise and consent on appointments, where the House does not. They are fewer in number (on purpose), isn't supposed to initiate new taxes (unless Woodrow Wilson asks them to), and tend to be focused more on the country as a whole than on state-based issues. The Senate is the "big picture" group. The House, their counterpart, is more focused on their districts. 435 in number compared to 100, they are closer to their constituents. The term “back home” literally means neighbors to House members. The House, it is said, will pass anything. Throw in some pork and it’s a done deal. The adults in the Senate can and must put the brakes on House overreaching by either party.
While complaining about Senate rules, Seib simultaneously mentions that, “if there is a rough consensus on a matter…filibusters are a futile gesture.” He adds, “They are worth mounting only in a highly partisan, highly polarized environment.” He concludes, “And that is precisely the environment the nation – not just the Senate – has right now.” How right he is on all of these counts, though his conclusion leaves one puzzled.
Can there be a worse time to pass sweeping and transformative legislation than during a time of hyperpartisanship and polarization? Take for example the health care overhaul commonly referred to as “Obamacare.” Instead of the Democrats getting exactly what they want and excluding what they don’t, shouldn’t a compromise be preferred? Wouldn’t that better reflect the concerns and needs of America as a whole? Why not give both parties half of a loaf rather than leaving Republican voters starved? This Congress rode to power on the coattails of a presidential candidate promising a new era of post-partisanship and togetherness. But instead the unholy Pelosi-Reid duo shut the doors on any and all Republican ideas.
Is it any wonder that the Evan Bayhs of the Senate are running for the hills while the Arlen Specters can’t figure out which devil to get in bed with? For Members without rigid and lockstep ideology, any vote is a no-win situation. If they vote with the Democrats, Republicans will say it’s just another sign of their “tax and spend, big government liberalism.” If they join the Republicans on some vote, Democrats say they’re standing “against change, against the little guy, for big business, for the wealthy.” Both parties target centrists for defeat in every election. It’s a huge mess for so-called moderates, which would only get worse if we further carve out the middle.
In highly charged times like these, where emotions are running high, it is best to find compromise and move forward only legislation that can garner some support from both parties. Now is exactly the time to empower those who would find common ground and leave our left and right fringes wanting. Neither party should be able to ram their most radical agenda down the throats of the American public. With the most liberal president and House this country is likely to see for decades, Senate rules are currently the only shield America has against ideological steamrolling.
That is why the 60 vote filibuster must remain.
After 220 years of our country’s history, the basic foundations of law have long-since existed. We don’t need Congress cranking out new laws to create new departments of government or subsidize ice cream shops. We certainly don’t need Congress doling out gifts to either party’s special interest groups like organized labor and trial lawyers. These are the times for basic, popular, responsible legislation that benefits most Americans. The Democrats shouldn’t get everything they want while stiffing every constituent right-of-center.
Minority parties love to complain that they do not have enough power, and elections do indeed have consequences. We choose as Americans which party we wish to hold the majority and which to keep from power. But even with a bare majority, Democrats would have control of everything in the Senate from the Committee to Buy Paperclips on up to the Senate Majority Leader who chooses what comes up for a vote and when. But with a slim majority, bills would require some bipartisan support.
Is that such a travesty? Only a short jog down memory lane incites images of Democrats complaining and Stonewalling over the Bush White House using its Senate Majority to get tax cuts and Medicare Part D passed over the stern opposition from the then-minority party. Were there any complaints over the 60 vote rule then? No. Rather, Democrats raised unholy Hell and filibustered when Lott’s Senate majority used budget rules to get their prized legislation through with only 51 votes.
Where are their complaints now over the use of a bare majority? We’ll see how many opinions turn around on the matter of 60 votes when Republicans take back control of the Senate. What will be Mr. Seib’s view on the matter then? We would all do well to take a long view of history before acting with haste.
There's ALWAYS something new happening at Drawnlines Politics.
For videos and archives visit our homepage
Check out our new Election Center!
Posted by Nick Stone
on 9:16 AM.
Filed under
Posts
I hate to break it to you but your party is the reason for this change. Filibusters, in their present form, were only used sparingly over the last 25 years. Granted, when Republicans controlled the house, they were used to a slightly larger degree. However the amount of filibuster threats is unheard of. Almost 3x what they were just five years ago.
Sorry, but you can blame the Republicans, who love to vote for things, jam them up in the Senate, then when they back to their home district and take credit for it.
Hate to break it to YOU anon, but like I said in the piece, I'm happy that the GOP has slowed down the process. It does this country no justice to ram through unpopular legislation. If the bill is so popular, it should have no problem getting 60 votes for cloture.
Thanks for the note, and thanks for reading Drawnlines.