Congressional Scholars Agree There’s Nothing Outrageous About Majority Rules in the Senate
Norman Ornstein, Thomas Mann, and Molly Reynolds have an excellent piece in The New Republic making the point that complaints about the evils of using the budget reconciliation process to pass major legislation such as health care reform are totally bogus:
Reconciliation was designed as a narrow procedure to bring revenue and direct spending under existing laws into conformity with the levels set in the annual budget resolution. It was used initially to cut the budget deficit by increasing revenues or decreasing spending but in more recent years its primary purpose has been to reduce taxes. Twenty-two reconciliation bills were passed between 1980 and 2008, although three (written by Republican majorities in Congress) were vetoed by President Clinton and never became law.
Whether reducing or increasing deficits, many of the reconciliation bills made major changes in policy. Health insurance portability (COBRA), nursing home standards, expanded Medicaid eligibility, increases in the earned income tax credit, welfare reform, the state Children’s Health Insurance Program, major tax cuts and student aid reform were all enacted under reconciliation procedures. Health reform 2009 style would be the most ambitious use of reconciliation but it fits a pattern used over three decades by both parties to avoid the strictures of Senate filibusters.
As they point out, there are other aspects of the reconciliation process that make it a less-than-ideal venue for passing health care reform. But it’s a superior alternative to not passing health care reform or to passing a bill called “health care reform” that failes to make substantial progress on key issues. One hopes that enough bipartisan cooperation will exist to be able to avoid a reconciliation scenario, but cooperation seems unlikely to be forthcoming absent a credible threat to move forward on a majority vote.
Meanwhile, it would be strongly preferable to do away with the inevitable hypocrisy involved in the minority-of-the-day always arguing for a narrow use of reconciliation and the majority-of-the-day arguing for a broad use. The thing to do is to find away to eliminate the filibuster. We could also do away with the unfortunate linkage of majority voting to the other aspects of the reconciliation process. There’s no good reason to think that a 60 vote supermajority requirement serves the national interest.
16 Responses to “Congressional Scholars Agree There’s Nothing Outrageous About Majority Rules in the Senate”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 20th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
[...] bookmarks tagged clinton Congressional Scholars Agree There’s Nothing Out… saved by 8 others ktetis bookmarked on 04/20/09 | [...]
April 20th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I suspect the filibuster will be made irrelevant for the most part. At least until judicial nominations become an issue. Initiating a new, huge, controversial, program via budget rules sets the stage for any problematic ideas to be railroaded through on yet another unread omnibus bill. Like “interstate commerce,” the doors are open to address anything.
Too bad that transparency idea isn’t happening. It is things like that which make a one term Presidency possible. Maybe Dems should think twice about eliminating the filibuster. It’s the only thing holding back the tyranny of the majority.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I think we might all sing a different tune on filibusters if the Dems had used this power to obstruct the Patriot Act, FISA immunization, and a host of other despicable legislation.
See, the Republicans are able to stop things that they are ideologically opposed to. They are opposed to socialism, so they stop social programs as long as they have 40% of the Senate and unity of opinion. Now, we all know that this argument is silly and against majority public opinion, and this will be reflected next election cycle when they lose more seats and it passes.
But here is the rub, they have elevated this (faux) issue so that it requires serious examination (obstuctionism). If the Dems had done this on torture, wiretapping, etc, they’d be heroes and we’d be singing their praises today and thanking the good Lord for the filibuster – how it allows the voices of reason to stem the tide of mob group-think, and all that.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Somewhat OT but on the general subject of majority rule, here’s a gem from Derbyshire on the Corner today: “For sure, decade by decade, universal adult suffrage is looking like a worse and worse idea.”
He was perfectly serious.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I think that the 60-vote majority in the Senate is attainable after 2010 – no changes to the system should be made until then
April 20th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I just wanted to point out that in The Broken Branch, Mann and Ornstein defend the filibuster against the threatened “nuclear option,” so I’m not sure that they are completely taken by the notion of majority rule in the Senate.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I’d be for changing the filibuster to make it only usable for things that are only voted on in the Senate, like judicial nominations. If something has a majority of votes in both houses, it should pass.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Why not require Senate bills to have 60 votes period? The Senate was designed to be the more level headed branch of Congress. Unless we can put together 3/5 of the members, the legislation is most likely not desirable to a very large segment of the population.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Nathan – seriously? You could theoretically get 41 senators representing slightly over 10% of the US population blocking any bill.
At any rate, I’m going to say again what I’ve said before is that they should move back to a system where the requirements for cloture is the votes of 3/5 of members present and voting, rather than 3/5 of sworn-in members. As it currently stands, the onus of a filibuster is entirely on the people trying to invoke cloture, and it’s only since the rule was changed so as to do this that this whole idea that there was a supermajority requirement to pass legislation in the Senate appeared.
Go back to the old system and the filibusterers have to actually show up. Once you do that, they’ll stop doing it except for things they really care about.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Derbyshire was talking about “No representation without taxation.” Here is the full quote of the reader comment which inspired Derbyshire’s response.
From Radio Derb: “‘No taxation without representation!’ The Tea Party protestors of our time don’t have that cry available to them. We do have representation. The destruction of freedom and prosperity is proceeding with the full support of our elected representatives in Congress, under the leadership of a President easily elected by a majority of voters.”
Methinks an appropriate cry today might be “No representation without taxation.” That would eliminate over 40 percent of the electorate, leaving the productive 60 percent in charge.
Now this is actually quite a sensible and salient point. If you don’t pay for government, from an accountability point of view, you shouldn’t be able to impose your whims on it via the ballot paper. After all, I don’t see if you don’t pay taxes why you should have the right to dictate, via elections, to others how to spend their tax money.
The system as currently constructed is deficient in fundamental accountability. There is no incentive, for a large part of the population, to vote in politicians who will be prudent and responsible in government management, as those electors, illegitimately construed, are not liable for any of the costs of government. They only enjoy the upside of government, such as welfare, but none of the downsides and risks, such as higher taxes. In business this would be analogous to socialising all the risks and privatising all the profits (I don’t see liberals advocating that, do I) Restraining the franchise to those who not only benefit from government but also bear its risks, i.e. have a responsible stake in efficient outcomes, would re-impose sanity into our politics.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Sorry, neglected to blockquote.
Here it is:
April 20th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
At long last, a conservative reveals their true belief about democracy!
By all means, petition the GOP leaders in Congress, the GOP governors, the R.A.T.S. in the Supreme Court, and all other Republican leaders and candidates to present this argument to the American people: you can call it Contract with America 2.0. I’m sure this will put you right back on top in 2010 and 2012!
April 20th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
The filibuster? Serve it cakes and red wine laced with cyanide. It that doesn’t do the trick, use a revolver. Beat the filibuster with clubs and drown it in an ice cold river.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Re: Unless we can put together 3/5 of the members, the legislation is most likely not desirable to a very large segment of the population.
Given that the Senate is already highly undemocratic (since Wyoming has as many votes as California) you are suggesting it’s OK for, say, 20% of the population to block legislation favored by the other 80%.
That’s ridiculous.
Re: you don’t pay for government, from an accountability point of view, you shouldn’t be able to impose your whims on it via the ballot paper.
Apart from people who are either very young or else who are institutionalized. or living as total hermits, there is no one, I repeat NO ONE, who does not pay taxes. Pretty much anyone casting a vote has some skin in the game, so send that strawman back to Oz.
April 21st, 2009 at 3:04 am
As the commenters debate this there is always and I mean always a shoe as if it were on the other foot opportunity. Matt seems to frame the context of debate with some equilibrium and clear and logical thought. I posit that when the filibuster was little used it served a reasonable purpose did it not? Tyranny of the majority perhaps? So I say, lets try it (that is no filibusters) but only on those laws where we are in the majority and its our law. And always available when we are in minority. Laws sometimes can be about making sure our side has the most power and the other side has the least. At least while we have the power. As we seem to be living in the time of truly absolute dichotomous thinking and we have the power I say death to the filibuster (except when we want to use it say to block another Scalia on the court!!!)
April 21st, 2009 at 3:21 am
Re: JonF – there is NO ONE except the very young and/or institutionalized who does not pay taxes. I take that as a challenge. Never say never or never say “no one”. I say homeless people who panhandle on freeway off-ramps, ride bikes, get food from the food bank, free meals from the local churches, dumpster dive, and use the local library for showering, free internet, the latest magazines, warmth, shelter etc. And their population is? Shall we wait until the next census to find out? Can’t be big but is certainly SOMEONE! And could be a burgeoning demographic as more vets come home from Irag/Afghanistan. There but by the grace of Zeus go I? Am I abusing my commenters rights? Maybe they have no skin the in the game but they are not “NO ONE” perhaps. I also think that was the Scarecrow not the strawman.