A tidbit from Krugman's column today, and a question:

[Demoiselle]

"The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opinion/08krugman.htm ...


Is this true? Can they change the rules on the first day with a simple majority?

Never mind whether the senate will do it or not...CAN they do it?

[wtmusic]

1. The nuclear option

Yes, they can do it. Should they? No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[laughingliberal]

6. So, they should just continue on as they have been? nt

[wtmusic]

7. Yes.

The filibuster is part of the fabric of our legal system.

Once it's gone, it's gone for good, and Democrats have found it useful many, many times.

[laughingliberal]

11. No, the Democrats did not find it all that useful

The last time the Democrats tried using the filibuster to any extent, the Republicans backed them down by threatening to go nuclear. The Republicans are far more obstructive now than the Democrats were being at that time. This country is ungovernable under the current rules. The filibuster may have served a purpose when the Senate was a reasonable body but no longer. Now it blocks the very principles of democracy. It's not in the Constitution and it is the biggest problem we have trying to move the country forward.

[wtmusic]

13. Hmm.

I can take the words "Republican" and "Democrat" in your post, reverse them, and have the Republican point of view.

I agree that it presents problems with moving the country forward from our POV, but the country is not ungovernable. If your frustration is in regards to health care reform, reform will happen, but it won't happen tomorrow.

Here's what makes the filibuster a valuable tool: it puts an element of personal commitment into making laws. It turns the process into, quite literally, a battle of endurance. Senators must be willing to stay up all night, for days on end, to pass/prevent legislation, and thus it tends to weed out those who have less than pure ideological conviction. Compromise comes hard early and easier as time goes by. What you end up with are laws which are the product of the most fervent and committed beliefs, and I would suggest that that's usually in the best public interest.

[Jennicut]

15. Not right now it isn't....usually it is the most watered down compromised

crap that gets passed. Pure obstructionism has no place in our system and it was not meant to be used that way.

[laughingliberal]

16. At this point it is the endurance of the American people that is being tested

As in how long can we continue to sink into financial oblivion and poverty before somebody gets a clue and does their job?

You can reverse whatever words you want and have whatever POV you want but it will not change the fact that the Republicans were able to pass some of the most odious legislation with fewer than 60 Republicans in the Senate and we have been able to pass nothing but token, watered down, compromised crap with 60 alleged Democrats. If we don't get some relief for the American people soon, we will all get to witness, again, how easily the Republicans passed bills through the Senate.

[TwilightGardener]

2. I have no reason to doubt Krugman's take that it can be done by simple majority--

what's interesting to me is if they CAN, but WON'T. That would tell me that they are all hiding behind the filibuster excuse, hoping to achieve basically nothing (and thus avoid being held accountable for results) but still wanting credit for positions and legislation that fail.

[laughingliberal]

5. I believe that is exactly the truth of it. nt

[n2doc]

3. Yes, and they need to do something

Allowing a single senator to block things is idiotic and undemocratic. And it will come back to bite them on the A** if they end up being perceived as a "do nothing" congress.

[zipplewrath]

4. Each senate creates its own rules

What Krugman is talking about is that the senate "creates" its own rules at the beginning of every "new" senate, i.e every 2 years. Typically it is done with a vote that installs the "old" rules. But there is little stopping them from rewriting the book every 2 years and creating whatever rules they want, and by a majority vote.

[frazzled]

8. I'm concerned we're flogging the wrong horse

It's true that the Senate has become increasingly dysfunctional over the last years. But I continue to ask myself the following: The rules haven't changed (appreciably) over the past decades--it's the extreme partisanship and bad behavior. Senators just didn't invoke these rules to block and obstruct so frequently as they do now. So are we sure it's the rules we want to change and not the behavior? I realize that it is easier to do the former rather than the latter. But there are rare occasions on which a filibuster--a real filibuster, not fake obstructionism--might be useful.

I worry that this could backfire as badly as the Massachusetts Democrats' wish to prevent the governor from naming a replacement senator in the event that Kerry would win the presidency in '04. They called it "undemocratic" for one executive to appoint a senator, but what they were really saying was they didn't want that governor to appoint a Republican senator. Big mistake.

Changing the behavior is what Obama has focused on for quite a number of years now. I realize it sounds impossible. So we go for the next best thing, which is changing the rules. But I believe he is making some (small) headway in making people understand the problems with what the Republicans have been doing: he pointed it out well in recent Q & A's, and I hope it will become evident in the Health Care forum he's called.

I realize much has been written that refutes my fear that we'll regret jettisoning the filibuster rules ... that it would be neutral to both sides. But I remain not totally convinced.

[laughingliberal]

12. If we don't do something to make it possible to pass legislation soon

we aren't ever going to have to worry about it again. The Republicans can more than get their legislation passed with the help of our Blue Dogs. If the American people don't see some results pretty fast, the Republicans will have both Houses back within a few short years. I have independent friends who voted for Dems in '06 and '08 who now grill me about what difference that made. The House and the Senate have now been in Democratic hands for over 3 years. It's time for some results.

[ljm2002]

9. Changing longstanding rules for temporary gain...

...has an uncanny way of coming back and biting you in the arse.

Just ask the Democrats in Massachusetts...

We do need some leverage though. It seems that forcing a real filibuster might be one avenue... I don't know the ins and outs of Senate procedures, but it seems to me I've seen a real filibuster or two. Is there no way for our party to force one?

[laughingliberal]

14. This boogey man of allowing all legislation to stall because the Republicans might get back in power

is old and worn. The Democrats were never able to stick together on blocking anything when they were in the minority and when they were attempting that to block some judicial appointments the Republicans threatened to go nuclear. The filibuster is only around 100 years old. It seems the country functioned just fine without it for at least half our history.

[Demoiselle]

10. The filibuster rule has been changed over the years, relatively recently, too.

Its purpose was always to slow things down, not stop government dead in its tracks.
If you read the rest of Krugman's column, you'd see his reference to the history of Poland, a country that fell apart because of "procedural" rules in its parliament.
The country became ungovernable.
There is a basic principle in our government called majority rule. It is the basic principle of parliamentary law and Robert's Rules. Procedures come and go. I appreciate the sincerity of those who've posted here warning against changing the filibuster rule...but I can't agree.
As I'm sure you know, Republicans like Shelby have blocked simple appointments by the carload. And there is no reason on this earth to assume any Republican, or for that matter, conservative Dem will suddenly become reasonable or responsible. And, as I'm sure you also know, the powers that control communication in this country will do everything they can to convince the public that "Everybody's to blame...All pols are the same, etc. etc."
Consider, please, the history of Poland, a country that was doing pretty well until it was destroyed by the "unanimity" rule. One member of parliament could kill any bill.
And when Poland became ungovernable, she was invaded from all sides.

Of course, it might not be so bad if Canada invaded us. At least we'd get decent health care.

(And before you jump all over me for being hysterical, please remember that it was Mr. Krugman, a thinker much respected on this site, who brought up the comparison.