Yes, but we depend on the rest of the country to pay our bills. It’s a primary concern to make sure the other states don’t go belly up. Seriously, that was the last balanced budget proposal we had, a couple of minor changes to take care of about 1% of the deficit, and we’d ask the feds for the rest of the money. And for some reason it didn’t work!
The takeaway I have from this is that, regardless of one’s feelings on holding onto the ability to filibuster the final vote on a bill (and I can see both sides of this one), the Dems, while they’re in the majority, need to get rid of as many of the other veto points in the Senate rules as they can.
For instance, a motion to proceed shouldn’t be filibusterable (whether that’s a word or not). A motion to proceed is a vote on whether the Senate should take up a bill. Preventing that vote via filibuster is extending debate over whether to debate a bill. There is sillier stuff in this world than that, but very little of it is in the governmental systems of the world’s great powers. Make a rule limiting debate to one hour for each side, and then there’s an up-or-down vote.
Another one: the Senate rules currently allow 30 hours of post-cloture debate. IOW, after one side has gotten the 60 votes it needs to bring debate to a close, the minority can still require 30 more hours worth of debate. Now that the real debate take place in getting to the cloture vote, there’s really no need for any further debate after the cloture vote, but sure, give each side an hour before the pro-forma final vote on the bill.
If Harry Reid and the Dems aren’t even willing to get rid of low-hanging fruit like this, then the Senate will forever be a mess, until such time as the GOP controls the Presidency and both houses of Congress, and the GOP decides the filibuster is a Bad Thing.
That’s already the case. If federal Republicans act like rightwing nuts, Democrats move further to the center to be the responsible adults and the entire national agenda and discourse is dragged to the right. Which means that basically, this tactic works - at least for certain definitions of works.
The flaw in that argument is that for the Dems (either party, really) to get a 60 seat majority, they have to elect some members who will be more moderate, for lack of a better word, and tend to vote at times with the other party. In reality, you’d need at least several more than 60 to make it work.
The problem with playing nice is that it doesn’t actually prevent the other side from playing dirty. The only way I see to succeed long term is as follows.
Democrats in the minority just as much of a pain in the ass as the Republicans.
Republicans immediately become supporters of filibuster reform.
Democrats allow reasonable filibuster reform legislation to pass, with just enough resistance to keep Republicans from changing their minds. (don’t throw me in that briar patch)
Democrats take back the majority as quickly as possible before the Republicans ruin the country.
I don’t think you’d see a whole lot of Democrats voting with the Republicans on filibusters. But you’d see them bring bills toward the center like they did during the health care debate.
It’s really all about you then? People that are not you, or not like you, should be required to get a supermajority to do anything that doesn’t benefit you personally? That is a caricature most people would believe only existed in a liberal rant.
And that is why tyranny by the minority is a bad thing for the country. Though I can see why you prefer it; the Republican Party is circling the drain, relevant only because of the filibuster and the gerrymander. But it is clear that the GOP is on a very short lifeline, because they can’t resist moving further and further to the right, imposing more and more rigorous purity tests for your candidates, and in the face of election losses, becoming more rigid in your dogma.
The writing is on the wall; by the time Hillary takes office, there won’t be enough Republicans in Washington to field the Congressional softball team.
Five Democrats voted against ending debate, yes - Reid for procedural reasons and four who were opposed. But even if you add them in, it’s 59 votes to break the filibuster.
Isn’t this the very opposite of being a Conservative? My understanding is that Conservatives don’t want change and want to largely maintain (conserve) the status quo, and this generally manifests as strict Constitutionalism. The constitution set up a Senate simple majority, as it has been for quite some time. Until recently. Seems like a Conservative would want to get it back to where it has traditionally been - 50.
Read the words that I posted. I’m saying even the people who are like me should still need a supermajority. I want it to be more difficult for everyone to pass laws on both sides. I said this clearly.
As long as we’re predicting the future…
The Republican party will change. The social conservatives will die off, fiscal conservatives will replace them. The party will become more libertarian. Freedom will the the central theme. Balance will be restored to the force.
This is a common misunderstanding. Conservatives want to follow the constitution, yes, but don’t always want to maintain the status quo. For instance, it’s Liberal’s right now who are happy with the status quo for Abortion and Education, to pick two issues. It’s conservatives that want to change the status quo on those.
But even in following the constitution and the procedural rules of the senate, being a conservative doesn’t mean you don’t want to change anything. I think we desperately need a balanced budget amendment, for instance. That would be a change to the constitution. But that’s fine because the constitution was built with the amendment process so that we could change it.
If something is really important then 60 votes will be there.
Give me some examples: Congress has been in session since January, right? Name some bills that would have been positive for the country that would have passed if not for Republican obstructionism.
So they’ve passed seven things and there are thousands more that haven’t passed. In those thousands I submit to you there is a lot more harm than good.
