Ironic that U.S. senators debated over the right to debate tactics that jam the works.
The filibuster was the focus of debate on the first day of the Senate session, Jan. 5. Majority party members were not specific during the public debate itself as to how they would eliminate the difficulties touched off by abuse of the filibuster. Republicans were not clear about what they feared by any change in the rules.
Democrats had already proposed changes prior to Wednesday’s debate which are rather mild and fail to guarantee that legislation will not be obstructed from holding an up-or-down majority vote.
Senate Democrats and others have been frustrated by threats of filibusters during the last two years which ended in watered-down laws. Such laws mean that the federal government will have no direct control of the health-care system and hundreds of billions of dollars will be lost in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. To end a filibuster, 60 votes are required; 51 votes are needed for a simple majority vote.
Democrats were compelled to act more than 90 times to end debate in recent years, The New York Times reported.
“The minority has simply been abusing Senate rules,” noted Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, as quoted in the Times.
Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley and Tom Harkin - Democratic senators from New Mexico, Oregon and Iowa - made history by moving to curtail the filibuster. It is among many fixtures of government that obstructs measures to serve the public, dampens the democratic process and permits institutional racism to prevail.
The filibuster is arguably the second best known fly in the ointment of the system, after the electoral college which allows for election of a president even if he cannot attain a majority vote.
Team Udall merits credit for taking these baby steps. They proposed elimination of anonymous holds on legislation and presidential nominees, and they would require that any senator threatening a filibuster must physically argue their case on the floor. Presumably, the minority party might assign senators to rotating shifts.
Udall likely expects that nobody in either party, or independent senators Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut) and Bernie Sanders (Vermont), will spend weeks or months of their valuable time to stem legislation pressed by the majority.
Besides, some senators who attempt this feat could look foolish. On Wednesday, three Republican senators were no match for Jimmy Stewart’s portrayal of an everyman-type senator who conducts a filibuster in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The day prior to the debate, Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander recited a quote at a Heritage Foundation function that the filibuster gives a senator “the right to talk your head off.”
Alexander lied his head off on Wednesday when he claimed that the Affordable Care Act was “rammed through” the Senate. President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly reached out to Republicans and watered down the law in hopes of winning their votes.
Alexander contended that a 60-vote threshold to end debate allows for a “consensus” among senators so that legislation has more broad-based support. The price for this consensus is weakening laws so they provide minimal aid to average citizens and give business interests hefty concessions.
Many jobless citizens will receive unemployment pay for the next 13 months because Obama acceded to Republican demands for tax cuts for the wealthy.
If Alexander embraces consensus, consider that the Democratic majority represents roughly 190 million Americans - even after its losses last November - because more Democrats represent the most populous states and more Republicans represent the least populous states. Four Democratic senators together represent one-sixth of the population, the combined inhabitants of New York and California.
Even when Republicans control the Senate, they usually represent less than half the population, which is currently estimated at 308 million.
Both Alexander and former Sen. John E. Sununu (New Hampshire) suggested that the Constitution’s framers created the filibuster. As Harkin pointed out, the Constitution authorizes each chamber to make its own rules, not establish the rules itself. Their suggestion was made during Alexander’s remarks and a Boston Globe commentary written by Sununu.
Pat Roberts of Kansas rambled on for several minutes, recalling that Democrats opposed filibuster adjustments when Republicans controlled the Senate. That must mean that two wrongs make a right.
John Cornyn of Texas crowed that anyone who tries to change Senate rules is “playing with fire.”
News coverage of the opening skirmishes was skimpy, but fortunately I caught much of the debate on C-span. Television commentators Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow did not let the issue escape their notice.
The Udall plan addresses Republican concerns about allowing debate and inserting amendments to legislation.
The proposal does not ensure that there will be an end to the debate. Practically speaking, neither individual senators nor a bloc of senators will expend an unlimited amount of time on genuine filibustering. Sanders only lasted nine hours last Dec. 10. However, one never knows.
The measure should impose a deadline, one that permits a reasonable amount of time for ample debate.
There has been predictable speculation that Team Udall did not go further for fear that it would sound like a Democratic takeover.
Chances for any meaningful change are unpredictable. More than 50 senators petitioned for a change, but some have different ideas as to how to effect change. Thirteen senators reportedly proposed the Udall plan.
As The Washington Post and other media outlets reported, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid of Nevada and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are privately negotiating a compromise.
Hopefully, the end result of Senate action will break the logjam. Maybe the proposed filibuster changes will be watered down just as the existing filibuster does to majority-supported legislation. Such irony would be no surprise.
No comments:
Post a Comment