In yesterday’s article, I indicated that we find ourselves at a political crossroads, with the dust now settled from election night. At this point in our political system we the American people are in need of leadership, legislation and true change. With the fire and the animosity shown during this election season, it will be difficult to look at our politicians as leaders when all we see if them slapping each other like five year old girls. Over the past two years the passing of legislature has proven to be difficult, if not impossible in several situations even with a substantial Democratic majority in the Senate. This is due to the impossible obstacle of a filibuster, stubborn politicians on both sides of the isle and misleading propaganda confusing the American public. Political agenda has trampled over significant effort to improve the country through the passing of new legislation over the past two years.
With the Democratic majority decreased at this point to a bare majority, can we expect anything different for the next two years than we got from the previous? Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said that “Republicans’ job for the next two years is to block Obama so he could only serve one term.” If this is the political agenda for the next two years, can we expect anything? Even the most skilled of presidents (I hesitate to put Obama anywhere near this category because to this point he has yet to prove the skill he showed during the 2008 election), with the most honest intentions could not overcome such obstructionism. The true change to Washington that Obama promised is still a possibility. We are now at a time where we are on even footing ground politically; Democrats and Republicans with close to equal footing in the Senate must change Senate rules regarding filibusters.
To briefly explained filibusters; to pass legislation in the United States Senate a simple majority must vote for the proposed legislation. However a tactic used by the minority party in efforts to stall or completely derail votes on proposed legislation is a tactic called a filibuster. A filibuster occurs when a senator extends the debate on the measure. The rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn (60).” This change in the Senate rules took place in 1975 which decreased the amount required to bring cloture to the debate and end a filibuster from two-thirds of those voting (67 if all senators voted) to the new three-fifths rule. To change the Senate rules, which is an option only requires a simply 51 vote majority, however due to the filibuster rule, a filibuster could stop the change in the Senate rules by requiring a 60 vote supermajority to bring cloture and then vote for the rule change.
To change the rules that the Senate runs by would be a risky political move for any majority party because it diminishes the ability for the minority to impose any will against a majority, especially a majority as large as the one currently held (59 which will end January 2011). The opposing minority would argue that the majority is forcing their agenda through the Senate without any check and balance. For this political backlash it would be necessary for the Senate, while at fairly even grounding to come to an agreement on a rule change which would benefit both sides in the long term. Now this majority option to change the Senate rules is only an option by invoking the “nuclear option” which indicates the presiding officer of the Senate (the Vice President) determines if the will of the majority be effective (51). Without this nuclear option to change the Senate rules, the requirement would stand at two-thirds (67).
Completely disregarding the actual possibility of the Senate rules being changed to reflect a majority ruling to end a filibuster by invoking cloture, this debate is an important one. The ability for one party to gain a supermajority in the Senate comprised of more than 60 seats is a difficult task, one which has only happened twice since 1970, in 1974 and 1976. Therefore it is, under current rule, the option for the minority party to completely dictate their will over the majority despite the majority reflecting the will of the American public through vote. This minority prevents legislation from passing, which causes a “roadblock” of congress. Therefore in the interest of continuing legislation in future years to come, a compromise between both sides of the isle must be reached. Within the past 10 years, both sides of the isle have used the filibuster as a tactic to derail the opposition therefore both sides are to blame yet also can understand the others pain.
Comprise could be made on a variety of levels, including but not limited to;
· Setting a minimum amount of time for debate.
· Allowing for a set amount of amendments as a maximum.
· Requiring the pre-1975 rules of filibuster requiring the constant debate on a topic, no breaks, if the minority wishes to invoke a filibuster a senator must begin his remarks, once he can no longer continue, another member must take over. (Though with the true hatred between parties would make a filibuster more difficult, yet not difficult enough.)
If true filibuster reform does not take place the real losers will be the American people. If Republicans continue to obstruct for the next two years (obviously their goal to unseat Obama), the Republicans will try and pin Obama’s failure to pass legislation on Obama, while the Democrats will pin the blame on the Republicans. The problem with these underhanded tactics is that Obama can’t be blamed for failing to pass legislature if nothing appears on his desk (though the Republicans will try to convince the public that it is solely his fault).
With a time in which the Republicans now control the House of Representatives, it would be a wishful assumption that they will try and pass GOP centric legislation to move to the Senate for approval. If this legislation is passed, it would be wise for the Democrats to consider passing any legislation that moves though the congress as to not look like they are the ones obstructing with the process. The key to the entire idea of changing the rules on filibuster is the ego and trust of the Senate. No one side will give the other side the power to pass legislation with a simple majority, especially when the power in control is the same party which holds the veto pen in the White House. Going forward however, the risk/reward factor of the Republican Party is to allow this removal of the filibuster, knowing that in two years they have a strong chance to take control of the Senate, than the power would be theirs (assuming they also take control of the Presidency, because that veto pen is a tough obstacle to overcome). Perhaps come 2011 and into early 2012 the real risk reward would be on the Democrats, take the 9 months of power with no filibuster, only to possibly give complete control to the Republicans come the next election.
If the risk is worth the reward (which I feel the GOP will stay the course of NObama) than the filibuster is the savior of not only congress, but of the American people. Is poor legislation worse that no legislation? In a time when our country needs leadership from our elected officials, our congress is road blocked over hatred for each other. Filibuster reform would change this for the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment