Senate filibuster makes Washington unaccountable
The U.S. Senate, supposedly “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” has all but ceased to function. Judges aren’t being confirmed, executive appointments aren’t approved and basic legislation cannot be passed because of egregious abuse of the filibuster.
The situation has become intolerable. When a new Senate convenes in January, it ought to adopt proposed reforms that would make a filibuster much harder to invoke and sustain, and that would require it be done much more publicly.
Those changes ought to be made regardless of which party controls the Senate.
Until now, Senate leaders of both parties have balked at trying to reform the filibuster rule, in part out of a misplaced sense of tradition. However, there is nothing traditional in how the filibuster is now being abused. There is nothing in Senate tradition — and certainly nothing in the U.S. Constitution — that requires a 60-vote majority to pass even routine legislation. But as the chart below illustrates, that has become the threshold for getting anything done.
(The chart tracks the number of attempts to overturn filibusters in each Congress. The Senate does not keep data on the number of times the filibuster itself is invoked, which would be much larger. Numbers for 2011-12 are lower because the current session has yet to be concluded, and because as use of the filibuster has become standard, fewer votes are called to try to overturn it.)
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took to the Senate floor in frustration to note such numbers and to admit that he had been wrong in not trying to change the filibuster earlier, as junior members of his caucus had proposed. Should Reid remain majority leader next January, his remarks suggest, he would be much more open to such a reform.
But what happens if the Republicans take control of the Senate? Won’t Democrats then need the protection that the filibuster provides to the minority party, particularly if the GOP holds the House and takes the White House too?
No. Partisan concerns aside, the filibuster as currently employed has taken much of the consequence out of losing or winning elections, and it’s time that consequence was reinstated. The legislative paralysis it has created in Washington has left government unable dangerously unresponsive to the country’s needs.
Perhaps even more dangerously, it means that nothing is ever resolved. If neither side can pass its programs, those programs are never tested against reality. The political debate in Washington then becomes more and more theoretical, and as it becomes more theoretical it also becomes more extreme. That is not how the Founding Fathers designed the system to work.
In this case, Republicans in Washington have proposed increasingly reactionary budgetary and tax proposals to satisfy an increasingly reactionary Republican base, secure in the knowledge that they would never be expected to actually pass and implement those proposals.
However, if the American people in their infinite wisdom hand the reins of power to the Republicans this November, that should change. Voters who demanded a major switch in philosophy should be able to see that philosophy enacted, for better or worse.
As currently employed, the filibuster frustrates that process. It protects the majority as much if not more than the minority, because it muddies the lines of responsibility and ensures that little ever changes. Given the current paralysis in a time when dramatic change is needed, that is not acceptable.
Fortunately, abolishing the filibuster altogether is neither necessary nor likely. The reforms proposed last year by Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico are reasonable and measured.
For example, today a filibuster can be initiated anonymously, by a single senator. Under the proposed reforms, a public petition signed by a minimum of 10 senators would be required to initiate a filibuster.
Today, once a motion to filibuster is filed, no other steps are needed to sustain it. However, Merkley and Udall would reinstate the old-fashioned requirement that filibuster supporters continue to speak on the Senate floor as long as they seek to block a vote.
Those and other similar changes would restore a sense of high stakes to use of the filibuster, discouraging its use as a everyday tactic. They would ensure that when a filibuster is used, public attention is drawn to those using it and why.
Most important, it would restore the ability of the majority party to implement policies that American voters had elected them to enact. That is, after all, the essence of self-government.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
333 comments Add your comment
TaxPayer
May 15th, 2012
3:56 pm
godless heathen
May 15th, 2012
3:48 pm
Easy TP:
“yet that tax revenue would have been put to work improving people’s lives”
And what tax revenue did I refer to in my post, godless.
Grasshopper
May 15th, 2012
3:57 pm
“Because they did it when the top marginal rate was 90% in this country. If they did it under that kind of rate, then I’m pretty sure they’d do it at 75%.”
Because it used to be that way, it makes it morally just?
godless heathen
May 15th, 2012
4:03 pm
TP: That would be Apple’s earnings that they are “sitting on” that you propose seizing and giving to government so that government can improve peoples’ lives.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 15th, 2012
4:05 pm
“Because it used to be that way, it makes it morally just?”
That’s not what he was asking. He was asking why someone would bother to engage in entrepreneurial conduct (e.g. starting or expanding a business) when they were staring at a 75% marginal tax rate for income over $1M.
If Americans did it when the top rate was 90%, then I feel pretty confident that they’d do it at 75%, too.
TaxPayer
May 15th, 2012
4:10 pm
godless,
My post said nothing about seizing anything. Taxation is not seizing. It is the collection of revenues as approved by our duly elected representatives. Further, my post dealt with the case of corporations sitting on money and not introducing it back into the economy versus increasing taxation and circulating that money and the consequences of the two approaches.
Adam
May 15th, 2012
4:13 pm
(ir)Rational: I say everyone has to justify every dollar they’re asking for every year, and if I don’t spend it all this year, I either carry it over til next year, or it doesn’t penalize me trying to get more next year if I can show that I need it.
Yeah, that particular unspoken rule is quite bothersome. Money should be based on need, not on “they didn’t use as much as we gave them, so obviously they only need the SAME EXACT AMOUNT as what they used.” That is so stupid.
(ir)Rational
May 15th, 2012
4:15 pm
TaxPayer – Taxation is the legal seizing of someone else’s production/wealth. You can try and call it whatever you want, but that is the way it is.
TaxPayer
May 15th, 2012
4:18 pm
(ir)Rational,
You can try to call taxation seizing all you want but it is still taxation, not seizing.
(ir)Rational
May 15th, 2012
4:18 pm
Adam – Yeah, that probably is one of the dumbest rules coming out of Washington, although it is Washington, so I can almost guarantee it isn’t THE dumbest.
Thulsa Doom
May 15th, 2012
4:19 pm
“Because they did it when the top marginal rate was 90% in this country. If they did it under that kind of rate, then I’m pretty sure they’d do it at 75%.”
You must be referencing the 40s and 50s as Oscar did. And what was unique about those ages Joe? History sir. After WW2 the rest of the worlds economic base was devastated. We had a 1-2 decade head start on Japan, China(Manchuria), all practically all of Europe. That was a unique age of circumstances and an age and advantage that we will likely never experience again. By the time the 60s rollled around they had started to catch up with us. Which would be why a Dem- JFK slashed top marginal tax rates. So I think history and JFK would wholly disagree with you.
And in case you’re wondering go all the way back to IRS tax tables to the 1920s. Then tell me what happened to tax revenues and to the number of people reporting million dollar incomes when tax rates were raised to 90% I think it was. You’ll find it quite illuminating what happened to all of the millionaires when rates were raised that high.
Adam
May 15th, 2012
4:19 pm
seize/sēz/
Verb:
Take hold of suddenly and forcibly: “she jumped up and seized his arm”.
Capture (a place) using force.
I disagree with this being used to describe taxes, as taxes are an agreement we make in order to have a government. We pay for government with taxes. While there are laws in place to stop you from breaking your contract with the government as a citizen, it is not “seizure.” It is the same as buying something at the store. “Stealing” is what the person who takes from the establishment (in this analogy, the government) while not giving back the legally required part of his/her end.
Adam
May 15th, 2012
4:21 pm
Also, you CAN decide not to pay taxes, by not earning any income. You still have choice in the matter. And if conservatives are to be believed it should be one heck of a cushy lifestyle as you will be able to live off of government subsidies forever.
(ir)Rational
May 15th, 2012
4:22 pm
TaxPayer – And taxation is still seizing.
TaxPayer
May 15th, 2012
4:23 pm
Of course if (ir)Rational or godless or others were owners/rulers/whatever over their own sovereign state and the US invaded their state and took their possessions, that would be a seizure. It might even cause them to have a seizure. I can imagine such an event would be quite traumatic.
Adam
May 15th, 2012
4:24 pm
Taxation is a guarantee of the Constitution that we pay for the service of having a government if we are able. It’s a contract. Not seizure.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 15th, 2012
4:25 pm
Doom — “You must be referencing the 40s and 50s as Oscar did. And what was unique about those ages Joe? History sir. After WW2 the rest of the worlds economic base was devastated. We had a 1-2 decade head start on Japan, China(Manchuria), all practically all of Europe. That was a unique age of circumstances and an age and advantage that we will likely never experience again. By the time the 60s rollled around they had started to catch up with us. Which would be why a Dem- JFK slashed top marginal tax rates. So I think history and JFK would wholly disagree with you.”
There is a HUGE difference in small business entrepreneurship and enterprise-scale entrepreneurship, and I think you know that. Enterprise-scale would have been affected greatly by the conditions you cite; small-business entrepreneurship would not have been to any great degree.
“And in case you’re wondering go all the way back to IRS tax tables to the 1920s. Then tell me what happened to tax revenues and to the number of people reporting million dollar incomes when tax rates were raised to 90% I think it was. You’ll find it quite illuminating what happened to all of the millionaires when rates were raised that high.”
If they moved overseas, it wouldn’t make much difference. The US taxes its citizens’ income no matter where it’s earned, and has done so for years.
TaxPayer
May 15th, 2012
4:26 pm
Taxation is, as Adam stated, part of the terms that one agrees to in exchange for citizenship. You have the freedom to avoid taxation here in these United States by giving up one’s citizenship.
Erwin's cat
May 15th, 2012
4:27 pm
“You can try to call taxation seizing all you want but it is still taxation, not seizing.”
try not paying it and see what happens
Erwin's cat
May 15th, 2012
4:30 pm
A contract?…when did I sign a freakin’ contract?
Erwin's cat
May 15th, 2012
4:31 pm
must be fresh sheets
Joe Hussein Mama
May 15th, 2012
4:32 pm
E, Cat — “A contract?…when did I sign a freakin’ contract?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_in_fact_contract
(ir)Rational
May 15th, 2012
4:32 pm
Have been for about an hour Erwin.
(ir)Rational
May 15th, 2012
4:34 pm
JHM – It may be implied, but the first time I paid taxes, I did not have the mental capacity under the law to enter into a contract or to have considered it (I’m just picking for the fun of it).
Joe Hussein Mama
May 15th, 2012
4:40 pm
(ir)Rational — “It may be implied, but the first time I paid taxes, I did not have the mental capacity under the law to enter into a contract or to have considered it (I’m just picking for the fun of it)
I do not recommend you try that defense in tax court.
(ir)Rational
May 15th, 2012
4:43 pm
JHM – The wife
iswill soon be (she knows so much I forget she isn’t already) a tax attorney. I don’t touch them, that is her domain.Thulsa Doom
May 15th, 2012
4:45 pm
“Enterprise-scale would have been affected greatly by the conditions you cite”
True. And we had a tremendous amount of large scale businesses back then.
“If they moved overseas, it wouldn’t make much difference. The US taxes its citizens’ income no matter where it’s earned, and has done so for years.”
No. 1 that is an irrelevant point that didn’t address what I was getting at. No. 2 is that you missed the central point- which was that you can see very clearly from IRS data that many millionaires simply disappeared after rates were raised. Where did they go? They didn’t go anywhere. They simply put their money into tax free munis and quit putting money into risk taking ventures that would generate an after tax rate of return that is commensurate with the level of risk taken. You’re smart enough to understand risk/reward and the common sense view that if a venture is risky but the after tax return is small then there is simply no incentive to partake in such venture. A 6 year old can understand this.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 15th, 2012
4:57 pm
Doom — “True. And we had a tremendous amount of large scale businesses back then.”
And some of America’s largest and best-known businesses started as small ventures during that period. McDonald’s, for example, started its growth from small venture into an international behemoth in the postwar years. The postwar years were good for merchant and industrial capitalism, but the last 30+ have seen a change from merchant/industrial capitalism to finance capitalism — in which we don’t even make or produce things any longer.
“No. 2 is that you missed the central point- which was that you can see very clearly from IRS data that many millionaires simply disappeared after rates were raised. Where did they go? They didn’t go anywhere. They simply put their money into tax free munis and quit putting money into risk taking ventures that would generate an after tax rate of return that is commensurate with the level of risk taken. You’re smart enough to understand risk/reward and the common sense view that if a venture is risky but the after tax return is small then there is simply no incentive to partake in such venture. A 6 year old can understand this.”
I can also understand that purchasing muni bonds *finances government ventures* — sure, they’re municipal and not federal or state ventures, but either way, some level of government is getting your money.
Seems to me that you’re arguing in favor of keeping government from getting your money — by giving your money to government. (giggle)
Thulsa Doom
May 15th, 2012
5:09 pm
“I can also understand that purchasing muni bonds *finances government ventures* — sure, they’re municipal and not federal or state ventures, but either way, some level of government is getting your money.”
You’re missing the point again. The point is that the money stays out of the private economy and hence no tax revenue is generated- particularly federal tax revenue. Along with no new jobs, economic activity, etc.
And while you may be happy that it does go into a municipal security you fail to mention that the municipality must pay the investor that money back- with interest too. Everyone knows that a dollar spent in the private sector is spent much more efficiently. Only a fool would believe otherwise.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 15th, 2012
5:17 pm
Doom — “You’re missing the point again. The point is that the money stays out of the private economy and hence no tax revenue is generated- particularly federal tax revenue. Along with no new jobs, economic activity, etc.”
I think *you’re* missing the point. Investing in munis *reduces* the need for tax revenue by the entity issuing the bonds. And you can’t act as if goverment contractors don’t contribute to the economy. Does it really matter, for example, if a construction contracting business is putting up a new, privately-owned office building or a new jail? Either way, their employees are making money that’s going to be spent in the local economy. There’s no difference in income generated by private spending and income generated by government spending.
“And while you may be happy that it does go into a municipal security you fail to mention that the municipality must pay the investor that money back- with interest too. Everyone knows that a dollar spent in the private sector is spent much more efficiently. Only a fool would believe otherwise.”
Then wouldn’t it be *more* foolish to *invest* that dollar in government bonds in the first place, he said slyly?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 15th, 2012
5:23 pm
Doom, I’m out for the evening, but I’ll check back here tomorrow.
Adam
May 15th, 2012
5:24 pm
I would love to see that defense in tax court. It may have already been tried. Maybe if we look at court cases over this you will see the reasoning behind the contractual obligation you have as a citizen with capability of contributing.
Jeff Pruett
May 15th, 2012
7:50 pm
Interesting article in the Washington Post today on this very subject…”Is the filibuster unconstitutional? ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-filibuster-unconstitutional/2012/05/15/gIQAYLp7QU_blog.html
JKL2
May 15th, 2012
8:57 pm
Here’s something new to think about. Instead of getting rid of fillabusters,ahy don’t we try getting rid of the 17th amendment. Let state’s look out for thier best interest like the founding father’s invisioned instead of trying to score re-election points.