Why filibuster reform could backfire big-time on Democrats
Running in the background during the fiscal cliff negotiations — if that’s what you can call the series of unrealistic proposals each side is making in the press — is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s push to curtail the filibuster.
Democrats won’t control the U.S. House for at least two more years, so the filibuster isn’t getting in the way of Reid and President Obama pursuing their legislative goals. Eliminating or limiting the scope of the filibuster would, however, allow Obama to push through his appointees more easily, and it could set a precedent for other expedited changes to Senate rules.
While both Republicans and Democrats lament the filibuster when in the majority but guard it jealously when in the minority, conservatives have traditionally been more sympathetic to the rule than liberals. That’s because the filibuster is seen as another brake on legislation, and conservatives tend to be more skeptical of a proliferation of new laws.
But Ramesh Ponnuru makes the interesting case in a Bloomberg View column that the filibuster’s true role is preventing change, regardless of ideology — and that liberals have more interest in keeping things more or less the way they are in Washington than conservatives do. Here’s the gist of his argument:
When the federal government was small, the filibuster helped to keep it that way because it protects the status quo. If American politics ever changed so much that most legislation aimed to pare back government, however, the filibuster would protect the big-government status quo. That day may seem impossibly far off, given the liberal confidence and conservative pessimism of this post-election period.
With the passage of the health-care law, however, liberalism finally finished the project of building the American welfare state. Its main job now is to protect and refine what has already been won. Matthew Yglesias, another liberal writer, said so at the time: “The crux of the matter is that progressive efforts to expand the size of the welfare state are basically done.”
If that’s right, then liberals have less to gain, and conservatives less to fear, from making it easier to pass new laws than either side now thinks.
Think, for instance, about potentially large changes to Obamacare. Most people assumed Obamacare’s status was settled by last month’s re-election of its namesake. But the refusal of many states to go along with their roles in carrying out the law, along with the emergence of previously unmentioned problems with the law’s implementation, means there’s a very high likelihood the law will have to be opened up to a serious reworking in the next few years. The same Democrats who want to change the filibuster now could, in the not-too-distant future, find themselves out of the majority in the Senate. In just four years, if a Republican wins the White House, a filibuster change could mean they find themselves totally locked out of the debate even if the GOP can’t get to 60 Senate seats. To paraphrase an old saying about big government, Senate rules expedient enough to give you everything you want are also expedient enough to take it all away.
There would be problems with that kind of approach, of course. For one, Republicans would invite a great deal of public backlash by making changes with only a narrow governing majority. Witness the 2010 electoral backlash against Democrats for the way they enacted Obamacare. Despite their sizable majorities, Democrats had to resort to procedural manipulations to overcome the objections not only of Republicans but of the more moderate senators in their own party.
Dramatic policy changes work better when the political buy-in is broader, which is one reason Obamacare remains unpopular. The filibuster in the Senate structurally helps make that more likely. It would be better on the whole to keep it in place. But, as Ponnuru points out, those who disagree might do well to be careful what they wish for.
– By Kyle Wingfield
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
210 comments Add your comment
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
4:40 pm
JDW, regardless of the calendar dates of the fiscal year, the spending was largely accomplished in 2009 when Obama was President, not when Bush was President. In addition, Obama supported every bit of those spending bills passed in late 2008 for FY 2009.
Progressive Humanist
December 4th, 2012
4:41 pm
4:40- Just another one of Tib’s fantasies dashed. The lady lives in a world of fiction.
JDW
December 4th, 2012
4:44 pm
@LBB…if I were going to make a personal attack it would be with something stronger than dufus….
No worries on the spelling, that is exactly what I meant…
JDW
December 4th, 2012
4:51 pm
@Tiberius…”regardless of the calendar dates of the fiscal year, the spending was largely accomplished in 2009 when Obama was President, not when Bush was President. In addition, Obama supported every bit of those spending bills passed in late 2008 for FY 2009.”
That lame argument has been made and debunked before. From FactCheck.org…
“Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion”
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
4:51 pm
Progressive Humanist, “producers” are not defined by their taxpaying status.
But nice try at deflection.
CC
December 4th, 2012
4:55 pm
John Q:
Your abdication of all logical and sensible thought is accepted. Your withdrawal from the world of the sane is noted.
JamVet
December 4th, 2012
4:57 pm
Everyone I know and read recognizes that it will take work to reach out to groups of voters who traditionally haven’t voted for Republicans.
??????????????????????????????????
Reach out to the lazy and stupid blacks on the Democratic plantation?
Reach out to the sluts, prostitutes and FemiNazis who want their birth control for free?
Reach out to 47% of America who are mooches and takers?
Reach out to the f*ggots like John Edwards? (Don’t ask me, ask that shrew Ann Coulter.)
Wow, Kyle talk about a willing suspension of disbelief!
You’ve got absolute lunatics in your ranks, in innumerable quantities. And guess what? More than a few of them are your supposed “leaders”. (Though there are a few less of them since November 6.)
So until you more rational Republcians acknowledge and marginalize them, you are gonna see more electoral thumpings like this last one.
Which is fine by me…
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
4:58 pm
JDW, analysis is your friend, although not your strong suit.
Obama supported each and every spending bill signed into law in 2008; while he was running and after he was elected. This government, despite it’s penchant for doling out dollars it doesn’t have, couldn’t possibly have spent over $500 billion between the November, 2008 election and the January inauguration of Obama.
The spending is just as much his as it is anyone else’s.
But nice attempt to cherry-pick pictures. Seems like that is all you can understand. Too bad they don’t tell the whole story.
Linda
December 4th, 2012
4:59 pm
JDW@4:51, You must have missed Obama’s ‘09 economic unstimulus bill that alone was almost $1 T, you know, the most expensive spending bill in the history of the world, you know, the one that cost more than both of the wars at the time it was passed. Glad to be of assistance.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
5:00 pm
“You’ve got absolute lunatics in your ranks, in innumerable quantities.”
Well, you’re here, AmVet, so in this rare case, you’re right.
Of course, the lunatic quotient drops over at Bookman’s when you come over here. . .
JDW
December 4th, 2012
5:02 pm
@Linda…”You must have missed Obama’s ‘09 economic unstimulus bill that alone was almost $1 T”
Why someone with such a fine economics degree should really know there is a difference between when money is authorized and spent….psssssttt…this is where the $203 billion comes from. Thats what was spent in FY2009.
As of today a total of $774 billion has been distributed…educate yourself
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
JDW
December 4th, 2012
5:04 pm
@Tiberius…”Obama supported each and every spending bill signed into law in 2008; while he was running and after he was elected. This government, despite it’s penchant for doling out dollars it doesn’t have, couldn’t possibly have spent over $500 billion between the November, 2008 election and the January inauguration of Obama.”
Nice spin…
…not worth a bucket of warm spit but when you have so little to work with I guess its the best you can do.
JamVet
December 4th, 2012
5:05 pm
Imagine that.
The Crybabius stoops to yet another unprovoked personal insult.
He has been banned how many times for this immature act of his?
What is wrong with that boy? Must he be banished for good from here as well?
So be it. And I will certainly help the sorry fool with his mission…
JamVet
December 4th, 2012
5:05 pm
What’s the over/under on the Tiberius/Lil Bar sock puppet getting banned permanently from here within one week?
JDW
December 4th, 2012
5:06 pm
@John Q…”I’m guessing at 24.3 years”
Probably shorter than that…I don’t expect Tiberius has that many left in him…all that angst tends to shorten ones lifespan.
Kyle Wingfield
December 4th, 2012
5:07 pm
John Q: Tiberius and Lil Barry are not the same person. Nor is Aesop. So, that’s enough of the guessing game.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
5:08 pm
“The Crybabius stoops to yet another unprovoked personal insult.”
This from the poster who serially insults – well – everyone.
Too funny!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
5:13 pm
“What’s the over/under on the Tiberius/Lil Bar sock puppet coming to terms with the Obama presidency and the progressive ascendancy?”
I came to terms with the Obama Presidency on day one in November of 2008, John Q. That’s because I accept reality (unlike you).
The liberal ascendancy? Not so much. I know, (unlike you) that at some point the money will run out to pay for all the free stuff. At that point, the pendulum will either swing back to conservatism or the civilized world will end due to a world-wide economic collapse. There is no in-between.
Dusty
December 4th, 2012
5:15 pm
Well, just as I thought, another whole day of mostly insults, jeers and repudiations. It is a shame that Americans have to act like unruly children in front of the world. If we are to continue to have elections, something has to change. We cannot keep acting like it is a mammoth dogfight every fourth year.Then snarl vilely and go rabid after each election..
We are supposed to be proud of our freedom, our country and ourselves. Acting like the proverbial jackass in public does not present any of those classifications.
Kyle tries to present ideas and consideration and I appreciate that, even if I complain sometimes. The least bloggers can do is try as hard as he does and do it for your country. In other words, it’s time to shutup and think sometimes. (Just like your mother always said when you were a brat.).
CC
December 4th, 2012
5:20 pm
Kyle Wingfield @5:07:
Thank you SO MUCH!
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 4th, 2012
5:37 pm
So, other than being here to taunt other bloggers, it looks like John Q’s purpose is to be wrong about everything.
I guess it does have some use.
CC
December 4th, 2012
5:42 pm
Aesop:
“I guess it does have some use.”
Sure does! Serves a a bad example . . .
Mario Gonzales
December 4th, 2012
5:46 pm
All this does is make the Senators get off their lazy butts and actually filibuster. If they’re serious about opposing something, it should not make a difference.
Actually speaking and debating, then voting – yeah, that’s unAmerican!!!! Wait…
Linda
December 4th, 2012
6:04 pm
Wouldn’t be great if Democratic Senators were required to read the Constitution or an economics textbook while filibustering?
CC
December 4th, 2012
6:27 pm
“Wouldn’t be great if Democratic Senators were required to read the Constitution or an economics textbook while filibustering?”
Linda, there’s little in the Constitution that they haven’t attempted to subvert and economics is WAY above their pay grade!
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
6:34 pm
Funny when some want parse the election numbers in efforts to downplay the defeat it is great discussion, but when told it is still a defeat those same indivduals no likey so much.
Irony is a muther
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
6:37 pm
CC
Tell us all exactly what has been subverted, when, the circumstances and what was done about it.
Thanks for your opinion, but hold off on that while you display the facts exactly as you know them to be and can substantiate.
Linda
December 4th, 2012
6:52 pm
Glenn@6:37, I would start with Article X. The Constitution was designed to limit the fed. govt. & protect the rights of the states. That has been circumvented for generations. The fed. govt. has NO AUTHORITY under the Constitution to do about 60% of what it has done & is doing, which, coincidentally, accounts for ALL of our debt. Read the powers of the congress & decide for yourself.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
7:09 pm
Linda
You haven’t told me exactly what was done, when and the specifics. What did the courts say?
I knew CC didn’t have the ability to back up his blather.
Now you come with generalities.
CC
December 4th, 2012
7:10 pm
Linda@6:52:
I’m not even going to play his game. If he is that ignorant, it is willful ignorance.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
7:15 pm
CC can’t back up his typical void of fact nothings so he says others are ignorant…
He is still reeling from the election.
CC, let facts be your friend. Opining is nice, but as usual you are whining
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
7:21 pm
CC
You must put yourself on ice each night? You are like a candle that when lit slowly melts down, but when the wax cools, it hardens again and is ready for the next meltdown
Linda
December 4th, 2012
7:31 pm
Glenn@7:09, It’s apparent that you have never read Article X, let alone the entire Constitution or the Federalist Papers. You are asking me to give you the same high school education that I & my husband received, one that evidently you did not. If you are willing to come over, we can start in the morning. My fees are exorbitant & must be paid under the table to circumvent Obama’s taxes on the taxpayers making $200,000 per year who don’t have a dime to their names.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
7:33 pm
“Funny when some want parse the election numbers in efforts to downplay the defeat it is great discussion, but when told it is still a defeat those same indivduals no likey so much. ”
Funny when some people actually admit that Obama won, others continue to “spike the ball” and continue to over-inflate the results like Glenn Beck.
Too bad some people can’t move past the election and move onto governing.
CC
December 4th, 2012
7:49 pm
“You must put yourself on ice each night?”
No, but I have put YOU on ice . . . permanently.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
7:50 pm
Linda
No actual examples or just more generalities?
I’m sure you have an actual example to match the rhetoric, correct?
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
7:51 pm
And again CC is unable to back up his blather with facts
Nothing new
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
7:56 pm
Tiberius
When you start and run your blog, feel free to set any rules and parameters you wish. Knock youself out
Outside of that, Kyle will let me know if he is concerned about what I post.
You can call for a surrender, say color me shocked or whatever other mundane things you say on your next post…
Linda
December 4th, 2012
8:12 pm
Glenn@7:50, These are not generalities. They are Constitutional authorities. I’m not playing your game. Do your OWN homework.
The question is not if, but when, the US ceases to exist. You guys voted for this guy to continue to campaign, not lead. The debt exceeded the GDP in Aug.,’11. The debt will be $20.3 T by ‘16 & $25.4 T by ‘22, according to Obama. The GDP rose only 3.16 during the entire Clinton adm. We are on the road to Greece.
Republicans & Democrats have no clue as to agenda of the progressives.
CC
December 4th, 2012
8:20 pm
Linda@8:12:
“They are Constitutional authorities. I’m not playing your game. Do your OWN homework.”
That’s his game: you research and post, he takes random shots like a poorly trained sniper. His only game is to irritate and cause efforts by others which he will never accept. You note that he never posts anything of substance?
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
8:30 pm
And again when was the Constitution subverted and what was the outcome?
You blather like little CCs pizza.
Linda
December 4th, 2012
8:37 pm
CC@8:20, Voters would have NEVER voted for this fraud had they understood his agenda. They still do not know who he is, where he came from or where he is going, thanks to the non-FOX news media. He was never vetted. ALL his records are sealed, from elementary school through college. No one remembers him in college. His neighbors have never met him. His family, including his sister, are not a part of his life, never been to the White House. Jarrett has Secret Service protection. George Soros is the real president of the US.
Linda
December 4th, 2012
8:44 pm
Glenn@8:30, Over & out. Lazy as the Mississippi River.
Kyle’s first book will be named “Arguing With Liberals: Same As Arguing With Dead People, Who, By the Way, Vote for Democrats, Who, By the Way, Vote the Same Way As Felons.”
Janet Johnson
December 4th, 2012
9:03 pm
If the Republican far-right-winged-tea party want to go down in history as the “do nothing Congress”, and continue to filibuster everything, the American people will wake up & just vote them all out of Washington DC. I can’t believe the Republicans voted down the UN bill for the Disabled. How sick are they?
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
9:14 pm
Linda
Like cc, you talk is much more stellar than your walk…
Linda
December 4th, 2012
9:15 pm
Janet@9:03, Wasn’t it the Democrats who voted to take away the existing Medicaid benefits for every beneficiary in the entire country if the states did not expand their Medicaid roles?
Linda
December 4th, 2012
9:18 pm
Janet@9:03, Were the Republicans protecting the sovereignty of the US against intrusion by the UN?
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 4th, 2012
9:24 pm
The UN bill for the disabled allowed for the disabled to be targeted in their mother’s womb and aborted.
How sick are you?
@@
December 4th, 2012
9:27 pm
Why filibuster reform could backfire big-time on Democrats
Harry’s looking for a sausage blowout?
Of course he is…he’s a porker.
schnirt
Linda
December 4th, 2012
9:30 pm
Glenn@9:14, CC & I were not trying to gang up on you, but the score is:
Linda & CC: 2505
Glenn: minus 3520
That’s according to the CBO who can’t find its way around the BEA.
You do know what the BEA is, don’t you?
Did my Tom cat find his way over to your abode? He brought home a tongue a few minutes ago. Good excuse not to answer my questions.