Category: Congress

Ending the filibuster

Ezra Klein has a good post on a lawsuit brought by the advocacy group called Common Cause to abolish the filibuster. According to Common Cause, the filibuster is unconstitutional:

At the core of Bondurant’s argument is a very simple claim: This isn’t what the Founders intended. The historical record is clear on that fact. The framers debated requiring a supermajority in Congress to pass anything. But they rejected that idea.

In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were Founders for those keeping score at home. Conservatives claim to love and revere the Founders except for all those times when they disagree with them, or when it is inconvenient. The good news is that if the Republicans ever retake the Senate (a very real possibility) the Founders’ arguments against the filibuster will once again be considered compelling to conservatives. Principle!

The use of the filibuster has risen to ridiculous levels with the Republicans in the minority. This is not a case of “both sides do it” no matter how hard Republicans try to pretend that it is. (And they do. It’s hilarious. “Remember Bork!”) The numbers are just insane.

Between 1840 and 1900 there were 16 filibusters. Between 2009 and 2010 there were 130.

So now you routinely hear about legislation that Obama wants passed being “defeated by a vote of 52-48” or something. That sounds like 52 “Nay” votes, doesn’t it? No, those are 52 votes to pass, but with the Republicans filibustering everything, it takes 60 votes to do anything in the Senate. This is not what the Founders intended, and we should change it.

Conservatives will argue that Democrats would do the same thing if they were in the minority, completely ignoring the history of Democrats in the minority not filibustering everything. Conservatives will also suggest that I would feel different if the Republicans take over the Senate this November.

You know what? Bring it. Let’s do away with the filibuster and let the Senate work how the Founders intended, no matter who takes control in November. If the Republicans want to use their slim majority to abolish Social Security and Medicare, let them. They’ll never win another election again. Let’s do this.

If the Democrats keep the Senate, let’s actually start passing some real-life liberal policy. I’m on board.

I don’t expect that this law suit by Common Cause will succeed. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has shown signs recently that he is willing to change the filibuster rules, which the Senate can do at the beginning of the next session. Apparently Reid has had enough. It’s long past due.

STOCK Act passes Senate procedural vote

So Obama charged Congress with passing a bill to stop insider trading by Congresscritters and wonder of wonders, the Senate has just passed a procedural vote for a bill that does just that by a 93-2 margin.  (And if you had Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) in the “who’d be stupid enough to vote against that” pool, you win!)

So yeah, I guess that’s good and everything but I am way more impressed with the name of this bill.  It’s the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge Act.  The STOCK Act.  To stop insider stock trading.  I know they always try to do this, but how often does it work out this well?  (The USA PATRIOT Act was “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” which, despite the awfulness of the underlying law, is pretty impressive.)

Job Creator!

Romney is rich. Super rich. He made his gazillions by downsizing corporations and laying off your neighbors while at the helm of the private equity firm Bain Capital. Even on his best day, where he isn’t laying off thousands of people with a stroke of a pen, he doesn’t create anything, let alone jobs. Warren Buffett recently pointed out to Bloomberg News:
“He makes money by moving around big bucks, not by straining his back or going to work and cleaning toilets or whatever it may be. He makes it shoving around money.”

In essence, Romney got rich producing absolutely NOTHING. I actually have no problem with this fact (As an attorney, I seem to produce nothing but endless amounts of paper that ultimately ends up in the recycling bin). What I do have a problem with is the stupid narrative that rich assholes like Romney are, by virtue of being rich assholes, job creators. He isn’t a job creator by any real metric (my libertarian friends argue that in theory the wealth he is creating can go towards paying workers…in China). If Romney were to pay an effective tax rate of 14.9% instead of the 13.9% he is paying now, I am willing to bet real money (not the Monopoly money I usually wager) that not a single job will be lost as a result of that extra 1% he has to pay.