Receive e-mail updates
Saving...
Subscribe to RSS feedThe latest issue of the New Yorker has a lengthy look at the current complaints that the U.S. Senate is broken. Here are some snippets from the article:
“The Senate, by its nature, is a place where consensus reigns and personal relationships are paramount,” Lamar Alexander said. “And that’s not changed.” Which is exactly the problem: it’s a self-governing body that depends on the reasonableness of its members to function. Sarah Binder, a congressional scholar at George Washington University, said, “To have a chamber that rules by unanimous consent—it’s nutty! Especially when you’ve got Jim Bunning to please.”
[snip]
In 1917, Woodrow Wilson, with his wartime legislative agenda blocked by filibusters, forced the Senate to pass Rule XXII, which allowed a two-thirds majority to bring a floor debate to an end with a “cloture” vote. For decades, the rule was rarely used; between 1919 and 1971, there were only forty-nine cloture votes, fewer than one per year. In the seventies and eighties, the annual average rose to about a dozen. (Frustration with this increase led the Senate, in 1975, to lower the threshold for cloture to sixty votes.) In the nineties and early aughts, the average went up to twenty-five or thirty a year, as both parties escalated their use of the filibuster when they found themselves in the minority. After the Republicans lost their majority in 2006, filibusters became everyday events: there were a hundred and twelve cloture votes in 2007 and 2008, and this session Republicans are on target to break their own filibuster record.
[snip]
“They’ll get over it,” Alexander said of the Democrats’ enthusiasm for [reforming the filibuster]. “And they’ll get over it quicker if they’re in the minority next January. Because they’ll instantly see the value of slowing the Senate down to consider whatever they have to say.” He added that the Senate “may be getting done about as much as the American people want done.” The President’s ambitious agenda, after all, has upset a lot of voters, across the political spectrum. None of the Republicans I spoke to agreed with the contention that the Senate is “broken.” Alexander claimed that he and other Republicans were exercising the moderating, thoughtful influence on legislation that the founders wanted in the Senate. “The Senate wasn’t created to be efficient,” he argued. “It was created to be inefficient.”
The piece concludes:
On July 21st, President Obama signed the completed bill. The two lasting achievements of this Senate, financial regulation and health care, required a year and a half of legislative warfare that nearly destroyed the body. They depended on a set of circumstances—a large majority of Democrats, a charismatic President with an electoral mandate, and a national crisis—that will not last long or be repeated anytime soon. Two days after financial reform became law, Harry Reid announced that the Senate would not take up comprehensive energy-reform legislation for the rest of the year. And so climate change joined immigration, job creation, food safety, pilot training, veterans’ care, campaign finance, transportation security, labor law, mine safety, wildfire management, and scores of executive and judicial appointments on the list of matters that the world’s greatest deliberative body is incapable of addressing. Already, you can feel the Senate slipping back into stagnant waters.
Start Tracking
Stop Tracking
Part time legislatures, part time pay.
Not like they produce "full time" results.
Exactly! Cutting their pay could also go a long way in helping out that trillion dollar problem.
The majority leader could dock each person's pay for every filibuster they invoke.
The senate & the congress are a waste of the taxpayers money ..they are OVER PAID morons with personal profits as their only goals !! They could care less about what the people need ! As long as their needs are met .....make it a crime to take money from ..lobbyist see how fast they quit their districts !!!
Inefficient is hardly the word. Dysfunctional is a better term. There will be some significant reform when the new senate begins in January. Reform is what happens when problems are spotlighted. BTW, changes will go beyond lowering the 60 vote cloture rule. I recall there are over 200 bills passed by the House that the Senate never has been able to address. Reform is coming to the Senate.
Ron I don't think anyone would argue with you about the Senate being dysfunctional as far as taking care of business that the common citizen would benefit from, but they have been very effective at protecting their Corporate masters, so their being dysfunctional depends on what one thinks their function should be. I wish I could be optimistic about your prediction of "significant reform", any significant reform would be detrimental to the very entities the Senate are paid to protect (that's not you and I Ron) so I would have to ask what is going to be the catalyst for that change?
W Bush; I respect your sense of reality and you are right. The minority members of the senate have done a damn good job of protecting their corporate masters. The catalyst for change will come from Senators who believe their job is to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for the majority. The catalyst will come when We the People say we have had enough of your BS, now get to work on America's problems. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but I've followed this "thread" for about 8 months and see more and more senators who are also willing to say, Enough! What we are doing now is...unconstitutional.
I sincerely hope you are right Ron, and I would like to add not all the Senators are bad eggs, there are some that fight the good fight for their citizens, we need a majority like them, all one can do is vote and hope for the best, the Senate realizes people are disgusted with them hopefully they will come around or be replaced.
The Senate is the tool Corporate America uses to protect their wealth and further their agenda, nothing more. You will never see a piece of legislation pass the Senate that is not pro business, never.
So you wonder why Congress a 11% approval rating.
Term limits.
Each State should set the limit for campaign spending for all politicians - from mayors to senators.
A state that term limits its senate seats is foolish, and perhaps in violation of the Constitution. Requirements for Senators are found in Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution, and there is no provision there for a term limit. Also, since Senate power is defined by seniority, a constant churning of a state's Senators will severely diminish that state's influence.
Be careful what you wish for.
NO TERM LIMITS!! I'LL decide who's fit and for how long, thank you very much! In the case of Lamar Alexander, I'd vote No, No, A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!! If he was any more of a tool, he'd be hanging in my shed!
Interesting article. Guess the author has been checking FR since we have been discussing the dysfunctional senate for over a year. No, Senator Alexander, the democrats should not get over it and neither should republicans. Slowing down legislation with solid debate is acceptable, stopping it from functioning is not. No minority party should be allowed to place a strangle hold on the majority rule the Constitution established. Filibuster by debate and when the debate is done, a majority vote passes the legislation to the floor for final vote; or as Sen Harkin suggests, each cloture vote decreases incrementally from 60 down to 51. That allows for adequate debate, "slows it down", and reinstates the Constitution's majority rule.
Jody, good post with very good points. Voted
I accept that term limits are never going to be a reality and understand that seniority has its advantages, however, I dont believe it should be a lifelong appointment as some there feel they are entitiled to and act as if it is a given (Alexander for one).
I agree with you that the minority party should not be allowed to place a vise grip on legislation that doesn't suit them thereby stopping the people's business. They are dysfunctional and disinterested in helping the country as a whole. Their extremely generous salaries and benefits paid by us should be enough to spur them to act in a conciencous manner, they take all that is given them and then are saying "no" to those unemployed, "no" to those with little or no health care, "no" to energy changes and the list goes on.
We should be very careful who we give our vote to, because once there, they seldom leave of their own volition.
A fondness for power is implanted in most men, and it is natural to abuse it when acquired. Alexander Hamilton
Question: What does a Congressman do for a living?
Answer: Spends the days trying to get re-elected.
The member (of Congress) who is not making a career of politics looks quite differently at the world. ---Robert Novak
It's not even that the Senate legitimately filibusters. The mere THREAT of a filibuster brings legislation to a stand still. That's why I'd LOVE to see Senator Reid actually force those threatening the filibuster to REALLY do the dirty deed. Stand up and bloviate on their "principles". Make us believe in what they say. Forgo vacations home...put in late nights on the Senate floor.
In my dreams...sigh....
Spanky:
Senators make $174,000/year. Cutting their pay would save only$17.4 million/year. That's chump change compared to the total federal budget.
The Senate is comprised of more than 40 millionaires. The rest, needless to say, are not paupers. They are not working for the paycheck. They don't need to.
The real money problem is the lobbying and fundraising. Fix that first. Then figure out what the Senate payroll should look like.
Biweeler, ever hear of a penny saved is a penny earned? A couple million here, several million there, maybe we could get somewhere if we looked at spending like that, rather than it's all just chump change unless it's in the trillions.
But I agree, the real money problem is lobbying/fundraising.
If you vote for the repiblicans you will also be responsible for the furture of our economy. The republicans are a bunch of cry babies, if it`s not there way than they will not play...
Vote republcan and see the previous bush years return were the wealthy get richer and the poor.......... well you know.