Join us for debate at our Facebook Group, Liberty Cafe!

Monday, March 29, 2010

A Quick Snark Attack Upon JB of Balkinization

I follow the blog Balkinization mostly for kicks, since its run by far-leftist who want to see the Constitution reformed to fit their majority rules, minority be crushed agenda. This night, I shall snark at them with vigor.
The victory of President Obama and the Democrats in passing historic health care legislation has changed the political climate in Washington.

What has not changed is the basic structural problem that American government faces. It is a problem for the Democrats today. It will be a problem for the Republicans in the future if nothing is done about it.

The problem is the Senate.
If he's talking about the popular election of Senators, something that was only changed 100 years ago and not part the original plan of the Founders, then it is a problem. Before the Progressive movement got the popular election of senators passed, the state governments were able to send their own representatives, the senators, to Congress to balanced out the populism from the House. But that's not what he's talking about.
No matter how great last weeks' victory, the Democrats still need 60 votes in the Senate to pass major new legislative initiatives. They will get little cooperation from the Republicans. We now have the equivalent of parliamentary style parties-- featuring strong party discipline by the party out of power-- in a system that is not a parliamentary democracy.

This combination is unsustainable.

The Senate got to 60 votes on health care in December. That is what made possible the use of House passage plus reconciliation in March.

But that 60 vote majority is now gone. Very soon Americans will figure out that the President and his party can achieve almost nothing. And at that point the President's recently gained aura as a winner who can do great things will dissipate.
Not being able to force an agenda on the entire country by pure 50 plus 1 majority is what he's talking about.
The country needs to do a great deal more to deal with the economic crisis. There must be new financial regulations. Legislation to promote economic growth and job creation. And there are also important energy and environmental initiatives.
Dear reader, I trust you can you guess which one of his worries cannot live if the other two are enacted. JB couldn't see it, probably out of ignorance.
For each of these measures, the President will need 60 votes in the Senate.

The opposition party has given notice that it will not cooperation with the President and his party on anything. The Republicans will resist not only legislative initiatives, but also basic appointments to the Executive branch, as well as judicial appointments. There may be a few exceptions like the recent jobs bill, and we might possibly see minor reforms on financial regulation, but in the months leading up to the 2010 and 2012 elections, it is likely that the Republicans will double down on their policy of virtually complete intransigence.

And things will only get worse after 2010. The Democrats will have even fewer seats in the Senate because of the off year election, when the President's party usually loses seats. Given the state of the economy, it will probably lose more seats than usual. The Democrats are very unlikely to get back to 60 seats in the near future. They are still likely to have majorities in both houses. But those majorities will prove next to useless without 60 votes in the Senate.

The President and his advisers are well aware of these facts. They recognize that the glow of victory on health care will soon give way to the harsh reality that the President and his party may not be able to get anything else done of significance if they cannot do something about the Senate.

That is why the next big task the Administration must take on for itself is the reform of the Senate rules.
i.e. Making it easier to pass horrible legislation and appoint radicals in spite of the forced collaboration that the Founders had in mind. Totally okay, since the ruling party is in his ideological pool.
The President must get the Democrats in the Senate to do what they were unwilling to do in 2004 and 2005 when the Republicans were in control: reform the filibuster rules and the rules on holds.

If the Republicans are correct that the logical strategy is noncooperation, the Democrats will adopt it the next time that the Republicans gain the White House. Neither party is likely to get to 60 votes in the Senate very often, which means that without reform of Senate rules, it will be very hard for Congress to pass any important legislation in the future. The minority party, whether Republican or Democratic, will use the Senate to prevent reform in any direction, whether liberal or conservative. Congress will continue to vote appropriations to keep the government running, and will be able to make very minor adjustments. But if the President cannot persuade the Senate to reform itself, health care may be the last big reform measure passed by either party for some time.

American government cannot operate like this, especially given the many problems we face.

The Senate must be reformed.
It's nice to see he mentions that Republicans will have problems, too. But guess what? JB... that's the damn point! Unless there is a landslide election of a party, the parties must be FORCED to work together as they did for national security after 9/11 and for the horrible, but bipartisan Medicare Part D. Just because you fear that each election won't give a hardy majority to either party don't mean you can just wave your No.2 pencil and declare that they VERY NATURE of the Senate is wrong.

By the very nature of human nature, the government will always seek power. Each branch trying to overcome and rule the other. Obstructionism in the Senate prevents the House from doing some really stupid ass stuff. One of the reasons that Congress is so bad now because there isn't enough obstructionism in the Senate. The House and Senate work together way too often. If the states could elect their own senators, do you think any of them would of voted for a health care bill that tanks most of their budgets? Hell no.

If JB's changes went through, I bet you he'd be crying bloody murder when the Republicans start hammering through their agenda.

"No, no. It was never meant for that! It wasn't meant for real change!"

UPDATE: Ezra Klein makes the same case. End protections. Enforce majority rule.

No comments: