In 1975 a rules change allowed senate filibusters to take place from back rooms, cloak rooms and from the local bar. This change continues to inflate the "price" of legislation faster than the Fed can mint money. The final price tag is liberty. by Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Friday, December 25, 2009
The potential for a filibuster springs from the notion that any senator should be able speak as long as he wants on any issue. This right to speak becomes a filibuster (an act of piracy from the Spanish filibustero) when a member decided to abuse his liberty to pirate the senate floor and block the people's constitutional operations.
The gentleman's filibuster has been around since the U.S. Senate revised Rule 22 in 1975. From that time forward, no senator needed to speak for a filibuster to be in force. Today, one simply files a motion. Since 1975, then, a filibuster has no longer been a filibuster, an abuse of the constitutional liberty of free speech; instead, it has become simply an abuse of the constitution. Rule 22's revision made it slightly easier to attain cloture and move legislation, but Rule 22 made it much, much easier to enact a filibuster. It is not surprising, then, that since the enactment of Rule 22, the number of filibusters has sky-rocketed:
The senate should be returned to the rules of filibuster made popular in the old black and white movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Because the push-button filibuster focuses final legislative authority in the hands of a small group of minority legislators, a larger number of votes must be "purchased" by the majority. Hence legislation is more expensive than it would be in a simple majority setting. Additionally, the last votes to break a filibuster are infamously expensive.
Hopefully, this last parade of citizens unashamedly in violation of the patriotic spirit of their senatorial oaths, will persuade these United States to demand this... this... institution be restructured. Consider Senator Patrick Leahy, 250 million; or Louisiana's own rising star Senator Mary Landrieu, 100 million (some say 300 million); or Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, -- 100 million;orSenator Ben Nelson (Mr. "to infinity and beyond" himself), --45 million; or the very independent Senator Sanders, (advancing communism in health care is not enough) -- 10 billion in heath care centers. Nor does time allow us to speak of ex-Senators now lobbyists, of defense contracts, and air bus bids, of nepotism and Caribbean resorts, of bankers, loans and bailouts. Even worse these are CBO numbers. Nelson's deal sounds like it is worth far more than 45 million. The public option in the senate bill is the expansion of Medicaid bought about through the destruction of Medicare.
But consider this price tag! Some may call these bribes, others may call the guts of the legislative "sausage," others the fruit of wily negotiators seeking the best interest of their states, but, no matter what we call it, the week alone the gentleman's filibuster has cost us, the tax payer at large (all of whom are moving to Nebraska), over eleven billion dollars. The most destructive deal, though, is Nelson's. He and Reid have introduced a new kind of American deal with the devil: "Let the other states live in bondage, as long as Nebraska can remain free." The surprisingly cynical answer was, "Sure, Nebraska, you're small potatoes, we're happy to take the rest of the nation. That's enough for now."
The traditional filibuster rule, while also concentrating power with a small group of legislators, had the redeeming quality of requiring one to put one's character and constitution behind one's belief. A weak and venal person cannot long harangue an assembly of his peers. Besides, the drama of such a filibuster today would draw the press and make a spectacle of our public policies. This makes for a far more entertaining newscast and for a sword of daylight that cuts (or at least used to cut) against corruption.
Finally, the modern, push-button filibuster is even more odious in its practice in the nomination of the judiciary. The original checks and balance on the composition of the judiciary was that the selection of presidents of each party over long periods of time would allow the appointment of justices whose predilections reflected the genius of their day. However, the operation of the push-button filibuster upon judicial nominees (begun by the democrats under George W. Bush), in concentrating power in smaller groups that must be persuaded to vote contrary to conscience, rewards the party that is the most corrupt (giving the name "gang of seven" a new meaning). Even worse, the nominees favored by such a corrupt party must then be candidates even more susceptible to corruption than justices in the general.
If history has taught us that absolute power in the hands of single monarchs is a wretched evil, it now seems she is liberally instructing her students that matters are even worse when such centralized authority falls on small numbers of men scrabbling for crumbs at the trough of the taxpayer. In small packs, it becomes plain that there is a mathematical certainly that many will be weak, others spineless, and still others corrupt; that while virtue is the aspiration of man it is not his nature. Hence, the surest way to move the pack is to appeal to its vilest instincts. Even in better days it was the exception, not the rule, that an appeal to reason, virtue and the public good might win a legislative victory. Let the simple majority stand before the people with their drab excuses for their lack of performance. Let them no longer have the vail of the filibuster to hide their personal failures.
In 2010 if one wants to know a reformer from a hypocrite, ask whether or not they would vote to change the filibuster rules in the United States Senate.
Oh, the vote on the filibuster rules, according to the courts, is itself filibuster proof -- probably.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Paul Benedict only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Paul Benedict is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Our government is run by crooks and morons. I would rather see this crop of scoundrels in a permanent filibuster where they don't pass any legislation. That would be better than having them pass more junk like this fascist health care bill or the cap and trade bill. Our only hope is that the people get entirely sick of the Democrats and throw out every one of them next year. After we get rid of the Dems we should dump the Republicans too, except for Ron Paul of course.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2009-12-25 09:55:31
Hi David,
Â
One of the reasons to get rid of the filibuster, or to return it to a parliamentary maneuver directly related to speaking, is that there is much that needs to be undone. It seems better that a small minority should not be able to hold the will of the people hostage. This year the majority wants to do things that the American people disapprove of. We toss them out on their ear and change things.
Â
The democratic process can be messy, but it must be flexible so we can adapt to mistakes we, the people make.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
