Posted by
Defend America on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:20:02 AM
By Jay Cost
Ezra Klein had a provocative column in Sunday's Washington Post, arguing that it's time to eliminate or substantially weaken the filibuster in the United States Senate. He writes:
The modern Senate is a radically different institution than
the Senate of the 1960s, and the dysfunction exhibited in its debate
over health care -- the absence of bipartisanship, the use of the
filibuster to obstruct progress rather than protect debate, the ability
of any given senator to hold the bill hostage to his or her demands --
has convinced many, both inside and outside the chamber, that it needs
to be fixed.
Klein cites a study from Barbara Sinclair showing that the
filibuster is used much more frequently now - up from 8% of "major
bills" to 70%. This is as sure a sign as any that reform is needed,
that the two parties can't be allowed to succeed by using the politics
of obstruction anymore.
Yet Klein's reasoning is imprecise. After all, the legislative
process has not become "broken." It is largely the same process as it
was decades ago. The real change has occurred within the two Senate
parties. They are using the filibuster more aggressively in their quest
for political success. This raises an important question that Klein
leaves unaddressed: if the parties are more unrelentingly partisan now
than in ages past, is it prudent to lower the barriers that prevent
them from enacting sweeping policy changes?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/12/why_the_filibuster_is_more_ess_1.html