People are talking about the Senate problem

 James Fallows, Kevin Drum and Paul Krugman all discuss today the problem of having an unconstitutional, supermajority rule Senate. 

Fallows: The Filibuster: Let's Talk About It

Drum: The 60 Vote Conundum

Krugman: A Dangerous Dysfunction

Only Professor Krugman even hints at the idea of forcing the Senate to change its rules.   All three point out that the super-majority is a modern innovation and a violation of the intent of the founders -- and everybody else in the government until the 1990s.  But everybody seems afraid to force the issue.  I don't really understand why.  If we're such a center-right nation, then why are we allowing such radicalism in one of our branches of government?

Mr. Fallows' main point is that insiders all know that the filibuster is now used to block ALL legislation that can't get 60 votes, but that most citizens don't really understand that.  His discussion covers the details well, so if this is a surprise to you, then read his piece.  But just to be extra clear:


The current filibuster is used on every vote on every piece of legislation, and entails NO sacrifice on the part of those using it.  


There's no speechmaking until you're hoarse.  No cots in the hall.  Nobody has to show up, even.  It's easy, it's painless and so it is used constantly.   This means to open discussion on a bill you need 60 votes.  To close discussion you need 60 votes.  If you can't close discussion, you can't vote on the actual bill. 

The reimportance of drugs amendment FAILED with 51 votes.  

Think about that for a minute.  With all the corruption, all the lobbyists, all cowardice, the bill that would have allowed Americans to get low-cost drugs from other countries and save the Federal Government money had a majority of votes cast in its favor.  But it "failed" because it only had 51 votes.  How could that happen?  Apparently, Senators Reid and McConnell agreed that every vote would need 60 ayes on health care, just to keep the process moving along -- further enshrining the supermajority and violating the intent and design of the Constitution.

I realize that if a majority could have passed the bill, President Obama might then have just pressured a few more Democratic Senators to do his bidding.  But when he's engaging in back alley deals to benefit his reelection at the expense of the nation, I don't see why he shouldn't at least have to work a little harder to do it, and be forced more into the open about what he is doing.  He wants some of that Pharma money flowing into his and the party's coffers for their campaigns.  That, like the current usage of the filibuster, is something average citizens should be aware of, particularly when they pick up their next prescription at the drug store.

Many people are talking about the problem of the Senate.  Nobody seems to have a good idea on how to reform it.

I have an idea: let's scrap it.