Welcome

This blog intends to be very focused. Its goal is to raise awareness for the cleanest, clearest solution to the corruption and gridlock in federal government:

Eliminate the U.S. Senate

Why?

There are several problems with how the U.S. Senate currently functions, all of which work together to create a horrendously anti-democratic institution which passes corporatist-serving legislation while blocking and disemboweling anything that would lead to effective governance, services and revenues distributed to the majority of the population, or anything that would deprive major industries and large corporations of control, government protection, and revenue, even when such things would be not only in the nation's overall good, but in that industry or corporation's long-term interest.

Everybody focuses on the filibuster, and with good reason. The current use of the filibuster, which functionally requires 60 votes instead of 50+1 for anything to pass the Senate, is blatently corrupt and anti-democratic. It goes against the intent of the founders, so any intellectually honest conservative would also demand its removal. The immediate cancellation of the filibuster would be a huge improvement in governmental function. But that's not going to happen. Why?

In part, it's not going to happen because individual Senators want to keep that intoxicating power. They want to get to be Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson next time. It's the same flawed, emotive reasoning that leads poor people to demand the elimination of the estate tax -- they would rather have the right to continue to dream of wealth, than accept the loss of that dream and with it, more robust government services or a lower tax bill for themselves.

Also, the two parties want to be able to block each other. Without the filibuster, the Republic minority's current strategy would be meaningless.

This is also counter to the original design of our government under the Constitution, and against the the intent of the founders. While American government may be intentionally slow and inefficient, it is specifically designed to avoid a log-jam in which two parties composed of the same members continually block each other. Don't take my word for it: go read James Madison's Federalist #10. Our legislative process is designed to force parties to negotiate and compromise. This new usage of the filibuster negates both those forces.

But this sparkly new execution of the filibuster does something else, too. It grants veto power to Senators from states with very small populations. These Senators frequently use that power not in the interests of their states, but in fealty to corporations and industries that personally enrich them. Those small states will vote them in again and again, because it's in their rational self-interest to have a senator with a lot of senority. (There are other, less benign reasons for this, but even if we wiped everything else away, valid self-interest would still be a factor.) So these Senators have little to fear from doing the bidding of their corporate masters. Is that inflammatory way to frame it? Yes. Is it valid, though? Fiery rhetoric isn't necessarily wrong.

The fact is, Nebraska and Montana (for example) are the equivalent of rotten boroughs. Both are practically depopulated. There are less than a million people in Montana, and less than two million in Nebraska. There are fewer people in Nebraska than in the city of Los Angeles. If we used a population formula taken from the original Northwest territories plan and used the same ratio today, I strongly suspect that Nebraska, Montana and a couple of other states would be considered too unpopulated to be granted statehood.

I don't expect to abolish the Senate this year. Frankly, I'd be pretty happy if they'd just stop abusing the filibuster and behave with a modicum of honor. It would be nice if the flag waving types demonstrated that they had read and understood the Constitution. But I think complaining is pointless. Complaining about whether the President is weak, foolish or corrupt is also pointless. Without the filibuster, meaningful legislation would reach his desk. At the very least, we'd KNOW if he willing to enact progressive legislation, and it would be more difficult for him to block it, if that was his desire.

If people want real change, then the change they should seek is eliminating an institution that was not originally in the plan anyway. The modern United States does not need the Senate. Let's get rid of it.