Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this post.

Comments

• 4/28/2009 9:37 AM M Lynch wrote:
  What is the root of supermajority rule in the Senate? How does having a majority rule "dump republican principles of government." There is nothing requiring a supermajority Senate in the Constitution and there have been multiple changes to the vote-threshold throughout the history of the Senate.
  
  Don't forget that it was simple majority rule that Republicans proposed with the nuclear option in 2005. Simple majority rule was also used, via reconciliation to pass both the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.
  
  Are you against reconciliation in general or just when it gets legislation you don't like passed?
  
  Here is a list of all bills passed under reconciliation since its introduction in 1974. Using rules to a party's advantage is simply politics. Both parties do it and both parties complain when they are on the losing end.
  
  http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2009/0420_budget_mann.aspx
  Reply to this
  1. 4/28/2009 10:45 AM Tony Vilgiate wrote:
     And how is any of this "bipartisan"?
     
     And how is any of this based in republican / representative government?
     
     
     
     Reply to this
• 4/29/2009 5:20 AM M Lynch wrote:
  Second question first. Our republican government is premised on majority rule and minority rights. Representatives are selected by majority rule (actually plurality but close enough) and those representatives choose policies based on majority rule (supermajority in the Senate for the last 30 years). The founders gave the minority many protections from the the "tyranny of the majority", like the Bill of Rights, and the indirect election of senators and the president. Given these minority rights, democracy is still a majority rule enterprise. If you have the votes you can make the laws you would like, without the assistance or even approval of a minority party--like the Republicans have become as of late.
  
  This was not always the case. It used to be that the House and Senate effectively had filibusters but no cloture procedure. A very small minority could filibuster and defeat bills that were supported by a vast majority of representatives--a potential tyranny of the minority if you will.
  
  During the Armed Ships Bill debate in 1917 a small group of senators prevented the passage of a bill that would protect US shipping from German sub attacks. This Woodrow Wilson quotes implies the danger of providing too much power to congressional minorities: "A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible." This episode led to the introduction of cloture procedures to the Senate (a 2/3 threshold to end debates.)
  
  So representative government must balance limiting the power of the majority with preventing powerful minorities from blocking the will of the people. Currently this means you need 218 votes in the House and effectively 60 in the Senate. It may not be perfect, but it strikes the right balance in my mind.
  
  So back to bipartisanship. In my mind bipartisanship it a political word, that has no practical meaning. Politicians brag about being bipartisan. Minorities tend to wax poetic about the importance of bipartisanship. But the truth is you need a certain number of votes to win and that is that.
  
  I would argue that bipartisanship, when we do see it in Congress, exists for two reasons. First, bipartisanship exists when parties are weak (in general or on a specific issue). Republicans and Democrats worked a lot together when there was a Southern and Northern wing of the Democratic Party. On some issues (civil rights) Northerners and Reps worked together. On others (fiscal) Southern Dems and Reps worked together. This bipartisanship had nothing to do with bipartisanship like you are talking about. This was simply a weak majority party that occasionally fractured and worked with the minority.
  
  The second time I expect to see bipartisanship, is when both parties hates the status quo. After 9/11 bipartisanship ruled, because both parties saw that current laws did not protect us as they should. Thus a bipartisan Patriot Act, etc.
  Reply to this
• 4/29/2009 5:32 AM M Lynch wrote:
  Sorry. I hit the 3000 character limit. Where was I?
  
  Health care is not an issue where I would expect to see a lot of bipartisanship. Parties are relatively strong right now and the status quo of health care is not universally hated. A good chunk of the representatives like our current system better than they will any Democratic attempt at change. So for majority supported change to happen, Democrats will write a bill that gets at least 218 in the House and 60 in the Senate. After Arlen's switch yesterday the votes are there without needing bipartisanship.
  
  Would you expect bipartisanship if only 30% of Congress were Republicans? What about 20? 10? 5?
  
  When does demanding bipartisanship turn into ceding majority will to a "small group of willful men."
  
  I think our representative government is safe, even if we don't see much bipartisanship in the 111th Congress.
  
  The true minefield for health care reform will be moderate members of the Democratic Party. Look for many of Obama's proposals being defeated or drastically pared down because of Democratic opposition.
  
  Perhaps the nuanced political differences between using cloture and using reconciliation to pass majority supported legislation can wait for another day. I suppose you have a character limit for a reason.
  Reply to this
  1. 4/29/2009 6:03 AM Tony Vilgiate wrote:
     Beautiful.  You must be a professor or teacher?  Very well.  My point was the farce that is bipartisan ship and the continuing attacks on Republican legislators by the current President and Democratic leadership in both houses for their lack of "bipartisan ship".  My continuing point, if we use the way back machine, is that Obama is a slimy Chicago politician that makes (reads) speeches that give voters a false sense of centrist moderation and willingness to compromise.
     
     Your primer on the legislative process, cloture and "super majorities" is right on.  I would protest, however, that the imposition of confiscatory taxation and redistributive fiscal policy is unconstitutional on many levels, including the "equal protection" language.
     
     In answer to your question, I don't expect bipartisanship like we saw during Reagan again in my life time.  I do believe that there should be open and honest debate, and there really isn't any.  The "debate" they have now is sound bite speeches that do not have a bearing on the final outcome, again a farce.
     
     I do not believe that representative government is safe right now.  I believe there is a growing number of Americans who do no feel represented, who feel their views, core beliefs and values are being ignored.
     
     
     
     Reply to this
     1. 4/29/2009 6:51 AM M Lynch wrote:
        One of the down sides of all forms of government is that not all views and ideologies have a chance to set the agenda and change policy as they would like. Is the fact that you currently feel unrepresented mean the system is flawed? I don't think so.
        
        Creating a perfect government is impossible, but the US has a better model than most. Check out Kenneth Arrow's Impossibility Theorem to see a very formal look at the difficulties in taking individual preferences for policy and turning them into societal choices.
        
        By the way, I am a professor and a friend of Joy. I met you once and you asked me if I was in favor of banning peanut butter.
        Reply to this
        1. 4/29/2009 7:19 AM Tony Vilgiate wrote:
           Ahhhh! I think I remember you.  Kelly's hubby? I don't recall ever being in favor of banning peanut butter however...
           
           I don't think the current system is flawed, merely the application.  Our Constitution is really a set of limits on government, the government has become oligarchical in practice, throwing off the chains of restraint that the constitution originally imposed.  We have created, via a series of well meaning social programs, a dependent class, and in that creation we have sealed our fate.  When the dependent class can, through the legislative process, vote for themselves additional fiscal support and subsidy at the expense of the productive the sustainability of the system is ultimately in doubt.  The political class continues to pass out the goodies in exchange for the votes that keep them in power and the cycle continues.
           
           There was some wisdom in only allowing "land owners" to vote.  If only the contributors determine how to best to tax and spend I would venture there would be significantly less programmatic spending.  If the mandate was on the individual to pursue life, liberty and happiness to better themselves and provide for their basic needs and wants rather than the government to entitle them to success we would be better off as a country (and as individuals). 
           
           We currently have a crisis of responsibility.  We have a generation that is incapable of setting priorities and deferring gratification.  We have a ruling political class that knows which majority buttons to push and which entitlements to fund to maintain power.  The road we are on is one that will destroy American Exceptionalism and relegate this great land of freedom to a collective of marginalized government serfs who are not entitled to the fruit of their own labor, who are not entitled to follow their own conscious and are, in practice, in bondage.
           
           Reply to this
           1. 4/29/2009 9:05 AM M Lynch wrote:
              We kind of agree. I would say that we currently have an unsustainable set of entitlement programs that make up our social safety net.
              
              We both think reform is required, but my guess is that my reforms goals are less bold than yours. I don't mind the social safety net is principle. I simply don't like that it is unsustainable in its current form.
              
              Also, don't forget that everyone, even the landowners and the "productive" as you put it, receive entitlement benefits. All citizens are eligible for Social Security and Medicare, regardless of their means or need. A net is supposed to catch people who fall. These two programs provide assistance to everyone.
              
              Since everyone receives benefits, or will in the future, who can we trust to reform the programs? Or in your terms, is there anyone who is not a member of the dependent class. Thanks to my FICA contributions and the promise the government has made to return these to me, I certainly am in the dependent class
              
              That fact that everyone has a stake in entitlements is the true source of the political problem that has stopped reform efforts in the past. Everyone, or at least everyone who can currently vote, benefits from the current system of pushing the tab to future generations.
              
              Are any reforms possible? I think so, but they will have to be minor and incremental to be political successful. That seems to be the only realistic path to help future generations.
              Reply to this

Leave a comment