« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Slowing Down Congress

How can it possibly be bad to have mechanisms in place that slow down Congress?

In the 111th Congress, there were 4059 bills introduced in the Senate, and 6561 bills introduced in the House – resulting in 342 laws enacted.

In the 110th Congress, there were 3741 bills introduced in the Senate, and 7336 bills introduced in the House – resulting in 460 laws enacted.

This all the while – gasp – the rules of the Senate require 60 votes to shut off debate before proceeding to a matter or voting on it, often referred to as the filibuster.

So, what’s the problem? Does anyone in America – besides the arrogant Democrats in Congress who have been engaged in an unprecedented power grab since being handed a historic defeat by the American people last November – honestly believe that Congress needs to pass more legislation?

Do a better job? Sure. But MORE? Of course not.

Much is being made of the need to change the rules of the Senate so that it does not take 60 votes at various stages in the legislative process. To have such a threshold is said to be unfair and undemocratic. And, to be sure, I have no doubt that some Republicans believe this would be a good thing so that we have a better shot at upending Obamacare.

But the simple truth is that the only thing standing between us and a non-stop barrage of federal “solutions” to our “problems” is the 60 vote requirement. Even more, eliminating this requirement will create an extremely volatile legislative environment, where even the little deliberation and debate we have today is tossed aside in favor of “doing something.”

You see – when Congress starts saying “we need to do something,” we should all hunker down and pray that they not actually do it. “Doing something” means that Washington amasses more power, federalism and the Constitution are ignored and liberty suffers.

The filibuster, actual (i.e. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) or via voting procedures (i.e. 60 vote threshold), is inherently conservative. The slower that Congress can enact legislation, the less damage it can do.

For those concerned about getting votes to overturn liberalism such as Obamacare – don’t be. We can win that by taking it to the American people. It would be far worse to arm Washington politicians with the ability to pass legislation more easily and to “do more.”

COMMENTS

  • Bill S

    Politicians, in general, define “getting something done” as “passing legislation”. Limbaugh points this out regularly. I think the vast majority of Congressmen/Senators think that they should be more free to pass stuff, not less.

    (Just pointing it out, not supporting the concept… :-) )

  • fpete13527

    At this point, the more that we SLOW DOWN ANY Bills getting passed, the better!

    The filibuster needs to stay the way it is, and we don’t need any MAVERICK-types changing it to feed the cancerous growth of quicker passage of 9000-page bills.

    We don’t need more bills……. “that you have to pass before you understand them and before you can fully unleash the hidden disguised full Socialism, oppression, and destruction of the Constitution that they contain within”

  • powertothepeople

    and if anything, we need to make sure rules are kept in place and even toughened in order to make sure our (us the people) rights are being represented in the manner we need.

    If the filibuster was ended, abuse would be rampant. And that abuse would not be owned by one side either. Absolute power corrupts, and our side needs checks and balances almost as much as the other side does.

    Any member of our party who votes to end the filibuster should be fired as soon as possible.

  • renny

    laws, which recorded in the Federal Register, add up to 10′s of 1000s of pages of rules and regulations to implement the laws.
    Presidents have created enough executive orders to require 50,000 pages all by themselves. Clinton issued 347 EO’s alone. The practice was started by the first progressive, Teddy Roosevelt, natch. Since little o has been ferociously busy writing EO’s to get around Congress and the Am, people, he may have passed the 50,000 pages already in two years.
    Altho’ I am for repeal of O’care and the Dodd-Frank fin. disaster–now threatened with defunding, I think we would all benefit from Cong. simply adjourning for a decade or so, or as Bobby Jindal has suggested, returning both houses to part-time reps. who serve from March-Oct, (with time off for avoiding the malarial swamp of DC summers) that the Founders followed.

  • http://freedom-light.org solvoreor

    The political paradigm has shifted. People realize that Washington is the problem, not the solution. We knew this fifty years ago. It is just that in those days the state capital in SOME states was a bigger problem. So it looked good to have the solutions come from Washington. If you were in jail because you happened to have sat down in the wrong section of the luncheonette, it made sense to look to Washington.

    But the paradigm has shifted. The same power struggles that lead America to look to Washington to right wrongs, has led to a paradigm shift in political thinking that Washington is the wrong place to look for solutions to our current problems.

    While I support the 60 vote requirements, it doesn’t matter. They only way to slow down Congress is to deflate the government. It is too big, too centralized and too self centered. The federal government’s role in international affairs remains valid but responsibility for nearly all domestic issues belong to state and regional coalitions. Restoring the rightful role of the states is the solution to an out of control congress. So the ultimate control on Congress is not the 60 votes in the Senate. It is the voter in the election. Now that the Tea Party movement to take back our domestic agenda is gaining momentum I am not so sure it would be a bad thing,

    It would make it easier to deflate Washington and divest it of the responsibility for domestic issues that belong to the states anyway. It would make it easier to create real reform in taxes. It would make it easier to do a lot of good things. Of course, it would make it easier for the progressives too, but i suspect the voters will be a lot more suspicious of lying by ommission from a slick talking candidate for a while, making it a whole lot harder for a progressive to get elected to take advantage of the situation.

    Remember, Congress still controls the purse strings. No funds no laws.

  • mistmiles

    Not only keep the filibuster but also make every congressman acknowledge that he or she has read the bill that they are voting on. Now that’s a slow down!

    If it’s found they have not read the bill they are voting on then a certain amount of their pay is given back to the taxpayer. This would help in stimulating the economy and driving down the deficit.

  • ihateliberals

    and Representatives present. this would not only slow things down but might make the filibuster less necessary and the use of the 60 votes. Anyone that would make the statement the “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it” should be removed from office because they are obviously too stupid to even Pee! It is one thing for the Congressman to have people to read and understand the bill etc etc but it is still the responsibility of the Congressman to his/her constituents to understand what they are dong by enacting a bill. this wou d save time down the road of having to repeal laws that don’t work because the congress didn’t know what they were putting in place.

    But people you know that all of this is just trash talk. The real bottom line is the American voting public. Every good or bad law that is enacted, every stupid thing that continues to happen in congress is our, the voting public’s, fault. We are the people with the real power if we would just exercise it appropriately. We need to have a Tea Party movement every election year, we need to call ot those congressmen men and women and make them accountable to us. If we continue to send bad politicians to Washington expecting a different result then we are just stupid. We have to get over the days of thinking about what a congressmen has done for us and more about what they have done to us. We have to get over this idea that Congressional elections are local. They are national because every single Senator and Representative elected affects our daily lives regardless if we live n their districts or not. We need to look more to what a politician is rather than Who the politician is. There are really only two rules of thinking: #1 The Government is the Problem. #2 If you think Government is the solution then re-read rule number one. ’nuff said……

  • fdouglass61

    It’s not in there. I have no problem getting rid of a rule that has passed its sell-by date. If a party can’t get a majority in the Senate it should not have the ability to prevent legislation and nominations from receiving an up or down vote, regardless of who is President.