Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Dec. 10, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
The L.A. Times editorial about reforming the Senate filibuster process totally missed the boat. Just get rid of the U.S. Senate; it’s an antiquated, undemocratic institution that needs to be disbanded and have its responsibilities rolled into the House of Representatives.
Finally, we can slash the size of government and make our leadership more democratic at the same time! None of this ineffective, tiny, baby step “reforming” of the ridiculous rule of the filibuster.
The main problem with the Senate is that it’s not one person, one vote. It’s grossly unfair that the voters of Wyoming have the same percentage of the vote in the U.S. Senate as the people in California.
In effect, because of their population differences, a vote in Wyoming is worth 69 votes from California. It gets even more ridiculous that with the Byzantine rules that those senators have made for themselves, it takes a super-majority to pass anything. Now a tiny fraction of the voters can blackmail the entire country.
The Founding Fathers weren’t perfect, but they didn’t expect time to stand still when they started the noble experiment they saw as the United States of America. We’ve made major changes since our nation’s founding: abolition of slavery and getting women the vote. It’s time that we rid ourselves of this undemocratic, useless, expensive extra cog of our government. What we need is a constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate.
The House is no better than the Senate, and maybe worse.
It isn't really the House or Senate. It the politicians that we elect to sit in both.
Until responsible and reasonable people run for office and are elected, people who will serve The People instead of lobbyists and campaign donors, we will have the same old problem.
Congress is crippled by career politicians who owe their continued seats to big money and power brokers who are dividing us and selling us out.
I second the letter writer's motion. The US Senate is a dinosaur. It was based by the Founders on the House of Lords in England, the wealthy. England has since made the House of Lords merely symbolic with no legislative authority. The US should do likewise with the Senate. It's a millionaires' club of 100. Those who aren't before getting elected to the Senate are when they leave, if they ever do. Scrub it. Keep the Peoples' House of Representatives of 435.
CarmineD
As long as we elect inept crooks like Harry Reid to lead the Senate we will get what we get.
Harry is in bed with so many Democratic lobbyist that he can not do what is right for the contry
The Senate and Congress ran fine until Harry areid gummed it up
Keep the US senate. This country diverges as to what the proper role of federal government should be in our lives. How much government do we need and what decision-making power should they have over our lives? The US senate is the firewall that prevents radical legislation from passing without full vetting and deliberation. Many state senates work fine but the US senate has become very political due to the conflicting views of what the proper role of government should be resulting in more blocked legislation. Sometimes doing nothing is the best and wisest decision.
"The US Senate is a dinosaur. It was based by the Founders on the House of Lords in England, the wealthy."
What? Our sainted Founders, possessors of infinite wisdom, made a booboo?
The Senate was originally devised as a representative of the states. For the first 120+ years of our existence, Senators were chosen by State Legislatures not by popular vote. The problem swith the Senate is not the Constitution but the Senate's own rules where individual Senators can force a vote that requires 60 ayes to even begin debate.
What are you folks smokin?
My prediction on the vote in the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment to eliminate their positions...0 to 100.
With the 60 vote filibuster rule the Senate is a eunuch; since the Southern Democrats changed affiliation there has never been a time when one party had a true 60 votes. So, it would be easy to agree on going unicameral, but it isn't happening so better to spend your thinking time where it counts.
What this country realy needs is to find a way to get our congress persons to vote their conscience instead of what the party whip orders them to do. To take today's Topic A as an example, it very much bothers me that the Republican party is taking the blame for the fiscal cliff, even tho a goodly number of GOP have spoken out in favore of revising the tax rates. But we are heading for a GOP Cliff if Boehner+Cantor force them to vote their way or the highway. If the leadership would do one thing...announce today that this Cliff was far too important an issue to be decided by party line block voting and the caucus is invited to vote their conscience with no retaliatory threats, then two things would happen...1. Tomorrow the House would pass a reasonable bill averting financial disaster...2. Boehner would jump to #1 in the race for the 2016 party presidential nomination.
It is not Republicans who are causing the problem, it is the power hungry LEADERSHIP.
Peacelily is right. The problem isn't the institution, which is made up of people, it is the people who make up the institution.
How many Americans notice that when a member of the House appears on TV, many times we don't even recognize him or her? Most times we 'know' who that Senator that appears is. That's partly because there are many more House members than Senators, but it is also because the Senator has most likely been re-elected to the Senate multiple times and is a 'career' Senator and a 'lifer'.
That needs to change in both chambers. If the voters cannot or will not do, it should be done with term limits. Neither chamber operates very well, but one thing that the system in both chambers does do, is work well for keeping those in the chambers in there for a long time. That needs to change. The Founders never intended that being a House member or Senator become a 'career'. The fact that both chambers have many 'career' members along with no public campaign financing, no lobbying reform and no term limits, is the reason we are seeing such poor performance from both chambers.
Michael
"What? Our sainted Founders, possessors of infinite wisdom, made a booboo?" @Jim Weber
Yes, they did. When the Founders sat around that round table they knew that they didn't have the wisdom and foresight to address all the possible problems of the future. But they designed and implemented the foundation, if followed, to make the necessary reforms and revisions when warranted. Getting rid of the Senate, as England did with the House of Lords, by making it symbolic rather than operational, is the answer. Not breaking the rules to change the rules.
CarmineD
What needs to happen is the excision of the sneaky little law that made corporations people, then cut off their unbridled power by eliminating Super PACs. Peacelily and other Commenters are right about it being about the career politicians who forever campaign and fund raise. That all has to go.
Blessings and Peace,
Star
I'd rather be run like Wyoming then like California. A no-brainer.
Term limits would be attractive but, again, unattainable short of a Constitutional Convention tee hee. But, what we could change, without amendment or new constitution are the party rules in both branches. I don't know HOW that could be done, but I lobby for some rule changes such that incumbents don't have the deck so stacked in favor of re-election, they don't have to vote en masse by party, and they don't get to spend 18 months out of every 24 month term in the pursuit of another term.
I see, let's cut off our noses to spite our faces, right? The Senate puts "little" states such as NV on a par with "big" states such as CA & NY and does not let them run roughshod over the rest. Be careful of what you wish for. G B Shaw said: "There are two great disappointments in life. One is in losing your heart's desire; the other is in gaining it." Take a moment to mull over that.
"What needs to happen is the excision of the sneaky little law that made corporations people, then cut off their unbridled power by eliminating Super PACs".
I respectfully disagree. The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by **corporations** and **unions**. Liberals fail to mention anything about unions, just corporations. Between 2005 and 2011, unions spent $1.1 billion supporting federal candidates through PAC's. During that same time, unions spent an additional $3.3 billion on political activity which is mostly get out the vote efforts. The money unions spend on political activities far exceed its direct campaign donations. What unions want is 100% supremacy of political influencing via PAC's AND get-out-the-vote spending which amounted to over $4 billion dollars of influencing during the previous 6 years.
When liberals crack on the Citizen's United ruling they should reveal their true intentions which is supremacy of political influence.
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/...
Finally, liberals had three of the top five largest super PACS.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpac...
It would be nice to get rid of the superpacs. But in the meantime, they may self regulate. It should be clear to anyone who looks closely that money became a negative in the last few months. People like me were getting increasingly disgusted with the parties every time the phone rang, and muted the TV when those blurbs came on. Will the Adelsons and Soros' of the country continue to pound it down a rat hole?
Let's be realistic. In the last 4 years has the Senate passed an annual Federal budget? House has EVERY YEAR. Isn't that one of its responsibilities BY LAW.
Scrub it.
CarmineD
Let's be really realistic Carmine, the reason the Senate has not delivered a budget is that they have that 60% filibuster rule while the dems never thought it wise to call the bluff. The house has no such problem.
Gee, the LA Times had an editorial about "reforming" the filibuster, then the echo chamber at the LVSun had to throw their 2 cents in as well. I guess the media is once again reading from the Democrat Party playbook.
We would not need Senate reform if it was not run by a LOSER like Harry Reid
Nevada could secede from the U.S. by refusing to send a delegation to Congress. We could RETIRE REID and the others.
When enough States secede, neither house could find a quorum.
"Let's be really realistic Carmine, the reason the Senate has not delivered a budget is that they have that 60% filibuster rule while the dems never thought it wise to call the bluff. The house has no such problem."
Poppycock. Harry Reid and President Obama thought themselves above the law to deliver and pass a budget. Just like they want to do NOW with the Constitutional Law governing that the debt ceiling be increased and approved by the House.
All the Dems were pounding their chests and jumping up and down with the Obama victory. Saying the election has consequences. So does the Constitutio. With the CR [Continuing Resolution] expiring in March 2013 and the debt ceiling limit being hit too, all of a sudden the Dems realize the GOPeoples' House have a few trump cards stowed away to play too.
CarmineD
How about this deal?
Let the South leave the union.
You libs get the rest of the country including the Senate, epsecially Harry Reid.
You then could tax everybody making over $40k at 98% tax rate. You will be extremey happy.
Refnv, our resident spinmeister, sez "Finally, liberals had three of the top five largest super PACS." True.
Also true - Conservatives had six of the top nine Super PACS and those six spent $318 million versus $135 million for the liberal Super PACS. Numbers can be fun depending on what you want to prove with them.
Jim Weber,
Unions supporting federal candidates with $1.1 billion from 2005 through 2011 along with $3.3 billion spent on political activities during the same time period. Yes, I did make my point clear.
Liberals always slam the Citizens United decision but leave out the fact that the decision allowed unions to be a person too. Jim, why do liberals fail to mention that the Citizens United Supreme court decision made unions a person too? Is it just being cleaver or a bit deceiving?
Congress is structured as it is for the same reason we have an Electoral College: the Founding Fathers had a basic mistrust/fear of a raw majority.
All things considered, it seems to have been well justified.
The Senate, being a smaller body, is much better suited for the "advise and consent" role for starters. Beyond that, it should be plain to see that without it the House could easily pass laws beneficial to large states that would do harm to small ones. Even more important, even Texas has enough concentrated population centers now that its members might well side with California and New York on matters that might not be in the best interests of rural areas. The Senate allows for a damper on that kind of activity.
We need the Senate and the House. As Jeff said on another column today, return the filibuster rule to where it blocks all other business until being resolved and our Senate could function better.
Freeman :
Give it a rest:
2012 OVERVIEW
Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC & Individual Donations to Candidates, Parties Super PACs and Outside Spending Groups
The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.
Even among PACs - the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions - business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.
An important caveat must be added to these figures: "business" contributions from individuals are based on the donor's occupation/employer. Since nearly everyone works for someone, and since union affiliation is not listed on FEC reports, totals for business are somewhat overstated, while labor is understated. Still, the base of large individual donors is predominantly made up of business executives and professionals. Contributions under $200 are not included in these numbers.
Give it a rest:
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio...
Disagree. The Senate, as inept as it may be, serves a legitimate function in protecting the smaller states from the tyranny of the larger ones.
With the Internet a case could be made for "directed" votes imposed by the citizens of the state or district they represent if, let's say 55% of eligible voters "vote" for a bill through their respective e-Congress voting machines...
JeffFromVegas,
The data from business donations equaled $2,361,451,057, of which, 59% went to Republicans and 41% went to Democrats. As I mentioned, unions spent $3.3 billion on political activities during the last 6 years.
Jeff, I'll ask you the same question I asked Jim Weber. why do liberals fail to mention that the Citizens United Supreme court decision made unions a person too? Is it purposefully being deceitful or is it just ignorance of the facts?
Freeman, after finally admitting the huge advantage enjoyed by Republicans asks:
Jeff, I'll ask you the same question I asked Jim Weber. why do liberals fail to mention that the Citizens United Supreme court decision made unions a person too? Is it purposefully being deceitful or is it just ignorance of the facts?
I say :
The primary reason for not answering your questions is that you rarely answer anything anyone asks you.
Don't much care if unions and corporations play with the same rules is your answer.
If I might offer up some more precise history. As has been pointed out, the Senate was actually intended to represent the "sovereign" states so that the bigger states (NY & PA at the time of the convention) could not dominate the legislative branch (which they would have had there been only the House). But more importantly, the 6 year term of the Senators was intended to make them less susceptible to the vicissitudes of short term political hysteria as a counter point to the 2 year terms of the members of the House.
That "sovereignty" was the reason for the filibuster, i.e. it was thought inappropriate by the early senators that the representatives of the several states should be subject to a time limit in their arguments for or against a particular bill. It was not intended as a defense to voting. It was only in response to slavery that the filibuster was used as defensive tactic and more recently as a minority veto right. As recently as 30 years ago, the filibuster rule required an actual filibuster, not mere notice as is the rule today.
As to the senators themselves being the problem as argued above, I disagree. I see the problem as the voters. I point out that the an IQ of 100 is the median and therefore one half of all voters are presumably blessed with a 2 digit IQ. And politicians structure their behavior and messaging to that group. When those voters with a 3 digit IQ start voting, and doing so on the basis of more than knee jerk (whether liberal or conservative) reactions to emotional sound bites, then politicians of all stripes, including Senators, will act very differently, with or without a filibuster rule.
The only reason why there has been a larger number of filibusters is because Reid has prohibited Republicans from filing any admendments on many bills. So the Republicans only recourse is to filibuster.
What Reid is doing is wrong and anti-democratic.
JeffFromVegas wrote "Freeman, after finally admitting the huge advantage enjoyed by Republicans"
Jeff, $339K is not a huge advantage. But $3.3 billion spent on political activities by unions is.
Business political donation totals
Democrats = $773,493,784
Republicans = $1,113,029,012
Difference = $339,535,228
Civil discourse is nice to see, but please try to connect it back to the main topic of the letter.
Don't you just love it! Every time anyone calls RefNV on his numbers or manipulation of numbers he never replies. He just segues into a different set of numbers.
Read Hank Stone @ 1:30 PM. Right on point.
The same organization happened during the French Revolution, i.e. the 'Period of Enlightenment'.
Mostly from Wiki-
"The Council of Five Hundred was the lower house of the legislature of France during the period commonly known as the Directory (NO SENATE), from 22 August 1795 until 9 November 1799, roughly the second half of the period generally referred to as the French Revolution."
"The Council of Five Hundred proposed the list out of which the (Council of the ) Ancients chose five Directors, who jointly held executive power."
What America needs is another period of Englightenment, similar to what the French revolution enacted. Not only were the ranks of the Aristocrats thinned, but the Catholic Church lost most of it's real estate and power. This opened the door for reason and rational thought instead of relying on iron age cult rituals for solutions to everyday problems.
A return to Colonial America might serve the Country well. In 1700, the Massachusetts Bay Colony (Puritans only) passed an ordinance that Catholic Priests had three months to leave. Continued residence after this limit might bring imprisonment or execution to said Priests. The Province of New York soon passed the same ordinance.
It's time to bring America back to it's Colonial roots where bicameral Government was not needed and proselytizing for the wrong religion might warrant gibbeting or worse.
Like the House of Lords, the Senate was to keep the unwashed rabble from influencing the government too much.
You can have hack lobbyist like Dean Heller step and fetch it for the Kochs, Adelson and the oligarchs. Yes, vote against disabled Veterans Dean, as long as your masters get their tax cuts.
Judging from some of these comments, the Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing and why.
"Disagree. The Senate, as inept as it may be, serves a legitimate function in protecting the smaller states from the tyranny of the larger ones." @NLV-Indep13
How so?
I can see that argument for the Electoral College and voting. And I agree.
Not for national legislating. If the entire Senate is dissolved, where's the tyranny of the large states in the Senate?
CarmineD
"Judging from some of these comments, the Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing and why."@ boftx
Sadly we strayed from their vision of citizen representation to career politicians. And very wealthy ones at that.
CarmineD
I agree with Carmine D,and David,the writer of the article. The senate IS a dinosaur. I don't think when the founding fathers established our government,that they meant for it never to be changed.I'm sure they thought that as time passed,we would adjust accordingly. The filibuster is a fine example of politicians taking advantage of a law that should never have been made.It only creates gridlock.However,as peacelily said, it's not the senate,it's the people we put in the senate,and the house for that matter. They're ALL career politicians. Maybe we should have term limits where you only serve a 4 year term,and you're out of there.That way you won't have 5 term career politicians bullying freshmen senators into doing everything they say,and voting how they tell them too.The Supreme court is another flawed system.Why should they be appointed for life,and not elected.Mistakes are made to be corrected,not to suffer with for life. Clarence Thomas is a prime example of a mistake that should have been corrected years ago.This man hasn't had an opinion of his own in over 5 years,He's just a conservative republican rubber stamp.I'm sure the founding fathers didn't want this.
The Senate is the last hope to protect We, the People, from the tyranny of the majority.