Why Not Simplify the Senate?

I love this country. I love democracy. I respect the Constitution that our founding fathers put together to ensure that this country and democracy would thrive. However, a certain legislative body established in the Constitution (yes, I'm talking about the Senate) has established an annoying rule that blocks progress. I am speaking of the 60 vote "super majority" needed to invoke cloture and block a filibuster.

For those who are not too politically savvy, I will teach you a little lesson here about the roller coaster a bill must ride to get through the Senate. First, a bill is introduced into a committee. The Senators in that committee work out compromises on the bill, amending it, etc. Then, if it passes by a simple majority (50%+1) of the members of that committee it goes to the cloture test. That means 60 senators need to vote in favor of bringing the bill to the Senate floor for debate, and in the process blocking a filibuster. If cloture is reached, Senators begin to debate and amend the bill until another cloture vote occurs. 60 Senators must vote to close debate, as well, again blocking any filibuster aimed at killing the bill. When that finally occurs the Senate can choose to finally pass a bill by a simple majority vote of 51 or more Senators. Sound complicated? Try passing something, especially if it is controversial.

Now, what I am about to suggest may seem controversial, but now and then it really pays off to shake things up. Would it be such a bad idea for the Senate to change its own rules so that a simple majority of 51 or more Senators is all that is necessary to invoke cloture and pass a bill through the "upper house" of the United States Congress. It works for every other kind of vote in this country. A Senator only needs 50%+1 to be elected, a presidential candidate receives the electoral votes from every state that he or she wins with 50%+1, and ballot initiatives pass with that same simple majority. I see no reason for 60 Senators to vote for cloture other than to block legislation. You could argue that it protects the minority and its right to filibuster, but I believe this to be a faulty argument. It is hard enough to get a simple majority at times, so why is it necessary to have a "supermajority?" I believe this rule simply exists to tie quality, progressive legislation from passing the Senate.

I have heard many arguments in favor of this rule. For example, someone asked me if I could imagine how much power that 51st Senator would have over everyone else. I simply answered by saying, "As much power as the 60th Senator has now." It would be the very same situation, but would allow legislation to move more smoothly through the upper house without the controversy, political games, and stripping of bills to appease the corporate lobbyists who hijack Capitol Hill on a daily basis. It will also help prevent the so-called "pork" from being inserted into bills. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), the 60th Senator to support the health care reform bill that reached cloture early Monday morning, got his state's expansion of Medicaid covered by the federal government. How? It was the deal he struck for his vote. This is unacceptable, and it is done by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike. Would it still happen with a simple majority? Sure, but I don't believe it would be as out of control as it is currently.

A simple majority rule for cloture would solve so many problems on the Hill, such as taking power away from lobbyists, wasting less time in the Senate, and passing legislation that the American people can benefit from. I welcome any criticism of this idea, but we can only talk about it if at least 60% of you vote in favor of that motion.

Health Care Nightmare

For anyone who has been living under a rock for the past, oh let's call it almost 100 years...health care has been one of the most controversial, hotly contested issues.

First things first: a history lesson on health care reform in politics courtesy of the New York Times: (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/19/us/politics/20090717_HEALTH_TIMELINE.html)

1912-Thoedore Roosevelt campaigns promising national health insurance.

1934-Franklin Roosevelt leaves a national insurance plan out of the New Deal.

1945-Harry S. Truman, shortly after taking over the presidency, calls on Congress for health care reform. He tries again in 1948, but drops it at the start of the Korean War.

1965-Lyndon B. Johnson signs legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid, which provide comprehensive health care coverage to individuals 65 and over, the poor, the blind, and the disabled. These programs are still in existence today.

1971-Edward Kennedy proposes a universal, single-payer health reform plan (a cause he would fight for until his death earlier this year).

1976-Jimmy Carter is elected and calls for universal health care reform.

1993-1994-Bill and Hillary Clinton unsuccessfully fight for reform.

1997-President Clinton signs State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). By 2008, the program covers more than 7 million children.

2008-Barack Obama campaigns on health care reform.

Which brings us to today. The House has passed a reform bill including a public option that would cover the vast majority of Americans who are currently living without health insurance. The Senate drops the public option and Medicare buy-in plan to please a few problem children, finishing with a bill worth less than the paper it is printed on.

Obviously, you can tell that I am less than happy with the Senate's handling of the bill. Yes, I realize that the Senate needs 60 votes to open and close debate on any piece of legislation that hits the floor. I also realize that the President has 58 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats...which equals 60. However, some of these "super-majority" members are more committed to killing the President's highest priorities than they are to doing what is right for the American people. Below I will comment on many of these individuals and unlike some people out there, will not be sugarcoating my feelings.

1) Blue Dog Democrats-These are members of the Democratic Party who are moderate or conservative, including Senators Max Baucus and Ben Nelson. These two would not seriously consider a public option, even though a majority of Americans (you know the people who elect them) support a government-run public option. Shame on these individuals for leaving us behind because they are afraid that their more conservative states will not re-elect them due to the calls of the Tea-baggers.

2) Senator Joe Lieberman-A former Democrat who won his last election as an independent because his state chose another Democrat in the primary preceding that election. He was also Al Gore's vp running mate in 2000. During that campaign he supported the expansion of Medicare to improve the health care system. This week he threatened to join Republicans to prevent the health care bill from passing unless a Medicare buy-in option for people 55 and over was dropped from the bill. Yes, you heard me right, he forced legislation out of the bill that HE OPENLY SUPPORTED during his White House run. Obviously, Joe only cares about Joe. He is a flip-flopping egomaniac who needs to lose his committee chairmanship, lose his seat in the Senate, and take a job doing what he enjoys doing the most...working for the health insurance industry.

3) President Obama-A man I admired enough to give many hours to his campaign for president. You came out in the beginning of this debate with a compromised approach, already admitting that you wouldn't force a public option down your opposition's throat. You remained soft throughout the debate, attempting not to hurt anyone's feelings, attempting to keep your approval rating high, and attempting to keep as many friends as possible for your second presidential run in 2012. Now, your approval rating is below 50% for the first time since taking office, people are somehow still blasting you as a socialist and a liberal, and you might have sealed our party's fate in the upcoming 2010 midterm elections. You had the votes in place to pass a public option (had you used some backbone), you promised the American people (who voted overwhelmingly for you) real health care reform, and all you could come up with is a sweet deal for the Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies. Frankly, you blew it.

I am angry, because I am fairly certain that real health care reform is not going to happen this time. History has repeated itself once again, and the only people suffering are the 40 million uninsured Americans (a group I am reluctantly part of). I hope the President and Congress learn their lesson from this debacle, I hope Joe Lieberman gets his ego-feeding out of his system, and most importantly I hope that I am wrong about the wheels coming off of this reform effort and this movement for change. We had it within our reach, and now all I can see is it slipping away. Can someone please put it back within our reach, because we cannot afford another decade of the insurance companies running wild!