Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to Greg Nofsinger’s letter published Monday.
I support majority rule for legislation and the end of the filibuster. I do not believe that majority rule in the Senate would constitute a “tyranny of the majority.”
The U.S. Constitution requires supermajorities in only four instances: to convict in an impeachment trial, to ratify a treaty, to expel a member of Congress and to propose constitutional amendments.
The Senate itself only requires a simple majority to pass legislation. At issue is the filibuster, a procedural rule that requires a 60-vote supermajority to bring bills to a vote. The filibuster is not enshrined in the Constitution — it is only a procedural rule. The House of Representatives allows the majority to bring legislation to a vote and, like the Senate, a majority is enough to pass a bill.
In most states, Senators and Representatives aren’t even required to achieve a majority to be elected; they simply need more votes than any other candidate. If we can elect Senators and Representatives with less than a majority, surely a majority should be enough for legislation.
It is also worth remembering that health reform has passed both houses of Congress — with a three-fifths supermajority in the Senate. A package of fixes to reconcile the two bills is the only portion of health reform that might be passed with a simple majority vote.
In a democracy, it is important that elections be meaningful. In 2008, Americans elected Barack Obama to the presidency and delivered Democrats large majorities in both houses of Congress. Now the Democratic agenda should become law under rules that allow a majority to govern. If the public sours on Democratic policies, it can elect Republican majorities to Congress and they can repeal health reform — also with a majority vote.
I do support the filibuster for judicial nominees, however, because they receive lifetime appointments to very powerful positions. This may seem hypocritical, but it isn’t. Legislation passed by majority rule can also be repealed by majority rule. Aside from impeachment, which usually requires criminal activity, there is no provision for recalling a judge.
Since judicial confirmation is different than legislation, it should require a different — and higher — standard.
Aside from votes to confirm judicial nominees, the majority should rule.
Adam Loos
junior studying political science
Related posts:
Ending the filibuster seems to me, since my preferred party is in ascendancy (despite claims to the contrary using the recent Massachusetts Senate race and two aberrant gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey), like a reasonable choice. When the GOP was in power, their threat to use the “nuclear option” which would have similarly led to simple-majority rule made me nervous. Bush Republicans (a distinctly different breed of politician that is neither conservative nor principled) were in control and already had run roughshod over much of our country, to wit: dragging us into war, cutting taxes for the rich, and attempting to dismantle public services. I think there was a cause for me to be frightened of us sliding into a quasi-fascist state (and I don’t use that word often; scare tactics are a part of the problem in our current political climate).
Similar to the author’s opinion on retaining filibuster for judicial nominees, I am personally torn and feel a bit hypocritical in supporting the filibuster while my party was NOT in power yet yearning for its sunset while the Dems are in power. I think the main difference is that unless I am forgetting something (which is certainly possible), the Dems didn’t bring the government to a screeching halt while they were in the minority. Stuff still got done.
When a single GOP Senator has the ability to prevent important leadership positions in government to be filled, or prevent extension of unemployment benefits to thousands of Americans NOT in his or her home state, and whose obstinacy could result in the involuntary furloughs of public employees, I feel much more confident that the characteristics of the two main political parties in the country are fundamentally different. While many politicians of all political stripes are seemingly most interested in perpetuating their public service (or public fleecing, if you will), to me it seems that the cold, political calculation of the GOP in saying “no” to EVERYTHING so that they can cash in at the polls this November is particularly egregious.
I don’t think that getting health care reform done through reconciliation will be the “end of the Senate” nor do I think that allowing the majority to govern – especially when the objective of the other major party seems to be simply to obstruct – is “mob rule” or a tyranny of the majority.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Citizen Bob,
1. I agree that the Neo-conservative Bush and his ilk are not true conservatives. They are the type that feel, “Hey gov’t is already big, so why not use it to our advantage?” When real conservatism calls for smaller federal gov’t.
2. The reason the Dems didn’t bring the bureaucracy screeching to a halt was b/c the Reps weren’t threatening to radically make over 1/7th of the economy via health care reform or try to choke our economy to death by imposing the ill-conceived cap-and-trade bill.
3. Sen. Brunning was merely supporting the PAYGO measures that the Dems passed in the first place. Here, he saw a $10 billion expenditure that didn’t meet the PAYGO requirements. Brunning is a Republican that is just following the measures that the Democrats set forth. So where is the problem? I’d argue that these false measures that Dems pass in order to look like they actually give a darn about the deficit is the real problem.
4. The Republicans have plenty of ideas, suggestions, and plans. House Minority Leader Boehner personally handed Pres. Obama a whole packet full of Republican proposals and ideas when he met with House Reps. This recent health care summit had many Rep ideas in it. It is just too bad that the Dems outspoke the Reps by almost double. Oh yeah, but Obama’s time didn’t count b/c he is the Pres. Ha!
5. Go look at all the polls that say that the American people don’t want the Dems’ version of health care reform. Poll after poll shows over 50% of Americans don’t want this. Does that matter to the Dems? No. Doesn’t the majority of Americans have a say? Apparently not. We are seeing the end of representative gov’t as we know it.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
tullman8:
I have to disagree with point#2: The weak-kneed Democratic caucus allowed Bush’s tax cuts, the Iraq war, and No Child Left Behind. Add Medicare Part D and I believe these unfunded/underfunded initiatives would add up to a large slice of our national budget/deficit/debt. The Dems spent more effort on crafting the opposing message in order to get back into power than they did in opposing the majority’s agenda. Knowing that these policies would cripple our economy SHOULD have inspired them to block the more egregious giveaways to the elites, but, alas, like the GOP, they seem to be more interested in the success of their caucus instead of good public policy.
I can’t see any of the GOP ideas for health care reform taking a bite out of their corporate benefactor’s pockets. Tort reform, buying insurance across state lines, etc. won’t make a dent in the real problem: public health should not be a for-profit industry for third party insurers. While I believe that all health care providers should be paid well for their services, profiting by collecting monthly premiums and then NOT providing (or denying) health care when it is necessary is a despicable evil, in my opinion. I have no illusions: the same contributors to the GOP also give heavily to the Dems as well (or Independents from Connecticut), so the watered down Senate bill was the result. If they can get the Medicare buy-in through reconciliation (or some other public option), there might be a chance to really cut costs.
The “American people” . . . Well, they’ve been fed a steady diet of misdirection, fluff, and outright lies by the likes of FOX News and right-wing talk radio that has been filled with half-truths and falsification about proposed reform. Just a few weeks ago, Leader Boehner appeared on Meet The Press with the same tired old “this is a government takeover of health care” line which is a lie. It is a lie that has been debunked again and again yet he continues to say it.
We know that “push-polling” DOES affect the outcome of snapshots of public opinion. Why should we then be surprised that polls are showing a distaste for what’s currently on the table?
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Citizen Bob,
I agree with what you said about Reps AND Dems lining their pockets with lobbyist money, but I will also point out that Dems find a lot of funding from corporations as well.
However, many Dems voted for the Iraq War. 40% of House Dems supported the Iraq Resolution, with over 50% of Dems in the House. NCLB passed with around 90% support in both the House and the Senate. And who is going to oppose a push to improve education? Bush’s problem with the tax cuts was that he failed to trim gov’t spending as well.
Having said this, the profit margins of the insurance companies were a tad above 2% last time it was tallied. TWO PERCENT! So much for the evil insurance companies. Just so you know I’m not lying, here is the AP Fact-Checking article.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/10/26/aps-woodward-fact-checks-health-insurance-company-profits-finds-them-ane
I find it funny that liberals are demonizing the insurance industry, when in comparison there were many other industries that had much bigger profit margins.
Its funny that you mention FOX and talk radio. It is your typical go to punch when liberals cannot refute facts. Go ahead, dog on Fox News and the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Levin, etc.
Did you listen to Rep. Paul Ryan refute many of the “savings” claims by President Obama? Most media outlets have been writing that Ryan was spot on in his analysis that Obama’s numbers are highly misleading. Who is misleading whom?
The stimulus “saved or created” 2 million jobs? How do you figure? How can you measure if a job was “saved?” The gov’t stimulus website had some jobs “saved or created” in counties that didn’t even exist!
Same with cap-and-trade. Liberals say that our country should lead the way with green tech, but fail to mention how much energy costs will go up. Obama even said they would “skyrocket.” Yet, no major news media picked up on this, except Fox.
You are beginning to reach with your posts. Pump the brakes for a second and get some facts right.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
*SIGH*
Of course, the debate is the most important part in a forum such as this, so I’ll ignore your personal attacks about me not getting facts straight.
The health insurance industry has earned its scorn. Using solely the profit margins unfortunately doesn’t tell the whole story about an industry whose profits are earned by collecting premiums and then doing all they can to avoid paying claims. If at a 2% profit margin (which is actually a reach on your part, ma’am/sir) the industry ends up 35th on FORTUNE Magazine’s Top 500, then they can’t cry “poverty” about their bottom line, can they? Those profit margins don’t reflect the 20% stockholder equity (2007 numbers from Fortune.com) and the fact that their revenues have increased 57% since 2005 (again from Fortune.com) and a 26% increase in profits over that same period. To reiterate a point that bears repeating: these profits are earned by the companies selling a service and then not providing it when it is needed by their customers.
Regarding cap and trade: we have been under-paying for our consumption habits for some time. Anecdotally, in 1993 when I visited Australia, they were paying about $4.00 a gallon for automobile fuel ($.91 AUS / litre). It is high time that the full costs of our consumption are visited upon the consumer. Perhaps such a sea change would help right the country’s economic boat. Calculating what that full cost is can be tricky; kind of like “jobs saved”, I suppose. Should energy in the forms of fossil fuels be cheap so as to encourage more consumption? That is an ideological question, I know, and likely one we will NOT agree on.
I’m glad that you find so much about what I have written funny, but I am not your run of the mill liberal. I am far, far worse.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
I agree that there is money being made by insurance companies. I do, however, believe that they amount of money that they are making is not extraordinarily monstrous.
I would like to see some numbers on how many people are dropped once they get sick/sustain injuries. I’m a stats guy, but I haven’t seen many relative states on coverage drops.
Cap-and-trade: I was in Italy from Feb-July 2008, and petrol was running around 8 to 9 bucks a gallon. But, they are better connected by rail. Also, I did not see one pick-up truck while I was over there. Italy is insignificant in size compared to the U.S. I’m not diminishing the culture or the people (the food was beyond fantastic), just the literal size of Italy.
I would like to see the U.S. get off of foreign oil. However, my belief is that nuclear energy is a great starting point if liberals want to meet conservatives. France has much more nuclear energy than we do, and they are France! We should be the world leaders in nuclear energy, but we are not.
If there is an increase in the supply of nuclear energy along with the already increasing amount of wind farms (esp. in my home state of Indiana), the price of oil is going to decrease anyways. Oil will drop as the demand in the US switches from oil to renewable energy. Or it will stay up and be funneled to India or China. Plus, why remain subject to the whims of OPEC or Chavez?
I’d love to talk more, but I have to run!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Energy policy is a HUGE opportunity for bi-partisanship; I couldn’t agree with you more on that prospect. I’m a little nervous about nuclear being the crown jewel in any policy that gets the nation off of foreign oil, however; how many Yucca mountains can there be and how else to dispose of radioactive material / spent nuclear fuel? If that question can be answered, I would likely be less hesitant to embrace nuclear energy. In the large scheme of things it remains a relatively new and unpredictable energy source. I’d love to see more investment in ZERO emissions energy production like wind and solar despite their limitations. Improving the energy transmission grid nationwide is also important.
While the actual figures of revenue and profits for the health insurers may appear to be inconsequential, or “not extraordinarily monstrous” as you put it, it is the profit model used by the insurers that remains the most distasteful part of their hegemony over our health care system: they collect annually-increasing premiums from their customers while placing more of the cost back onto their customers in the forms of co-pays, out-of-pocket increases, and scaled back care. Not to mention the state of care once you finally get to see a doctor: they are booked so close together to maximize fee for services that I can say that I feel like when I do visit the doctor, I am rushed through their clinic so they can get to the next client.
That point is in addition to the problem of the companies collecting the premiums and then dropping coverge or doing all they can to deny claims. They increase profits by limiting claims and maximizing income. If they were selling cars, that’s not a problem. When they control the state of public health it becomes a very serious problem.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2