I think it’s an incredible stretch to say that it was a mistake to not let the Republicans install the Nuclear Option in 2005, but I get what Chris Bowers is saying. If we didn’t have to contend with the 60-vote threshold, both policy and progressive attitudes would be much, much better. I’m happy to see him make arguments like this because it shows he understands reality. As Chris notes, life without the filibuster would have been glorious.
This would have resulted in a wide swatch of changes, including a larger stimulus, the Employee Free Choice Act, a better health bill (in all likelihood, one with a public option, and completed in December), an actual climate / energy bill, a second stimulus, and more. If Democrats had tacked on other changes to Senate rules that sped up the process, such as doing away with unanimous consent, ending debating time after cloture is achieved on nominations, eliminating the two days between filing for cloture and voting on cloture, and restricting quorum calls, then virtually every judicial and administration vacancy would already be filled, as well.
Actually, the health care bill would not only have had a public option, but it would have been completed before the August 2009 recess. A climate bill would have been done by December, and it would have probably included a Cap & Trade scheme (although that’s uncertain even at the 51-vote threshold). Someone should write a book about what Congress would have passed if the House didn’t preemptively water-down legislation to put it in the same ballpark as what the Senate could conceivably get Olympia Snowe to agree to. I mean, most of what the House has passed over the last year and a half could have won a simple majority in the Senate. But that’s because it was designed to be within pissing distance of getting 60 votes. Had they not had to trim their sails, we would have seen much stronger stimulus, a much more robust health care bill, and far stronger regulation of Wall Street. We would also have seen more progressive nominations. In this Congress, according to Progressive Punch, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana would have been the pivot vote on high-priority legislation if the filibuster rule was not in place. Because the filibuster rule was in place, that role has fallen to Susan Collins. On most issues, nothing could pass that Susan Collins didn’t sign off on it.
Did you know when you voted for Obama that Susan Collins would have effective veto-power over his entire agenda? Do you think that’s what the American people want?
