Fili-busted?

I haven't been talking about it, but I've been following what's been going on with the filibuster in the Senate for a long time. And frankly, it's been a mess for a long time.

The filibuster is supposed to be a measure to restrain extreme actions, and in that light, I'm in favor of it. But the GOP has abused it in hitherto unseen proportions, to the point that it's being used to stop governing (yes, all those nominations unfilled do represent a serious problem. And despite the noise made about unfilled nominations under Bush, he got almost everything he wanted. Obama, on the other hand, has fewer nominations filled now than Bush did after two years in office). It begs the question, how can the government run with no one to make decisions?

Because of that unprecedented level of obstructionism (and yes, it is unprecedented, despite what some might say), it's been depressing watching Reid refuse and refuse to do anything about it. Yes, GOP failure to follow through on negotiated deals is a problem, but hardly a surprising one.

So it's good to see at least some serious recognition of the problem; maybe something will be done.

I think what's needed to end the abuse, but preserve the power, is something to the effect of limiting the number of filibusters available in a legislative session. Of course, as the House has shown, something can be voted on as many times as desired, so a straight numerical limit can't really work. And man, would things get bogged down if the debate turned into "is this the same bill as last time?", so allowing reintroductions of bills to not count against the limit wouldn't work either.

But Sen Udall had some ideas for improving things, which I liked. Disallowing filibusters on motions to proceed to discussion (wait, we can't stop discussion on whether to discuss something?) is a good idea. Putting the onus on those wishing to continue debate rather than those wishing to end discussion is another good idea. Another one that just occurred to me would be disallowing any lawmakers from entering the chamber once a filibuster starts. That makes it an endurance challenge for everyone. Another Udall suggestion would be to force anyone wanting a filibuster to make their motion, and reasons, public, to force accountability. There's also a limit on post-cloture debate for non-Supreme Court nominees. The last suggestion I have trouble summarizing, so here it is from Merkley's web site:

Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Establish a Conference Committee: Reduces the steps to establish a conference committee from three motions to one, and limits debate the consolidated motion to 2 hours

Let's hope that, at the minimum, those limits can be put in. That still won't be close to a panacea, but it would help.

And McCain's offer seems pretty ridiculous. Whatever happened to 'elections have consequences'? Especially considering that Obama's majority is larger than Bush's was.

Ryan-air?

My daughter had a swimming class yesterday, and as my son and I were waiting for her, we caught a few minutes on the TV of Ryan's acceptance speech of the vice presidential nomination under Romney.

I don't have a whole lot to say about the whole thing.  I think he'd be a disaster for everyone who isn't extremely rich, but, under Romney, there's nothing new there.  It certainly brings up the question of whether Romney would also be for ending Medicare in all but name.

That would certainly be a good way to prevent large, future budget deficits, once Medicare enters the red, but it'd be a disaster for anyone needing medical care.  Especially if, as promised, Romney does find a way to repeal "Obamacare".

The government's share of costs might well decrease (in fact, I can see no way in which it wouldn't), but the costs themselves would explode.  Well, maybe not if that repeal happens, but only because so many elderly would find themselves unable to get medical insurance at all.

Anyway, we'll see what happens with respect to that.  One thing I found amusing, though, was that the coverage sometimes pulled back (the cameras were mostly in tight on his face), and when it did, we could see (one of?) the teleprompter(s?) he was using.  Not that I think that's a big deal, generally, but when one attacks another for using them, one should be significantly embarrassed to then use one themselves.

Ah well.  I'm curious to see what right wing reaction to the nomination is.  My guess is "ho-hum", but it'd be interesting if it wasn't.