There really is no reason the correct answer cannot be "all of the above" -- the problem can be both structural AND partisan.

There surely are structural problems, but it is interesting how the 60-vote cloture, for example, really wasn't a problem (other than for judicial appointments at the circuit level or sup ct) under prior D-or-R deominated Senates until the R's lost power in '06. That suggests that while there are structural issues that allow abuses to take place, there is also a partisan aspect to actually engaging in the abuses.

Similarly, comparing how effective the R's have been from the minority with how ineffective the D's were in the minority suggests there is a partisan dynamic as well. Both sides had the same tools at their disposal; the R's just used them with much more ruthless efficiency. We all talk about the fault lines in the Republican coalition, yet time and time again, whether in the minority or majority, they hold the party line on votes where the Dems cannot. Maybe this is just part of the more liberal mindset, a downside to anti-authoritarianism. Or, maybe it is just that Harry Reid sucks at what he does.

It may be that structural change is the better and easier fix than trying to fix the underlying nature the Republican or Democratic nature. That does not mean, however, that the present problems are purely strutural.

no co-equal branch of government SHOULD be a rubber-stamp (certainly the Hastert/DeLay/Frist Congress under George W. Bush shouldn't be emulated)

You give Hastert, DeLay, and Frist too much credit.

They, as much as anyone else in Washington, were the prisoners of George W. Bush. Mr. Bush was a vindictive arm-twister who made Lyndon Johnson look like a boy scout. Had any of these three gentlemen hesitated so much as a moment to jump on Mr. Bush's command, they would have found themselves sleeping with...well, with Trent Lott.

How much of the problem is structural in the sense that these guys spend almost all their time in D.C., talking mostly to lobbyists and each other? Given today's communications and transportation technology, why couldn't they each have an office in their home state, travelling to Washington only for committee hearings, when evidence is being taken? (Although, that isn't really necessary, since hearing seem mostly to be a way for the gasbags to pontificate and posture.) In fact, why not decentralize the entire government?

Dissolve the Senate. It's wildly misrepresentative.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

Sorry !!
Dry your weeping eyes !!

Actually, Slick Willie passed a Republican agenda
Health Care was probably for PR, only

They just interviewed Sen Brian Dorgan who spoke of the bill, 10 years ago ending Glass-Steagal
He was one of ONLY 8 Senators who opposed it

This ended effective regulation of banks and financial institutions
Backed by Sen Phil Gramm, Slick Willie and Lying Al Gore

PLEASE don't forget, Slick Willie passed NAFTA because it was gonna bring a bunch of NEW ! HIGH PAYING JOBS !!

I hope all of you are enjoying your new, HIGH PAYING JOBS !!

Thanks, Slick Willie !!
Enjoy your $109 MILLION in speaking fees !!
You EARNED IT !!

To say that the Senate's problems are "either this or that" is to say what side of a coin will be facing up from the field of the Super Bowl before the coin has even been minted. Just as that coin must have two sides, so must the solution to "America's House of Lords" have two sides.

And the only way to discuss a two-phase solution to an endemic problem is to treat that problem as one would an outdated power plant: Melt down the coal-fired boilers, and use the recycled metal build solar panels.

America needs a Congress that can function in the 21st century....

The difference beetween the U.S. Senate and the Roman Senate under Caligula is that the Roman version only had one horse's ass among its members.

I remember this coming up during the Clinton years as well. The thing is, the Democrats are actually a big tent, where the Republican'ts are not. Being a big tent really makes it hard to get everyone to agree on everything all the time. Do I wish we could get past this? Yes. Do I wish we could become lock-step like the Republican'ts? NO!

repealing the Byrd Rule, or lowering the filibuster limit, or making it easier to replace chairman

1) The Byrd rule only applies to budget reconciliation provisions. You only need 51 votes to put recon. in a budget resolution. If someone invokes a Byrd Rule violation (raises a point of order), the presiding officer (read: VP Biden) makes a ruling with the advice of the parliamentarian. He is not, however, required to accept the parliamentarian's ruling. Only if the presiding officer sustains the point of order are 60 votes needed. Of course, going against the parliamentarian would be extremely controversial - so much so that the Republicans twice chose to replace the parliamentarian instead.

2) Repealing the Byrd Rule altogether or changing the filibuster rule would be subject to a cloture vote of 2/3 Senators present (not necessarily 67).

3. What chairman would you change? A committee chairman?

There are structural problems, but the Republicans had less difficulty getting their programs enacted under George Bush. They had near-perfect control of their caucus and could often pick up conservative Democrats. And the same is true today.

There's a particular issue that Obama should raise hell about: conservaDems blocking Obama from using the budget process (that can't be filibustered) to get part of his programs through. That's sabotage. It doesn't mean that the Senate should be a rubber stamp, but the caucus should be able to meet with Obama's people and identify large chunks that could go through, and just do it, without any negotiation from Republicans on those items that the majority can do all by itself.

Alan is essentially correct. The Senate, like the electoral college, is inherently undemocratic. I think it needs restructuring but possibly not dissolving. Imagine what Hastert's House could have done to us if we were unicameral.

The lesson of the Clinton first term should be driven home to the conservadems. When the president's party looks ineffectual and cannot pass necessary and popular legislation, the public will turn against that party. There was disgust with the failure of Clinton to deliver on health care. That was what ushered in a decade of rethug rule. Don't let it happen again!

conservaDems blocking Obama from using the budget process (that can't be filibustered) to get part of his programs through. That's sabotage.

There are two ways to look at this. 1) If you have the 51 votes needed to pass a budget item, you can get it into the budget resolution. Of course you need to have the same 51 to agree on all reconciliation items. Then you only need the 51 votes to pass it in the end (no filibusster, etc.). However, there is only one budget resolution per year, so you can't just do it on a bill by bill basis. 2) If you do agree to put reconciliation on a specific item, you not only give up the right to insist on 60 for the year, but if you don't pass a new budget resolution the following year, the old rules continue to apply.
Therefore, Dems will almost always err on the side of voting against reconciliation for controversial items. Republicans - not so much. They do have a leader. It's not Limbaugh, but someone is calling the shots.

The problem is political, not procedural. Until Obama and others stop making nice then we will have problems. Obama needs to ask for the moon in legislative requests and play the compromise game on the other side of mid-field, so to speak. And he needs to start playing the blame game with those who oppose his policies. Start whispering that if his agenda fails and damages America then blame is squarely on the shoulders of those who vote against it. On a related note, I agree that Krugman in Newsweek opens the Overton window a bit on the liberal side. It's time Obama worked to open it more.

When the president's party looks ineffectual and cannot pass necessary and popular legislation, the public will turn against that party.

If we filled Congress off of party lists, this would matter. But we don't. Each senator runs on his or her own. They are the platform. They have their own organizations, and essentially owe the central party nothing -- they can survive without it.

The public can turn against a party without even coming close to costing a senator from that party his or her job. Exhibit 1 -- Susan Collins.

Presidents come and go, but a Senator with a good local constituency organization and solid fund raising can live forever. Why do they need a president?

There are -- potentially at least -- 100 parties in the Senate. Even the Knesset isn't that screwed up.

The Senate's rules have only been around for a little over 200 years. Let's change them!

Look, an administration not willing to challenge legislators of its own party or able to exploit differences within the other is going to have a hard time passing legislation that isn't overwhelmingly popular. Most necessary legislation at any time, and particularly at this time, won't be.

President Obama starts with a disadvantage both of the other recent Democratic Presidents also had: his nomination as well as his election was only possible because it came at the end of an unpopular Republican administration that Congressional Democrats had challenged only ineffectually. Like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton before him, Obama took office without a real constituency of loyalists within the Democratic caucuses of the House and Senate. There aren't very many Democratic Senators willing to call Sen. Conrad's cheap accounting gimmicks what they are, and there are no House Democrats willing to challenge Speaker Pelosi on behalf of the President's program at all.

Superempowerment of the Democratic majority in the Senate won't change this. At most, it would allow Democrats like Conrad to move his initiatives -- not the President's -- through the body with less resistance from the minority Republicans. Changing the Senate rules, even if it could be timely done, is a shortcut to the wrong destination.

The road to the right one cannot be an easy one, but for Obama's team there are two suggestions. First, don't propose ideas if you intend to surrender them at the first hint of resistance from Democrats on the Hill -- if you're going to send up a budget that doesn't make the bogus assumptions about AMT revenue that recent budgets have, or proposes cutting farm subsidies, you have to be willing to hit back hard when your program is dismissed. And second, get rid the "reset button" Obama has used with the Republicans since he took office. This is still, essentially, George Bush's party owning George Bush's recession. Its members in Congress still take direction from George Bush's political consultants and money from George Bush's campaign contributors. Bipartisanship is a great thing, but Obama is following an administration that drilled the importance of party unity into every Republican legislator in Washington for eight years. By this time it's an instinct that will only be suspended when Republican Senators in particular start to believe a Democratic President they cross can hurt them. Obama is in a much stronger position to make some of them believe that than Carter or Clinton ever were, but he hasn't done anything to make them believe it yet.

The senate is particularly successful at preventing things from happening and it is inherent in the institution's design. Replacing 30% every two years makes it less responsive then the House because when you are not being confronted by electorate you can ignore them. It is vastly unrepresentative again this is deliberate in the design so that small states would not run over by big state interests.

Then there are the rules -- any organization that allows the anonymous hold -- needs to have the rules changed. The need to have 2/3 of the members to cutoff debate -- please is too high of a hurdle.

The design of the Senate to protect what exists and preserve the status quo were ostensibly put in place to protect the minority, the weak and the small from being run over by the majority. The reality is that this design serves the interest of those with power and wealth by protecting them from the majority who have neither wealth nor power. The senate was purposefully designed to prevent the majority view from easily taking hold.

The design needs to be changed which would require rules changes to do away with anonymous holds and lowering the threshold to end debate from 2/3 to either a simple majority vote or some number between 50 and 55.

Then the constitution would need some changing to make sure that there is greater turnover by either reducing the length of a senate term to 4 years and keeping the schedule the same or to consider putting the entire body up for election every six years.

My guess is that as hard as it would be to change the rules that would be easier then amending the constitution.

We really need some people who can make this institution work for the betterment of our society and not be designed to protect those with power and money which IMHO is what the senate is designed to do. Something that it does very well but thatin times like these is a great deisservice.

Bob

I like to think of the Senate as the Barons' long-deferred revenge for the unpleasantness at Runnymede....

Democrats: the party of self made martyrs.

As I state every time there is discussion about the Senate, any problems with it can be traced to the 17th Amendment. As everyone knows, the 17th Amendment made the Senate more "democratic" by having the people elect, instead of the state legislatures choose Senators. This fundamentally changed the nature of the Senate from the Founders' vision of being the states' check on the federal government into just being another form of the House, which was already elected by the people.

Senators were supposed to be "Statesmen" precisely because they were not beholden to the people for their positions. Thus, they would be immune from the momentary political passions of the people. Instead, they were suppose to look out for the national interest and to keep the federal government from usurping power and authority from the states.

As I tell people who want to get rid of the influence of "big money" from politics simply repeal the 17th Amendment. Without having to raise money for their re-elections, Senators would haven't to raise any money from anyone. Then they would be able to do things in the national interest all the time regardless of whose political cows get slaughtered. The ability to "buy up" political support in the House would also be limited since the other half of the legislative branch of the government would be beyond any form of direct public pressure.

So do the country a favor and support the returning of the Senate to the distinguished role the Founders intended for it by repealing the 17th Amendment.

When the president's party looks ineffectual and cannot pass necessary and popular legislation, the public will turn against that party.

If we filled Congress off of party lists, this would matter. But we don't. Each senator runs on his or her own. They are the platform. They have their own organizations, and essentially owe the central party nothing -- they can survive without it.

The fact is, though, that two years into Clinton's first term, he did lose both the Senate and the House. The public did a major housecleaning and routed the Dem's. I don't agree that these senators are powers unto themselves. Party loyalty isn't the issue so much as dashed hopes of the electorate can bring down the status quo.

Dem 1994 losses in the Senate were in open seats, or in the South, or both, and part of a secular realignment in that case. Dems lost seats in PA and TN that were held by placeholders -- Wofford and Cooper, plus open seats in OK and AZ and ME that were going GOP regardless. TN #2 was the only upset. And Wofford was sandbagged by his own Dem governor, Casey Sr.

The bloodletting was in the House.

It's neither one or the other but both. The senate rules need changing and these dem moderates (I have another name for them)need to be replaced as they stand in direct contrast to the majority of American voters standing in the way of Obama's agenda. One only needs to look at Sen Bayh's wife's health profession positions to see he has an agenda to prevent helath care reform from passing the senate.

Also there is a big difference between how repubs abused the senate rules compared to dems. Dems were complacent and complicit in passing nearly all of Bush's agenda whereas repubs set a new filibuster record to block nearly everything dems put forward. These mod dems are party traitors, and traitors to the will of the majority of Americans without the ability to justify their actions. They make sure that the republicans will be able to block legislation by filibuster by refusing to let certain issues pass through by the reconciliation process. Either way the wealthy oligarchs win and the American people lose thanks to our senate's obstructionism

"And that's probably an easier argument than trying to convince Nebraskans that Ben Nelson's incredible power isn't good for them." Oh really. It takes 60 votes to change senate rules and I think that it would be easier to convince Nebraskans that Ben Nelson's incredible power isn't good for them than to convince Ben Nelson that Ben Nelson's incredible power isn't good for Ben Nelson.

The critical votes for changing the rules must come from those who benefit most from the current rules.

In any case who ever suggested a primary challenge in Nebraska ? I'm sure someone, but I haven't read any such suggestion on the web (and I waste a *lot* of time on the web).

"As I tell people who want to get rid of the influence of "big money" from politics simply repeal the 17th Amendment."

A bad idea. The 17th Amendement was passed by Progressives precisely because the moneyed interests were paying off state legislature to get their favorite candidates elected. I don't know if you could get away with such blatant corruption today, but the general quality of state politics hasn't really improved since then

Let's see, Carter, Clinton, and Obama all faced saboteurs from the _INO wing of their own party, which ruined the chances for substantial progressive policy achievements.

Reagan, Bush, and Bush II all faced saboteurs from the _INO wing of their own party, which ruined the chances for...

Nah, it just doesn't work that way. Conservatives know how to use the senate to hobble Democratic presidents.

You can create all the new systems you want, but if you don't change the underlying incentives for conservative Democrats to sabotage presidents from their own party, then no, you're not going to change shit.