And we must also remember that the Congress has passed over 300 bills that would benefit all Americans that have gone utterly un-acted upon by this dysfunctional Senate .... and, of course, the Corporate media remains completely silent about this ...

Don't forget to mention that the laws passed were shells of what they might have been if not for the obstructive nature of the GOP watering them down. Getting them passed was so nauseating it brought to mind Sam Clemens's statement about laws and sausage making....

No points are given for confirming Supreme Court justices; that's a given. Major points are deducted for the fact that, even with a huge majority, the Senate hasn't acted on the majority of Obama's appointments.

The brokenness of the Senate means that most of those legislative victories had to be severely watered down to the point of meaninglessness; the Wall Street reform bill, for example, is very weak.

The Senate needs fixing. The good news is that Democrats can lose 5-6 seats and wind up in a stronger position in the Senate than they were before. All they have to do is kill or severely weaken the filibuster. They could then govern with, say, 53 seats.

The Senate SHOULD function to do what is best for the nation. The filibuster itself is not bad if it is being exercised with that sincere intent.

There are too many Senators who are filibustering with the intent to protect the wealthy, the nation be damned.

The remedies for this are few, which is the way the wealthy like it, as did Royalty during the English and French revolutions, much too their regret.

I'd argue (probably unsuccessfully given the fact that nobody has challenged it) that the filibuster system is a violation of one man/one vote. It means that the majority party's votes actually don't count as much as the minority's. Given a choice, as a voter, I cast my ballot(s) for candidates who supported general principles of the Democratic party. But my votes have been crippled by the tyranny of the majority. Those who supported McCain and have since moved even further right, were rejected by the majority of voters, but the minority still has the power to block the will of the majority and also to cripple and weaken legislation.

Many critics are pointing out that the Wall Street "reform" bill is now full of loopholes which run a very real risk that we could see a repeat of the chaos that brought us our current economic mess. With a simple majority, the final draft on that and other measures would undoubtedly have been stronger and more effective.

Oops...make that "tyranny of the minority"

There are too many Senators who are filibustering with the intent to protect the wealthy, the nation be damned.

Think of it as 'constituent service'....

While reform is needed let's not forget that what is also required is a more mature, responsible, professional, committed group of adults.

Reform is the result of having a low performing, low quality, unprofessional and unqualified group of adults in power where most have openly stated on many occasions how much they hate the organization they hired into and seek to destroy it.

The Senate got a lot done because there were 59 Democrats. Next year, when there are only a little over 50, the pace of accomplishment will drop to near zero.

the constitutional level to pass legislation is 1/2 (that's why the vp has a vote). the founders did not intend for congress to become a super-majority body. that's the original sin from which all others follow.

The Senate got a lot done because there were 59 Democrats.

Just think what could have been done if all the Democrats actually voted like Democrats!

I haven't understood why no one, left or right , in the press has noticed how HARD it was to pass anything given the Senate's minority party obstruction, and yet, nevertheless important legislation has passed. We forget too soon, perhaps.

More, much more could be done and could have been done; and the bills passed could have been better had the Republicans not refused to cooperate. Still I remain amazed by what did happen, even though it's not what we all wanted.

2009
January 29: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
February 4: Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
February 11: DTV Delay Act
February 17: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
March 30: Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009
April 21: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
May 20: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
May 20: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009
May 22: Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009
June 22: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
August 6: Cash For Clunkers Extension Act
October 22: Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
October 28: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
October 30: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
November 6: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009

2010
March 4: Travel Promotion Act
March 18: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act)
March 23: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
March 30: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
May 5: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010

July 14: Financial Regulatory Reform

THE critical reform is to break the filibuster. It can be done any day with 50 votes + Biden via the nuclear option. That it has NOT been done is a major fault of Obama and Reid. It's the political equivalent of "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?".

I agree with dweb. The fact is, people would make more informed about their votes if they could say actual results from the two parties. I would love for voters to again seeing the results of Republican majorities -- and for the Democratic members to see what it's like to pass undiluted Democratic legislation.

The way it works now is, the Republicans propose horrible policies, and the Democrats work hard to make them less awful. Then people hate the outcome anyway. Is that really a good strategy?

Be careful for what you wish for. That "mess" as you call it ensured that Social Security "reform" did not pass. It is a pain in the butt right now, and I will grant that the opposition is being particularly aggressive, but Democrats will do to Repubs what was done to them, when the time comes (and it will...)

if someone wants to make the next blockbuster horror movie, just make a documentary of the Packer article. The last nation-state that had a legislative process this dysfunctional was 18th century Poland. They ceased to exist as a nation because they couldn't make a f**kin' decision.

I agree with Cas, above, about being careful what you wish for. What if the Republicans, who seem to get more radical with each passing year, get control of the Senate? How would anyone be able to stop them from, say, nominating Glenn Beck for the Supreme Court, without the threat of the filibuster? That being said, there is still plenty of room for reform.

There's a case to be made -- and a fairly persuasive one at that -- that the current Congress has been as successful as any in several decades.

a person in an irreversible vegetative state is technically alive. That doesn't mean the abhorrent quality of that life is worth preserving.

chemical fertilizers, irradiation, growth hormones and other poisons greatly increase the quantity of commercially available food material for consumer consumption. Doesn't mean that any of it is worth eating, or worse isn't poisoning its consumers.

Perhaps more than anything, the main ingredient missing from America is the notion of quality, having been completely buried by superficial measures of perceived success. The cheapness that corporate America has devolved society into as embodied by the unreality republican/conservative "value" system is truly pathetic. America is so terribly ungreat these days, and yet all we do is keep clapping louder to convince ourselves that our massive superficiality and rapidly devolving expectations of decency are true measures of success - far from it.

The last nation-state that had a legislative process this dysfunctional was 18th century Poland. They ceased to exist as a nation because they couldn't make a f**kin' decision.
Posted by: Tim H on August 9, 2010 at 5:00 PM

That's right. We had so-called "liberum veto" whereby a single belligerent (nobody tells *me* what to do) or corruptible (what's in it for me?) squire could tear to shreds *months* of negotiations, simply by yelling "I do not allow!" (nie pozwalam!) At that, it was more honest (not to mention transparent) than the hundreds of *secret* holds single jerks can put on any legislation in our Senate.

dweb: I'd argue ... that the filibuster system is a violation of one man/one vote.

A better argument would be that the Senate *itself* is a violation of one man/one vote.

Problem is: the Senate is enshrined in the US Constitution; one man/one vote, not so much.

There is no need to "reform" the filibuster rule. It was reformed once, in the 1980s and THAT was what put us in this mess!
The Senate is "traditions"? Fine! Return the filibuster to what it was prior to its so-called "reform". Force the Senator/s filibustering to actually have to filibuster. Place the hardship of that act on THEM; not on those attempting to govern.
Even though the Republicans will whine and moan no matter what, Democratic Senators should unite behind the motto: "Backwards to the Future!"* and vote to return to the pre-1980s filibuster.
*Only this phrase is snark, the rest is posted in all seriousness.

The dysfunction of the Senate is pretty easy to express mathematically. If we had single payer, we would not spend 16% of GDP on health care, and that cost would not be loaded on our employers. That alone is 2-3% of our unemployment rate.

Plus, if we had $900B in stimulus under a 50 vote rule, it would have produced twice as many jobs because it would have been all stimulus, not tax cuts. Cut 1% from our unemploymnet rate, and improve our infrastructure.

Then, imagine that our defense budget only went up 50-60% after 9/11, instead of 100%. That would cut the deficit by 20%.

Simply put, the votes required by the filibuster enable the rich and powerful to tax whatever we try to do as a nation, putting us deeper in debt and making the government less effective as an agent to benefit the people. It's that taxing effect that is destroying us.

The article makes the perfect point that the 17th Amendment should be repealed. More democracy is not going to make the body any less disfunctional.

Lamar Alaexander is right. The minute the Dems go into the minority this talk of Senate reform becomes bunk. Mitch McConnell is right. A GOP caucus is only relevent IF they act together to obstruct, otherwise it's everyone for themselves and liberal legislation would be passed. Why do you expect conservatives not to use the rules to delay or obstruct bills they object to? Would you be complaining if the shoe was on the other foot like it was in 1990s and much of the last decade? Of course not.

The only way to change the Senate is to change the content of the people elected to the body. If the great Senators like Webster and Clay and Calhoun could be chosen by state legislatures, why not today? Or would you prefer they spend most of their time fundraising.