A Post-Nuclear Senate Wouldn’t Be So Bad, Really

A narrow limit on the filibuster isn’t just good for the president’s nominees. It means a better functioning government and a more open calendar for real legislative action.

National Journal
Matt Berman
See more stories about...
Matt Berman
Nov. 7, 2013, midnight

It’s late Decem­ber, 2013, and the Sen­ate is ex­cited for Christ­mas. But be­fore flee­ing Wash­ing­ton for the de­lights of stock­ings and yule, the Sen­ate has to reck­on with Mel Watt, Obama’s nom­in­ee for the Fed­er­al Hous­ing Fin­ance Agency who failed to be con­firmed in late Oc­to­ber. Just like last time, the con­firm­a­tion vote is largely split by party: 57-41.

But this time, in the post-nuc­le­ar Sen­ate, Watt is con­firmed. Be­cause now you don’t need a fili­buster-proof, 60-vote ma­jor­ity to con­firm an ex­ec­ut­ive nom­in­ee. You need 51. And just like that, you have a mildly bet­ter func­tion­ing le­gis­lature thanks to Harry Re­id’s de­cision to change the rules, al­low­ing a simple ma­jor­ity vote to end a fili­buster of ex­ec­ut­ive nom­in­a­tions.

Okay, no hy­per-tar­geted H-bomb has ac­tu­ally hit the Sen­ate. But back in the real world, after Watt’s nom­in­a­tion was scuttled, Sen­ate Demo­crats (and their Team Cap­tain Emer­it­us Joe Biden) began again sound­ing the nuc­le­ar alarm, send­ing Sen­ate tra­di­tion­al­ists in­to full duck-and-cov­er. Con­tra the fear-monger­ers, a nuc­le­ar op­tion that just al­ters the way the Sen­ate ap­proves ex­ec­ut­ive nom­in­ees won’t be spawn­ing any su­per-powered Cruzi­an mutants. But it could cre­ate a Sen­ate where le­gis­la­tion has more space to breathe, and it would give a big re­lief to the agen­cies that have been plagued by high-level va­can­cies.

Fili­bus­ter­ing ex­ec­ut­ive nom­in­ees doesn’t just muck up Con­gress. It makes the whole ex­ec­ut­ive branch hazy. Take a look at the State De­part­ment, where a le­gion of po­s­i­tions needs to be con­firmed by the Sen­ate. This May, 16 of the top 59 jobs in the de­part­ment were va­cant. Many of those re­main va­cant. This isn’t just the Sen­ate’s fault, as many open­ings don’t have a nom­in­ee. But the in­tense vet­ting pro­cess that a 60-vote re­quire­ment cre­ates is at least par­tially re­spons­ible for the ex­treme slow­down. “I have a new ap­pre­ci­ation for how much the con­firm­a­tion pro­cess has be­come a polit­ic­al foot­ball in re­cent years,” John Kerry told The New York Times, “and what that forces on the vet­ting pro­cess re­quired to an­nounce nom­in­ees.”

In the case of Mel Watt, this pro­cess grates on not just the FHFA, but also on hous­ing re­form ad­voc­ates wait­ing for someone new to take the reins. The Watt hold-up is “cata­stroph­ic for work­ing class Amer­ic­ans,” says Na­tion­al Com­munity Re­in­vest­ment Co­ali­tion pres­id­ent John Taylor. Taylor is no fan of the cur­rent FHFA act­ing head and the un­cer­tainty sur­round­ing Watt’s nom­in­a­tion clouds the policy pic­ture that his or­gan­iz­a­tion is so tied to.

Less time spent on nom­in­a­tion fights also would free up time for ac­tu­al le­gis­la­tion. Sure, it might not mean more le­gis­la­tion will be passed, as that surely isn’t get­ting easi­er any­time soon. But more time could mean more bills, which would help free ex­ist­ing bills from a nev­er-end­ing bar­rage of amend­ments. In the fili­buster-everything Sen­ate, “so few bills come to the floor that every­body views each bill as the last life­boat get­ting ready to sail off in­to the ho­ri­zon,” former Sen. Murkowski staff dir­ect­or McK­ie Camp­bell re­cently told Na­tion­al Journ­al. That res­ults in loads of pet policies get­ting tossed onto bills, of­ten doom­ing the whole pro­ject (see: the re­cent en­ergy bill). By open­ing up the cal­en­dar, the Sen­ate could have time for a few more life­boats, help­ing bi­par­tis­an bills ac­tu­ally get passed.

And get­ting stuff passed is ex­actly what Amer­ic­ans would like to see. People may not agree on what they want the Sen­ate to turn in­to law, but in a re­cent Gal­lup poll, 59 per­cent of re­spond­ents said they were peeved with par­tis­an grid­lock and gen­er­al con­gres­sion­al in­ef­fect­ive­ness.

Cer­tainly, the post-nuc­le­ar Sen­ate won’t be too ef­fi­cient. The le­gis­lat­ive fili­buster will live on. And there’s no real reas­on to think that your mild-mannered sen­at­or will des­cend in­to curd­ling, le­gis­lat­ive mad­ness just by eas­ing up on ex­ec­ut­ive nom­in­a­tions. “I don’t buy the ar­gu­ment that the Sen­ate would look like the House,” says George Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity pro­fess­or and Sen­ate-afi­cion­ado Sarah Bind­er.

The rule change also won’t mean that Obama can just nom­in­ate any­one he’d like to ex­ec­ut­ive po­s­i­tions. When sen­at­ors are really, truly con­cerned about a nom­in­ee, they can kill the con­firm­a­tion without re­sort­ing to a fili­buster. Take the case of Ron Binz, Obama’s nom­in­ee to the Fed­er­al En­ergy Reg­u­lat­ory Com­mis­sion. Binz’s nom­in­a­tion was with­drawn this fall after he en­countered bi­par­tis­an dis­ap­prov­al be­fore mak­ing it out of com­mit­tee.

Even if Obama did de­cide to nom­in­ate Bill De Bla­sio as his Sec­ret­ary of Re­dis­tri­bu­tion, that could be a good thing for our polit­ic­al sys­tem. “If we deny the pres­id­ent the right to pick the people he feels he needs,” says former Utah Re­pub­lic­an Sen­at­or Bob Ben­nett, “then we are say­ing we can’t hold him ac­count­able.” De­fer­ring to the pres­id­ent for most nom­in­a­tions puts the op­pos­i­tion in a po­s­i­tion to be­ne­fit from mis­steps.

There are ob­vi­ous un­knowns about what a post-nuc­le­ar Sen­ate would really look like. It’s com­pletely pos­sible that there could be new ter­rible pro­ced­ures to re­place the old ones. But with the Sen­ate so mired in grid­lock, there’s no reas­on not to try and blow things up.

What We're Following See More »
A DARK CLOUD OVER TRUMP?
Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
2 days ago
THE LATEST

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

Source:
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY
A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.

Source:
THE LAST ROUND OF NEW HAMPSHIRE POLLS
Trump Is Still Ahead, but Who’s in Second?
1 days ago
THE LATEST

We may not be talking about New Hampshire primary polls for another three-and-a-half years, so here goes:

  • American Research Group’s tracking poll has Donald Trump in the lead with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio and John Kasich tying for second place at 16%. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 53%-41%.
  • The 7 News/UMass Lowell tracking poll has Trump way out front with 34%, followed by Rubio and Ted Cruz with 13% apiece. Among the Democrats, Sanders is in front 56%-40%.
  • A Gravis poll puts Trump ahead with 28%, followed by Kasich with 17% and Rubio with 15%.
IT’S ALL ABOUT SECOND PLACE
CNN Calls the Primary for Sanders and Trump
1 days ago
THE LATEST

Well that didn’t take long. CNN has already declared Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the winners of the New Hampshire primary, leaving the rest of the candidates to fight for the scraps. Five minutes later, the Associated Press echoed CNN’s call.

Source:
×