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 »
LEGACY PLAY
Sanders and Clinton Spar Over … President Obama
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama became a surprise topic of contention toward the end of the Democratic debate, as Hillary Clinton reminded viewers that Sanders had challenged the progressive bona fides of President Obama in 2011 and suggested that someone might challenge him from the left. “The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans, I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama,” she said. “Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” replied Sanders, before getting in another dig during his closing statement: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

THE 1%
Sanders’s Appeals to Minorities Still Filtered Through Wall Street Talk
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”

DIRECT APPEAL TO MINORITIES, WOMEN
Clinton Already Pivoting Her Messaging
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.

THE QUESTION
How Many Jobs Would Be Lost Under Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer System?
17 hours ago
THE ANSWER

More than 11 million, according to Manhattan Institute fellow Yevgeniy Feyman, writing in RealClearPolicy.

Source:
WEEKEND DATA DUMP
State to Release 550 More Clinton Emails on Saturday
17 hours ago
THE LATEST

Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.

Source:
×