Fwd: Morning Bell: Will the Senate Minority Be Silenced?

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "The Heritage Foundation" <morningbell@heritage.org>
Date: January 4, 2013 7:50:22 AM GMT-06:00
To: Bobby Martin <bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com>
Subject: Morning Bell: Will the Senate Minority Be Silenced?
Reply-To: morningbell@heritage.org

To ensure email delivery directly to your inbox, please add
morningbell@heritage.org to your address book now.

If you're having trouble viewing this message, please view it online.

01/04/2013 Will the Senate Minority Be Silenced? Life is good when you're in the majority—and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) seems to believe he'll be there forever. Reid has already effectively shut down the opportunity for minority Senators to offer amendments to bills. Now he is angling to change the Senate's rules so that minority members cannot filibuster a bill. The way the Senate is set up, every Senator has the ability to debate legislation. But as Heritage senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky notes, "If members lose these abilities, the majority party will have the unchecked capability to shut off debate and pass legislation without opposition." The filibuster—famously depicted in the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington—actually doesn't happen that often. As Senator Jim DeMint wrote for Heritage in November, "The last person to engage in a genuine filibuster was the ultraliberal Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. In 2010, He spoke on the Senate floor for eight hours straight in an attempt to defeat legislation to extend tax rates." In recent years, Republicans have not filibustered legislation, despite Reid's current crusade. DeMint notes that "filibusters have not prevented the Democrat-led Senate from passing a budget over the past three years, preventing the so-called 'fiscal cliff,' or taking steps to reduce our $16 trillion and rising debt. Harry Reid has." To shut down debate takes a vote of three-fifths of the Senate. But Reid wants to change longstanding Senate rules so that a simple majority of 51 Senators could end any debate. This has been called the "nuclear option." Tweet this image Of course, Reid seems to assume that his party will never lose the majority, and this rule change would work forever in his favor. Both Reid and President Obama have previously argued against changing the rules when it wouldn't benefit them. In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama correctly argued: what [the American people] don't expect, is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet…everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster—if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate—then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse. Reid isn't the only one looking to change the Senate rules. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI) are now claiming that their plan for a bipartisan "reform" of Senate procedures is a better idea. But von Spakovsky explains that it would "create a new category of super senators who will be empowered to participate in the legislative process to the exclusion of rank-and-file members." It would concentrate power in the hands of only four Senators, excluding the other 96 from being able to offer amendments to legislation. "This proposal may be worse than Reid's because it would empower the leadership of both parties to the detriment of open debate and a free amendment process available to all members," von Spakovsky writes. The Senate's rules were set up for very good reasons. Von Spakovsky reminds us that "George Washington told Jefferson that the Senate was intended to 'cool' House legislation in the same way that a saucer was used to cool hot tea." Unlike the House, in the Senate, every state has equal representation, and every Senator should have a voice. If the rules change every time the majority party changes, the Senate will lose its ability to deliberate in the way it was designed. Print | Comments | Forward FEATURED POSTS DHS Fails Again to Implement ID Card Protections Google+ Hangout on the Fiscal Cliff Deal Corporate Welfare for Energy Companies Should Have Gone Off the Cliff VIDEO: Heritage President-Elect Jim DeMint on the Future of Conservatism President Obama Should Not Unilaterally Reduce U.S. Nuclear Arsenal QUICK HITS The unemployment rate remained at 7.8 percent in December. Hobby Lobby plans to defy the HHS mandate to provide abortion-inducing drugs in its health insurance. It could face fines of $1.3 million per day for going against the Administration. Supporters plan to shop at the retailer tomorrow, January 5, to show their appreciation for its conscience-honoring decision. Al Gore stands to make $100 million from the sale of his Current TV to Al Jazeera. According to reports, he had wanted to close the deal by December 31 to avoid 2013's higher tax rates, but wasn't able to. A federal judge has ruled that the "EPA overstepped its authority trying to regulate water as pollutant in Virginia," reports Fox News. Join us today at noon ET for a Google hangout on the fiscal cliff deal. Tweet your questions to @Heritage. Know anyone who shares your conservative values and principles and may want to receive the Heritage Foundation newsletters?  Please refer them to Heritage today! Connect with Heritage Facebook Twitter YouTube Kindle Flickr Support our work by becoming a member.  Donate today. The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002-4999 Call us at (202) 546-4400 Add morningbell@heritage.org to your address book to ensure that you receive emails from us.

You are subscribed to this newsletter as bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com. If you want to receive other Heritage Foundation newsletters or opt out of this newsletter please click here to update your subscription preferences.