http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21krugman.html
The New York Times
December 21, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
A Dangerous Dysfunction
By PAUL KRUGMAN
<snip>
So now that hard choices must be made, how can we reform the Senate to
make such choices possible?
Back in the mid-1990s two senators -- Tom Harkin and, believe it or
not, Joe Lieberman -- introduced a bill to reform Senate procedures.
(Management wants me to make it clear that in my last column I wasn't
endorsing inappropriate threats against Mr. Lieberman.) Sixty votes
would still be needed to end a filibuster at the beginning of debate,
but if that vote failed, another vote could be held a couple of days
later requiring only 57 senators, then another, and eventually a simple
majority could end debate. Mr. Harkin says that he's considering
reintroducing that proposal, and he should.
But if such legislation is itself blocked by a filibuster -- which it
almost surely would be -- reformers should turn to other options.
Remember, the Constitution sets up the Senate as a body with majority
-- not supermajority -- rule. So the rule of 60 can be changed. A
Congressional Research Service report from 2005, when a Republican
majority was threatening to abolish the filibuster so it could push
through Bush judicial nominees, suggests several ways this could happen
-- for example, through a majority vote changing Senate rules on the
first day of a new session.
Nobody should meddle lightly with long-established parliamentary
procedure. But our current situation is unprecedented: America is
caught between severe problems that must be addressed and a minority
party determined to block action on every front. Doing nothing is not
an option -- not unless you want the nation to sit motionless, with an
effectively paralyzed government, waiting for financial, environmental
and fiscal crises to strike.
<end excerpt>
Michael