Yes, I support a 60 vote Senate. It makes legislating more difficult, and since much legislation involves very high compliance costs for the private sector, slowing the pace of new legislation is a good idea. Members of Congress and state legislatures are biased in favor of passing bills, it makes them feel important and useful, and I think it is good to remember Calvin Coolidge's admonition to the Massachusetts legislature to "allow administration to catch up with legislation." It is clear, for example, that although the Dodd-Frank bill became law in 2010, financial regulation has not yet caught up with that legislation, as many of the required deadlines for rulemaking were missed by the executive branch.
Agree completely with the above poster. I'd support a 90-vote Senate.
If anyone doubts that this blog is just another partisan pile-on, observe how few responses these questions get now.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
If I read this right, the complaint is that because far fewer people engage the question for conservatives than engage the question for liberals, then the blog is biased and not useful?That's one theory.Another is that many conservatives no longer want to engage in forums that aren't just +1s for their ideological position.Bernstein seems to want to engage a variety of voices and commenters. That conservatives demur isn't evidence to me that he's the problem.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
At The Washington Post
At The American Prospect