Who Needs An Undersecretary Of Domestic Finance During A Recession?
For all the words that have been written about the ridiculousness of the filibuster, it may not even be the most dysfunctional aspect of the the world’s greatest deliberative body. The popular replacement for this dubious honor has to go to Senate “holds”, where one Senator can anonymously put a hold, or indefinite delay, on any executive appointment that needs Senate confirmation. This was recently brought to the foreground after the attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day, which highlighted some problems with the Transportation Security Administration. The biggest problem? There is no one in charge of the TSA. The reason? Because Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) put a hold on President Obama’s nominee, Errol Southers, because DeMint doesn’t like Southers’ position on worker unionization. Then there is this:
President Obama has nominated a variety of well-qualified officials to fill key posts in the Treasury Department, including positions with jurisdiction over tax policy and international finance. Their nominations would be approved if the Senate were allowed to vote on them.
But that’s not happening, because Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) isn’t satisfied with — get this — enforcement of prohibitions on internet gambling. Kyl wanted enforcement in January, the administration said June, so Kyl effectively responded, “No Treasury Department officials for you.”
As Matt Yglesias points out, it might be a good idea to have an Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs or an Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets, especially during a time of world-wide economic crisis. But one Senator who disagrees with a completely unrelated issue can leave one of the most important Departments short-handed just to make a point to the President.
This strikes me as part of a larger issue with the Senate – in a similar fashion to the filibuster. I can’t be the first to make this point, but there is enough ego in the Senate to power the world for years to come after we run out of oil. That’s too much. We need an alternative energy source. It’s not really anything to do with individuals, though some of them are especially egotistical. And I don’t think its necessarily a personal failure of any individual Senators, though certain Senators really don’t help matters much. The real problem is the institution of the Senate – its rules and its history. The rules give each individual Senator too much power and, more importantly, too much incentive to slow down progress, make outrageous demands, or kill bills whenever they want, and that leaves Senators with the need to do these things in order to get what they want, because if they don’t then someone else will and that Senator will be the one that needs to be given something in order to pass a bill. The Senate’s history and sense of tradition keep it from changing any of these rules to make it more efficient and in touch with the world of the 21st century (as opposed to the 19th). I mean, who actually believes that the Senate is actually the worlds “greatest deliberative body” except Senators? The House of Representatives has already passed the stimulus bill, health care reform, an energy bill, financial regulations, and a jobs bill in 2009. The Senate? Just the stimulus package and health care – and both by the slimmest of margins.
Back to Senate holds, this is not a partisan issue – though Republicans are the ones doing all the holding at the moment. This is an example of a Democratic Senator, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) holding up the confirmation of President Bush’s anti-terrorism nominations. Same situation, just as ridiculous.
It just follows the playbook that every minority party has followed since 1994: stop the majority from accomplishing anything so the public will become frustrated with the majority and vote for the minority in the next election. Forget the fact that the minority could get significant concessions that would legitimately advance their agenda from the majority if they played ball – they just want the P.R. victory that comes with the opposition failing. This favors the status quo and makes it impossible to fix some of the difficult issues that this country needs to deal with. So now a party need insanely big, once in a generation majorities in both chambers of Congress, plus the President to get anything done. And as Democrats have found in 2009 – it’s still very difficult. I blame the Senate for enabling this.
Insightful, educational, disappointing, and scary, Grahame. You could make a beat out of Senate dysfunction alone, but I like your broad take. I'll be interested in your opinion of Fishkin's book (I'll bring it to class, tomorrow).