It's been frustrating watching the filibuster force a 60 vote supermajority for the stimulus and thus substantially worsening the bill. The spectacle has even led to some calls to eliminate the filibuster. But as David Waldman explains, this one isn't the filibuster's fault (or at least, it isn't solely the filibuster's fault). Rather, the Senate is operating under Pay-Go rules, which state that "it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit." That said, you can waive Pay-Go in the event that you need to do some deficit spending. But waiving Pay-Go requires a 3/5ths majority, or 60 votes. Oops. Which doesn't obviate the logic of calls to dismantle the filibuster. If Pay-Go wasn't forcing 60 votes, the filibuster would happily take up the charge. This, however, remains David Broder's town; we just live in it. A majority party probably can't abolish the filibuster without substantial media blowback. It's too naked a power grab. But what if they passed legislation that phased the filibuster out after six years, which is to say, a full Senate election cycle? Then it's hard to say who would benefit from the rule change. It wouldn't be partisan. It would be a recognition that the filibuster has been ripped from its original purpose as a rarely invoked minority protection and used to radically transform the United States Senate into a supermajority -- and thus deeply undemocratic -- institution.
