Harry Now! HarryThen!

When George "W" Bush proposed private accounts for Social Security, good ole Harry Reid, the then-Minority Leader of the Senate, was afraid that the Republicans might use "Reconciliation" with a simple 51% majority to get those accounts into law; thus bypassing the 60-vote threshold to break any blocking filibuster in the Senate. As we now know, the Republicans never attempted such a tactic and private accounts for Social Security were never passed into law.

However, still fearing the potential use of "Reconciliation" to change Social Security, Harry made an impassioned plea on the Senate floor (see video below) to maintain the historical rules of the Senate and to be true to the framers of the Constitution. Now, of course, with ObamaCare effectively dead in the Senate because the Democrats lost their super-majority to ward off any filibuster, Harry sees no problem in skirting the Senate rules by using the nuclear option, Reconciliation, and a simple 51% of Democrats to illegitimately pass health care reform.

It's no wonder why Obama, Harry, and the rest of the Democrats have lost so much of America's trust!

The Wisdom of Our Founders

People don't realize how well thought out our system of government truly is. Built into that system is a series of checks and balances that are almost unmatched by any other form of government. While most people understand the primary "check and balance" system is that of the three Branches -- the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial -- they sometimes overlook the differences that were intentionally designed into the two Houses of Congress: The House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

The House of Representatives is truly a representative form of democracy: Purely republican (little "r" republican) in its structure. It's republican because its membership is, in theory, equally apportioned by the population within each state (although, the two political parties are always trying to skew the apportioning process so they wind up with more representatives than their opposing party).

But, what most people don't realize is that the Senate is "intentionally" less representative. In our system of government, each state, whether large or small or rich or poor, still has only two Senators. In its simplicity and brilliance, the structure of the U.S. Senate gives little states and poorer states the same amount of power as the wealthier and more populous states. So, in effect, the Senate is the great equalizer.

Recently, some democrats have been calling for the elimination of the super-majority requirement to abate or kill the filibusterer. Of course, this cry-out for change only comes after this President and this Congress lost its super-majority following the results of the Massachusetts Senate election. The latest call comes from that pillar of completely partisan politics: Tom Harkin of Iowa (Click to See Full Story: "Some Democratic Senators Want to End Filibusters")

The Democrats, whose party name is supposedly built on the word Democracy, never seem to be satisfied with the rules of our Democracy. When John Kerry was running for the Presidency and the Dems thought he would win, the Democrats in control of the Massachusetts legislature voted for a special election replacement of his Senate seat because they thought that, under the current rule, the then-Republican Governor, Mitt Romney, might appoint a Republican to replace Kerry. Then, later, when Ted Kennedy died and they had a Democratic Governor in control, they voted to go back to the Governor's power of appointing a replacement for Kennedy. Now, in another "rule" busting attempt, because the filibuster rule doesn't fit their political agenda, they want to abandon the super-majority rule so they can completely pass their left wing agenda unabated.

In my opinion, the filibuster rule should stand. Our founders wanted the Senate to be something other than a rubber-stamp for one political party, a single ideology, or for the benefit of the big and powerful states. They wanted Senators to work together for the benefit of this country and the filibuster does just that. That's why the Senate is special and its rules should remain special and not just based on some simple majority rule concept.

When Our Government Has No Boundaries

We may be at a stage in our government when as much as half the population in this country will have no voice. That's because, in January, the reins of government might be completely in the control of the Democrats. When I say completely, I mean it. There is a distinct possibility that we will not only have a Democratic President and Democratically controlled Congress, but, also, the upper chamber of our Congress, the United States Senate, may have enough control to be both veto-proof and, more importantly, filibuster-proof. Not since 1977 and the Carter Administration has this country been in a similar situation and one could hardly point to those years following that fact as being the bright spot in this country's history.

What does this mean to America? Basically, it means that the loyal opposition, the Republicans, have no means at their disposal to stop the steamrolling of liberal policies through our government. The best that they could hope for is that a few centrist Democrats (like the Blue Dogs) that will help protect this country by standing with the Republicans in what could be the greatest and farthest left-wing agenda that this country has every seen.

Our Constitution is unique in that it was intentionally designed to, normally, protect us from dominant control. The entire constitution was designed with "representation" in mind and with a concern over checks and balances by having separate and distinct branches of government. If you recall, the rallying cry for the independence movement from England was "taxation without representation". So, the concept of representation was paramount in the creation of our unique form of government.

However, at the time our Constitution was drafted, the concept of two strong political parties was not considered a possibility. At that time, the closest thing to a political party were the Whigs (also called the Patriot Whigs) that were, in essence, our American Revolutionaries. These Whigs were in contrast with the loyalists who had no objection to British rule.

When our government and Constitution was establish, I am sure that no one would have thought that there would be such a thing as a "solid voting" block of ideology that we now call a political party. I am sure that our founders believed that any Congressman or Senator would only vote to best serve their specific constituencies (their districts and their states) and would not be serving the broader wishes of some political movement like a political party.

My guess is that this future Democratically controlled government of Obama/Pelosi/Reid will overstep their powers and their complete control will be as short-lived as was the Congress of 1977. If so, expect that the election of 2010 will undo much of what may be about to be done in this year's election. In essence, expect our country to "Vote the bums out" by electing some Republicans to minimize the control by the Democrats. Also, if history does repeat itself, Barack Obama is probably doomed to just one term; just as Jimmy Carter was.

Unfortunately, there could be a lot of damage done to this country if we have one political party in control and that party has no boundaries. Laws could be enacted like the Fairness Doctrine and the Union Card Check System that could have a massive effect on the long term direction of true democracy in this country. Tax credits can be given that can never be taken away. Tax increases could be enacted that could have disastrous effects on our currently fragile economy. Our military could be weakened to the extent that we are at risk when Russia and China are strengthening their own military complexes. The effect on our Judicial System with the appointment of Federal Judges and Supreme Court Judges may further erode the purpose of our Judiciary as being a separate check against the Legislative and Executive branches of our government. If too many "activist" judges (which are appointments for life) infiltrate the Judiciary, we could have a continuance of Democratic rule because progressive-minded and liberal-minded Judges would literally legislate from the "benches" of our court system.

The extent of liberal/progressive/socialistic programs that can be imposed on this country can almost be limitless. Don't expect a President Barack Obama to make the tough decisions to veto any of that. My opinion is that he will just continue to do what he has done in the past. He will sign his party's legislation and, like all those times he voted "present" in the Illinois Senate, he will never want to rock the boat on tough issues that might not be right for this country. There will be absolutely no working across the aisle with the Republicans because he won't need to. Just mark my words.