Given the GOP House, the lack of legislation will not change whatever the filibuster rule (the Senate Pubs, some of them, play ball more with the Dems than the House Pubs do anyway). If the Dems controlled the House, Reid might have killed the filibuster in all its aspects. Instead, he just changed it in circumstances where the House is not in play. In any event, the Pubs would be insane not to kill it all off if they get the trifecta in 2016. And that would be grand. That way, the party in power gets to do its thing, and be held responsible for it in ensuing elections, as opposed to this cf where nobody is responsible for anything, and it is just a finger pointing game as to who is responsible for gridlock, and who is being unreasonable in not compromising. What a concept!
Gosh, I wish we had a parliamentary system, rendering this all moot. The US system of government, despite claims to the contrary, is not the most perfect system known to man, inspired by divine providence suffusing and inspiring and guiding the minds of our Founders. Who knew?
I am in complete agreement with you. If either party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2017, the filibuster should die immediately. If President Hillary Clinton wants to pass single-payer healthcare or if President Chris Christie wants to push through privatization of Social Security and/or Medicare, then so be it. They should and would ultimately be held accountable by the voters. I'm a firm believer that elections have consequences.
I'm also 100% in agreement with you that the US would be far better off with a parliamentary system. Party leadership in a parliamentary system tends not to cave to an extremist base, not to mention that the party in power is completely accountable for its actions or lack of action.
