Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT
I'm not sure one is necessarily better than the other. Certainly, the Senate has its unique advantages. It has the exclusive advise-and-consent power over presidential appointments, most notably Supreme Court justicies. Second, while revenue bills must originate in the House, a bill that passes the House is sent to the Senate, which is free to "amend" such a bill by deleting the text entirely and replacing it with its own text--keep in mind that the health care reform law was the Senate's bill (of course, any such bill passed by the Senate must then pass the House). Third, from a historical standpoint, the Senate is the country's great equalizer--California has as many senators as Wyoming. So, again, I'm not sure the House is clearly the superior body to have.
|
When the economy is the issue, like now, and you have been labelled as having no effective plan, like the Republicans have been, then the House gives you the opportunity to lay out grand schemes, win bipartisan votes at the expense of your extreme side, and show the country what you can offer.
When the economy is good, then the Senate becomes a good place because you can take "principled stands", like blocking judges, or amending legislation.
Yes both bodies have their purpose, I was thinking solely of the current environment and political gamesmanship.