Why Arlen Specter matters

Stephen Gordon did a wonderful job of summing up the reactions to Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party this week. There's been a lot of talk about the Pennsylvanian Senator's change of heart, and rightfully so. He was a Republican for 43 years until April 28, when he declared that he would become a Democrat.

With most of the politicos and bloggers saying, "good riddance," one might wonder, "what's the big deal? So some old coot in Pennsylvania is switching teams- what difference does it make?"

Well, my friends, it makes a difference. It all has to do with cloture. And filibustering. And possibly other silly-sounding, but official words.

Since the average American doesn't understand much about his government, a brief explanation of Senate rules:

Occasionally, when a bill makes it onto the floor, and through committee, the Senate will vote on it. (See below.)




If a bill is particularly contentious, a Senator or group of Senators may feel the desire to stop its progress. The Constitution doesn't limit the Senate (or the House) to a specific amount of time when debating whether or not a bill should become law. (I think the idea was that the Senators and Congressmen would take their job seriously and not rush into passing laws that should never have been passed. Good idea.) Unfortunately, this means that to keep a bill from being passed, any Senator can filibuster. Filibustering is talking, sometimes about nothing, to prevent the group from voting on the prospective bill. In an effort to stop a certain piece of legislation from going through, a Senator can effectively talk about anything- what he ate that morning, the entire plotline of Lost, etc. That's good news for him, but bad news for everyone else, particularly those who are trying to pass the bill.

And then Senate Rule 22 was born: cloture. President Wilson thought it would be a good idea for there to be some limits on how long Senators could filibuster. With Rule 22 in place, a filibuster can be overruled by a supermajority of Senators. In a full chamber, that means 60.

And here we come to the crux of Specter's importance. There are currently 40 Republican Senators, and now, with Specter's defection, 59 Senators who vote Democrat. There is one contested seat in Minnesota. If Al Franken wins the seat against Norm Coleman, and it's looking as though things may go that way, then the Democrats will hold 60 seats, and maintain a supermajority over the Republicans.

What that means is that virtually any measures proposed by the Dems will go through, and the GOP will have no chance of stopping them. Ordinarily this would not be such a big problem, but with socialist measures such as the stimulus package getting passed, and Obama signing them all into law, things are looking bleaker and bleaker.

A look at Mellonomics

In the wake of our recession, and the Tea Parties, and the continuing economic stimuli, supporters of Obama's policies ask, "what's your solution, then?" Fellow libertarians are undoubtedly quick to claim that we need to reduce spending, particularly deficit spending, but also to cut taxes, eradicated social security, privatize roadways and health insurance... the list goes on and on with lovely ideas that we have, but that no one else is buying.

But there once was a time when the Secretary of the Treasury followed his own rules, and proposed monumental tax cuts, and saw unemployment rates as low as 1.8%. That time was in the 20s. And that man was Andrew Mellon.

Mellon served in the Cabinet from 1921 to 1932, under three presidents. When the crash hit in 1929, and the Depression spread, his policies and ideals seemed significantly less unfavorable. Many who began to hate on Hoover thought that he shared Mellon's lassez-faire attitude (though he didn't). Mellon's proposals of liquidation rubbed the common masses the wrong way, and he was out of the Cabinet before Roosevelt took office.

The main thought behind Mellon's theories was quite simple- if the taxes are lowered, then people will object less to paying them, and they will pay them, instead of trying to find ways around them. With more people paying taxes, the revenue increases. Genius. His plan had some highlights:

Cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24%.

Cut taxes on low incomes from 4% to 0.5%.

Reduce the Federal Estate tax.

Efficiency in government.

Some of these measures seem dramatic. The last one seems impossible. But under Mellon, the country saw economic growth. The national debt fell from $26 billion in 1921 to $16 billion in 1930. Mellon was an advocate of supply-side economics before it had a name, and was a forebear of Reagonomics (though without the increase of administrative spending).

In short, here is a model for us. Here is a potential answer. Tax cuts so the revenue can increase. Can we dig ourselves out of a projected $20 trillion debt? It may take some time. And responsibility. (Ok, a lot of responsibility.) But the very least we can do, I think, is to remember Andrew Mellon, perhaps with a bit of nostalgia.