Two Northwest House Democrats turned thumbs down on the conference committee stimulus package. Idaho’s Walt Minnick, coming from the Blue Dog conservative side, wasn’t hard to understand; like most of the other critics, he thought there was too much spending and too little likelihood the bill would get the job done. And he had the credibility of having developed an alternative of his own: “My bill was a high-powered rifle. This bill is a shotgun, and it will add nearly $1 trillion we do not have to a debt already out of control.” So, siding with the Republicans.

But then there too was the nay from Oregon’s Peter DeFazio – for almost exactly the opposite reasons. Too many cuts from the bill for spending proposals, in DeFazio’s view.

Of course, no one knows exactly what will work best to pump some adrenaline into the economy.

Some further attention ought to go, though, to one suggestion DeFazio had – a procedural one applying to the Senate.

The idea in the Senate is that to pass controversial legislation, you have to have not just a simple majority (50 senators and the vice president, if all are present and voting) but 60 votes to override a filibuster. The Senate rule basically is that you can’t stop a senator from speaking on the floor – for hours or days – unless you round up 60 votes for “cloture.” In recent years, we haven’t seen many real filibusters, instead abbreviating to the idea that you need 60 votes to force a bill to the floor if the minority says it even might try to filibuster.

DeFazio’s suggestion (according to the Bend Bulletin): Eliminate the niceties. If the Republicans, or anyone else, wants to filibuster, let ‘em filibuster. Make ‘em work for it. Let it all out there. For that matter, entertain us – and point up what’s at stake at the same time.

Here’s a case where some bread and circuses could actually result in better lawmaking . . .