My first reaction is no, then again in some ways it is and others not so much. Filibusters are a major problem in the Senate, to argue something to death is just not the answer. Since the house does not allow it why does the Senate? The filibuster is to stop any bill from being voted on it seems Unconstitutional. There is no such rule on filibusters in the Constitution. Progress can not be done with constant filibusters, in the Constitution the two houses are to make their own rules, so in fact it is Constitutional.(US Constitution)The main issue we look at is it ethical. If one Senator does not agree with a proposed bill they are allowed to talk as long as they want. The problem is they can go on and on about anything, it may not have anything to do with the proposed bill. Frankly, it wastes tax payer’s money our taxes pay these Senators salaries when they are in session and listening to a filibuster for weeks on end people should be disturbed by that. If you do not agree with a bill even if you know it will pass without your vote, what are you to do? Apparently the Senators feel they can deliberately waste time of Senators and money of the tax payers. You can track the Federalist Papers and get some clarification on filibusters, I am not quite sure it is what the framers intended it to be used for. "All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by tenure of considerable duration." Considerable duration is one thing, 24 hours and 18 minutes of speaking is another, as did Senator Strom Thurmond in 1957 when debating civil rights? That is a clear waste of time and tax payers money. That bill passed in any matter, but it also wasted tax payer money as well.
The elected officials of today all remark on spending less and getting people more jobs. This lack of personal responsibility from our officials is part of the reason for the debt crisis in the first place. If the House and the Senate would spend more time on job creating bills and less time on minor things it would make more sense. Today the House for example is passing through several bills that will die in the Senate. Needless to say the House being majority Republican and the Senate majority is Democrat; most will die when it reaches the Senate. I have said it before; compromise is a great tool more officials need to work on. The main issue Americans face is jobs, mortgages, and inflation. These are key issues both houses can work on to satisfy majority of Americans. It seems like both Democratic and Republican officials have an agenda to make their opposing party look bad. Watching this piece of American history unfold is frustrating, it seems both parties want the same thing, but at the same time they do not want to admit it. It is a wonder if the officials actually agree or they are saying these things to get elected.
The main example I have for elected officials not doing what they say they will after winning an election is the Patriot Act. Mainly Tea Party Republican Candidates all went on and on about upholding Constitutional values. The Patriot Act takes away the 4th amendment as well as several others. 77.5% of tea party backed candidates voted to extend this law, which are 31 of the 40 in the House. It seems it is another case of a candidate lying to get what they want.