This week, I like to think that Washington, D.C. has that back to school feeling. Senators

and members of Congress, heading back to the Capitol, getting ready to do the people's

work. Slates Jim Newell, he is here to burst my bubble.

Everyone will come back and, you know, they're going to have a lot of work to do on government

spending bills, and they may want to take up some gun legislation. We'll see if they're

still the movement to do that, but it's not really too dramatic. I don't know if people

just come back pretty quickly and pick up right where they left off, which is doing very

little. Jim lives in the muck of the swamp. So he can see this vast disconnect between what

politicians say and what they're actually able to do. Just try watching a democratic debate

with this guy. He's like, Medicare for all, free college. They can't even reauthorize

the Violence Against Women Act over here.

I mean, being a Congress reporter has ruined me, you know, in terms of having any hope,

really. I watch it, I'm just like, this is never going to happen. You can promise

everything, but if you don't change the rules, the chances of it happening are pretty slim.

One of those rules that some people in Washington are starting to think we should change.

Is the filibuster. That's because it's become all but a requirement that legislation passed

the Senate with 60 votes instead of a simple majority. I mean, make the case. Why should

we eliminate the filibuster?

Well, I think right now we have a system where we have an election. One party does really

well. They take over the government. And then for some reason, nothing that they campaign

non can get through Congress. I think people don't really understand this and they start

to wonder what's the point of these elections if nothing could happen. You know, why

...