Are supermajority votes in the Senate to pass all major legislation a good thing?

[Ted King]

SDGuy wrote:
Any legislation that requires lots of $$$$ to implement should require a supermajority, IMHO. Can I define what that magic cutoff amount is? Probably not, and it would change as time goes by anyway. So, for now, the current system works, more-or-less.

Well, that standard basically boils down to requiring a supermajority to do deficit spending or raising taxes. I can see where most Republicans - now - would have no problem with that. Democrats wouldn't like it, but Democrats aren't as against long term budget deficit reduction as many Republicans seem to think - the current economic situation requires short term expansion of the deficit, though. (Still pisses me off to see Republicans getting all righteous about awful budget deficits after colluding with Bush to run huge deficits for several years.) What Democrats would like to do is raise taxes on the wealthiest people to pay for programs that have broad benefit for the society (okay, broad benefit for society as they view it - a view I generally share). So isn't there grounds for a compromise? What if only legislation that would raise the national debt required a supermajority? That would require Democrats to find a simple majority of Senators to vote to raise taxes to pay for new programs or the expansion of existing programs - since the taxes would balance the cost of the programs and there would be no increase in the national debt.