The Forgotten Man wrote here about the wisdom of our founders towards the value of saying no.  George Will adds to that with this brilliant column In Praise of Saying No.  Will writes about how "Washington is reverberating with lamentations about government being "broken." and the "pretext for trying to ram health legislation through the Senate by misusing "reconciliation," which prevents filibusters."  He describes why some, particularly liberals have been arguing that the reason filibusters "are supposedly unconstitutional is that they exacerbate the Senate's flaw as "inherently unrepresentative." That is, the Founders -- who liberals evidently believe were dolts or knaves -- designed it to represent states rather than, as the House does, population."  Will goes on, "Filibusters are devices for registering intensity rather than mere numbers -- government by adding machine. Besides, has a filibuster ever prevented eventual enactment of anything significant that an American majority has desired, strongly and protractedly? Liberals say filibusters confuse and frustrate the public. The public does indeed mistakenly believe government is designed to act quickly in compliance with presidential wishes. But most ideas incubated in the political cauldron of grasping factions are deplorable. Therefore, serving the public involves -- mostly involves -- saying "No." The Bill of Rights, like traditional conservatism, effectively pronounces the lovely word "no" regarding many possible government undertakings -- establishment of religion, unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.

Saying no is a part of the democratic process put in place by our founders and I have often thought we are better off as individuals when the government stalemates on passing legislation.  Less is more, as George Will notes with this quote by Thomas Jefferson, "Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities."