If you honestly think think both sides are "abusing the same power", you clearly are oblivious.

Which your proposal to abolish the filibuster further proves: it would make governing even more a "winner-takes-all" game. Or ranked choice voting: you can't even stop Republicans from gerrymandering. (And no, gerrymandering is not done by "both sides". California did it as reprisal and put provisions to get back to a fair system when Republicans stop gerrymandering. And gerrymandering is the official strategy of the GOP from bottom to top.)

Your quote "abusing the same power" appears nowhere in my post. I am saying that neither Democrats nor Republicans, when they get into power, do anything to bring the deficit down to 3% of GDP as is recommended by economists, or to constrain the military actions and executive orders of the President on their side. I'm not making a "both sides are equally bad" argument, I'm saying that neither side is doing what it would take to fix the problem.

I'm willing to go either way on the fillibuster; that was just one example which the article talks about. In particular, they talk about filibuster reform rather than abolishing it, so I may have worded it too strongly in my original post. Still, I think there's a legitimate argument that the increase in use of the filibuster over the past few decades has had the practical consequence of delegating legislative power to the Executive branch.