Past v. Future

I watched a clip featuring Bill Maher from an appearance on the Lawrence O'Donnell show on MSNBC. I find I agree with him far more often than not and this time was no exception. He made a specific statement that struck me. While talking about the debt ceiling negotiations he noted it's stupid to lump the debt limit with budget deals because the debt ceiling is about the past and the budget is about the future. This seems to nail the issue rather well.

Few will argue that our past spending habits as a nation were flawed, to say the least. Too many short-sighted decisions, most of them completely unaccounted for in the budget, have piled up a tremendous amount of national debt. Some expenditures may well have been necessary, but many were not. Put simply, it was just easier to put it on credit than to bother adjusting our budget to pay for it. Don't get me wrong, there are times when you have to do that, but they should not be that common. So now our debt is in the $14 Trillion range and projected budget deficits are still way into the red. This has to not only stop, but we have to put some plans into place to begin paying down the national debt to a more manageable level. But let's be clear, the debt is the past. Debt: "Something, typically money, that is owed or due." Past-tense. The money is spent, the clothes have been worn and the food has been eaten. No amount of whining, moaning or cuts to current spending will change that. If we didn't spend one more penny on new expenditures, we would still owe $14 Trillion. So let's stop fighting about the balance of our current debt. We owe the money and we have to pay it back, honoring our prior commitments. So let's just raise the limit on a clean, no frills bill and move onto the next crisis!

Where the real debate should be taking place is with the federal budget. This is about future spending and has no place in a debt ceiling debate. This is the messy part. It would be nice if we could debate it without all the partisan crap that has brought the sticky gears of Congress to near standstill. We really do have to look at everything, including the military, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, federal agencies and programs. But this needs to be done with a scalpel, not a hatchet. We want the patient to make a full recovery, not require prosthetics and plastic surgery!

We didn't get into this mess in a single decade, so we ain't getting out of it overnight. We need to approach the problem of the national debt and the budget deficits calmly and rationally. All sides must be willing to give a little. That means looking at entitlement programs for any possible savings without cutting benefits, such as raising the retirement age a few years. It means closing stupid loopholes in the tax code that allow highly profitable companies and fund managers to get special breaks that have no purpose other than to make them richer. It means looking at the military budget, especially drawing down the wars and reducing permanent overseas bases. It also means killing the unpaid for Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy.

I admit I'm not optimistic because these days there seem to be so few reasonable people in Congress. Especially after the November 2010 election debacle which ushered in a wave of uber-conservative politicians who seem to be completely out of touch with reality. Look, we've wasted months arguing about this and accomplished nothing. The debate has even managed to fracture the Republican party itself. The Republican Speaker of the House can't even get his own bills passed without days of delayed votes and arm twisting. And worse yet, he wasted all that time and effort on a bill that was never going to pass the Senate! Bottom line, we have to pay our bills, and meet our obligations, so raise the debt limit with no strings. The budget must be addressed, but not like this. Not in the last seconds before the car goes over the cliff. Stop risking a full blown depression for political leverage!

The Farce Continues

Am I the only one who wonders why the Republicans in the House, who were so gung-ho to rein in spending, are continuing to waste their time and our money in pursuit of the meaningless and the trivial? Only a few days ago the House passed a piece of legislation called "Repealing of the Job Killing Health Care Law". Subtle, eh? Also in the House, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), newly minted Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is making threats to start endless investigations into the Obama Administration. Not for any specific abuses, as far as I can tell, but more in the realm of a touchdown dance now that the GOP has retaken control of the House of Representatives.  Both are pointless, petty and completely out of touch with the real problems facing the country and more of a demonstration of political gamesmanship than anything else.

As far as health reform repeal is concerned, let's all remember that it is functionally impossible for Republicans to repeal health reform at this time. Maybe if they win the Presidency or the Senate in 2012 it would be feasible, but not now. They can pass any idiotic notion they want in the House and no doubt this item is only the first, but it will then go to the other side of the Capital and vanish from sight. The Senate will never debate it, much less pass it. And even if it were passed, the President will veto it and an override would require the support of two-thirds of both houses, which will not happen. Not to mention the question of why you would want to in the first place. It's not perfect and parts of it will be debated and challenged, but it includes a lot of good things. It's also true that the Congressional Budget Office and other non-aligned groups have consistently said that this law will save money over the next decade. I realize the GOP had to go through the formalities for those supporters too ignorant of how the government functions to realize what an empty promise repeal actually was, but the gesture has been made, now let's move on!

Then we have the oft voiced threat to hold a long series of vague and pointless House investigations of the Obama Administration. Really? So we went through 8 years of the Bush Administration redefining torture in such a way to make it legal, had the rendition of suspects to secret locations outside the reach of our laws and the maintenance of an offshore gulag. Then Obama tries to do exactly what he was elected to do and this is a problem. It is as transparent a political game as you are likely to see. And in DC that's saying something. But it's only the opening salvo of the newly GOP controlled House as they pursue their most important agenda item for the next couple years; prevent Obama from winning reelection in 2012. I do not exaggerate. Senate Minority Leader McConnell actually told a conservative gathering last year that preventing Obama from winning a second term was their top priority. He actually said that, even as we deal with rampant unemployment, economic desolation and a rising national debt. It is comforting to know that our elected officials continue to be focused on the future. Not America's, unfortunately, but certainly that of the GOP. To say this behavior angers me would be like saying that Hurricane Katrina got a few people wet.

It's way past time for the conservatives to stop acting like Obama is some far left radical. I use the term 'act' literally, as most of these people know full well that this President is the most centrist, pragmatic Chief Executive we've seen in over 30 years. He has consistently taken conservative ideas and incorporated them into his policy proposals. Consistently he's been open to GOP suggestions. Consistently he has irritated the more progressive wing of his party for not taking up the charge on many liberal causes, such as gay marriage. Yet he has consistently been portrayed among conservative politicians and talking heads as an out of control, frothing liberal. Why? Because a centrist, popular Democrat is a GOP nightmare. They didn't know what to do with him when he was elected. The last thing they wanted was to help him and thereby hurt their chances of beating him in 2012, so they did the only thing they could . . . they made things up. They began a narrative that was a lie. It was obvious to most of us who actually looked at the policies and ignored the rhetoric, but many have bought into it and that is a tragedy. It's depressing to imagine all that could have been done, if only America were more important than politics. It's also depressing that so many Americans actually believe the drivel being spouted to by those who have no reason whatsoever to cooperate with this Administration. That's how they won back the House. Some Americans are so shortsighted and impatient that they couldn't even give Obama his full term before throwing up their hands in frustration. Guess it's true, in a Democracy you do get the government you deserve.

Lame Duck, Better than No Duck at All

A surprisingly productive 'Lame Duck' session of Congress has come to an end. It's been called the most productive Lame Duck session ever, though I can't speak to that myself. But it's without a doubt the most productive this Congress has been over the last year. That is the sad part. After a year of near absolute stone walling on even the most vanilla bills and nominations, it's astonishing how fast things can be passed under threat of being forced to work over the holidays. Democrats certainly have their issues, but I must say that the way the GOP crumbles like overcooked ginger snaps every Christmas is both pathetic and endlessly amusing. So much for integrity and sticking by your values.

"I will not compromise!" (Generic GOP Senator)

"We will stay and work through the holidays till we get this settled!" (Dem Majority Leader)

"Hey, look at the time! Let's ink this deal!" (Generic GOP Senator)

To add to the fun, there are a number of GOP Congresspersons really ticked off at how well they were played this Holiday season. This includes the ever amusing and often nonsensical Representatives Steve King (R-Iowa) and Michele Bachmann (R- Min). Seeing as they are deeply offended by pretty much anything that doesn't originate from their own spokesman, I generally ignore them both. A shame voters in their states failed to do the same. The general sentiment is that Democrats didn't play fair by actually trying to legislate after the mid-terms. How dare they continue to work till closing time! The GOP has this weird idea that Congressional work should stop the instant the elections are certified. I'm sure they wouldn't feel that way if the November results were reversed, but hypocrisy is a respected tradition for Republicans, so no surprise there. Democrats do it as well, but rarely with the same style and commitement. What is interesting is that at least one Republican House member, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas), has 'tweeted' her intention to re-introduce a motion to dismantle the Lame Duck altogether. In other words Congress would adjourn for the elections and not reconvene till January, thus giving us two months without a functioning Congress. Sorry, I meant to say sitting Congress. It hasn't really functioned consistently for several years now.

Talk about 'taking my ball and going home'! It's these stupid things that have wasted way too much political time lately. Ideas that are pointless and only matter to specific people or parties at this specific moment in time. I might, I stress might, understand if the Dems had rushed through a bunch of controversial bills in December over the unified opposition of Republicans, but they didn't. Remember the Dems only really controlled the House. The Senate, while having a Dem majority, has that wonderful filibuster rule that allows the minority to pretty much prevent anything they don't like from even being discussed. This has been invoked at least 136 times during the now ended session of Congress. More than doubling its use from any previous session. But the real kicker is that these bills that passed were only controversial politically. Polls showed Americans firmly behind them all and even most Republicans would admit that they supported them in principle. But they blocked them out of pure political calculation.

- Tax Cut Bill to extend the current tax rates for a further 2 years. Passed with 37 Republican votes. Not surprising considering it was made up heavily of pro-Republican tax provisions, many of which will grow the deficit significantly over the next few years. Typical of Republican 'fiscal responsibility'.

- 'New START' Treaty to renew the US-Russian nuclear inspection and arms reduction agreement. Passed with 13 Republican votes.

- 9/11 First Responder bill to provide healthcare assistance to those who developed serious illnesses as a direct result of their weeks and months breathing in toxic dust at the ground zero World Trade Center site. Incidentally this bill was fully paid for yet seemed to have been nearly killed by Republican obstruction till a last surge, led by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show among others, shamed Congress into action. In the end it garnered Yes votes from ALL Republican Senators.

- Bill to Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', which had been fought tooth and nail despite as much as 70% public support and the support of the President, Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Passed with 8 Republican votes.

Call It What You Want, But Kill It

Old school Senators might call it Rule 22. More recently it's been referred to as the the need for a 'Supermajority'. However it's more common name is the Filibuster. Put simply, the Filibuster is a Senate procedural rule whereby the minority can use various procedures to draw out, delay and obstruct a piece of legislation, ideally to the point of stopping it.  There is a good article on it on Wikipedia, it's a bit dry, but interesting.

Initially this rule required the opposition to basically takeover the floor of the Senate with speeches and whatnot in a constant stream of noise, thus preventing any other legislation from being discussed, functionally shutting down the Senate until either they ran out of steam or the other side caved. Then in the 1960s a Two Track system was devised that, with unanimous consent or agreement between the Majority and Minority leaders, a Filibustered bill could be set aside to deal with other pressing matters, so the Senate would not be completely stopped, though that particular bill would be in stasis. This didn't prevent the 1964 Civil Rights Act from being Filibustered for 75 hours, including a 14 hr 13 min address by Senator Robert Byrd. At least this type of process requires everyone to stay on the job and it became an endurance test to see if the minority could hold the floor 24/7. But it's been simplified recently to allow the minority leader to simply tell the majority leader that they intend to Filibuster and all discussion stops until or unless the majority can find 60 votes to override it. A questionable change, to be sure.

Now I can see how this option is a useful tool for the minority when they feel a specific piece of legislation is a really bad idea and therefore they have to take extraordinary steps in an attempt to stop it or at least delay as long as possible to try and change a few key votes. By and large this is how the Filibuster was used for much of its history. Until recently anyway. Use of the Filibuster began to rise throughout the 20th century, but it wasn't till the 1990's that it began to edge into the sphere of abuse. Yet it didn't reach the current level of pathetic stupidity till the Republicans began losing control of Congress in 2006. The current session of Congress has already more than doubled the use of this Senate rule . . . and this session is not over yet!

What it all boils down to is that the Republican party was scared silly after the 2008 elections. They were terrified that Obama and the Democrats, who were voted into power by a comfortable margin, might actually accomplish something and continue to gain popularity. So they took a rule designed for special use and began applying it in virtually every single debate. Even going to the extreme of using it to stop legislation from simply coming to the floor for discussion! It's hard for me to imagine many instances for legitimately obstructing the mere discussion of a proposal. Yet this is where we find ourselves today. A forty one vote minority in the Senate , forty until last month, has decided that it is politically vital that no Obama supported proposals pass. Period. Call me a radical, but that is not a good enough reason to bring the Senate, and by extension Congress as a whole, to a complete halt. It is not an exaggeration to say that this has never happened in the history of the Senate. Individual bills here and there, yes. Throwing roadblocks up for just about every major bill for over a year and still counting? Never.

If you were reading carefully you will have noted the use of the word 'Rule'. That's because the Filibuster is not a Constitutional Senatorial structure, but rather a rule created by the Senate itself. Therefore it can be changed by the Senate and indeed has been modified a number of times throughout its history. Now is another one of those times. The Filibuster was never meant to allow the minority to bring Congress to a halt each time a bill was introduced. It was a special use option, not a standard procedure. The only thing that makes it even possible now is the absolute, lock-step voting block that is the GOP. The Senate Republicans have managed to lock up every single GOP vote, for almost every single piece of legislation. And they vote 'No' with that block on anything that President Obama supports. It is unheard of for a single party to hold together like this on vote after vote and issue after issue. It is stupid and it is illogical. Are we to believe that every single piece of legislation that Obama supports is bad? Really? Even under Bush, some Dems voted for Republican bills and vice versa. It is not believable that ALL Republican Senators agree on every single issue. It is obviously political gamesmanship of the most dishonorable sort. This has become more obvious as Senator after Senator is being caught vocally shouting down ideas that they, themselves supported only a short time before. One of my favorites is the so called 'PayGo' legislation. It declares that Congress cannot enact legislation without also including a way to pay for it. It's an idea that will shock many. Not because of the bill itself, but from the realization that this isn't standard procedure! Guess that would explain the ballooning deficit since this practice was stopped during G.W. Bush's tenure. In fact, this was a major part of what gave us budget surpluses during the tail end of the Clinton administration. PayGo is the kind of idea that should send a sensual thrill through anyone who calls themselves a Fiscal Conservative. In fact, many Republicans have spoken out in support the idea in the recent past. Or they did before Obama lent it his support. Shortly thereafter, GOP support vanished like a lobbyist at a press conference.

It can only be assumed that the GOP feels the success of their party in the 2010 mid-term elections is far more important than minor things like uninsured Americans or debt reduction. Oh, they talk about these things, incessantly, But they just don't do anything about them. If they did, they would have to engage the Dems and the Administration in actual . . . (gulp) dialog. Then they would be open to attack from the ignorantly conservatives out there who have convinced themselves that if Obama likes it, then it must be (gasp!) Socialism!!! The GOP made this particular bed with meticulously crafted hospital corners and now they can't get out of bed at all. If they do their jobs and work with the Administration, they anger their base, hence the perpetual Senate Fillibuster. So we are left with a significant, though still minority portion, of our legislature that has taken to misusing the tools at its disposal for transparently political reasons. Much like a child using a jackhammer to hang a picture. And like that child, it's past time to take that tool away from them before they cause any more damage. They've abused it beyond any rational point, so it's time to revoke it and move on. Someone has to govern in a time of war and economic hardship and if the GOP is unwilling to do so, then Obama and the Democrats will have to do it without them. To do that, the Filibuster MUST DIE.

Write your Senators and let them know how you feel. Tell the Republicans that it's time to do the job they were hired for and tell the Democrats to stop wasting time and remove the one tool Republicans have continually used to jam the machinery of government.

Non-Workings of the US Senate

Here's a great article by Ezra Klein of the Washington Post on how the US Senate works, or rather . . . doesn't. It's an interesting read. Here's an excerpt:

"To understand why the modern legislative process is so bad, why every Senator seems able to demand a king's ransom in return for his or her vote and no bill ever seems to be truly bipartisan, you need to understand one basic fact: The government can function if the minority party has either the incentive to make the majority fail or the power to make the majority fail. It cannot function if it has both.


In decades past, the parties did not feel they had both. Cooperation was the Senate's custom, if not its rule. But in the 1990s, Newt Gingrich, then the minority whip of the House, and Bob Dole, then the minority leader of the Senate, realized they did have both. A strategy of relentless obstruction brought then-president Bill Clinton to his knees, as the minority party discovered it had the tools to make the majority party fail.


Unfortunately, both parties have followed Gingrich's playbook ever since. According to UCLA political scientist Barbara Sinclair, about 8 percent of major bills faced a filibuster in the 1960s. This decade, that jumped to 70 percent. The problem with the minority party continually making the majority party fail, of course, is that it means neither party can ever successfully govern the country."

Full article: After health care, we need Senate reform

As always, please let me know what you think by clicking the Comment link below and leaving your thoughts!

Senate Health Reform Bill in Tatters

The Senate health reform bill has now reached the point, after weeks of debate and compromise, where even some of the biggest supporters of health reform are now calling for it to be scrapped in favor of trying to create something under the less comprehensive Reconciliation process. A few nights ago Howard Dean, a long time reform proponent, finally threw in the towel on support of the Senate Bill, saying that continued attempts to appease conservatives have striped the bill of most of its benefits leaving mostly gifts to the health insurance industry it was meant to reform. This can be blamed on many. There are the Republicans who never even pretended to care about health reform of any kind, no matter who proposed it or what it involved. Add in the Conservative Democrats who do nothing but give speeches and bask in their moment of notoriety and power who are seemingly determined to protect insurance companies against the slightest check to their power. And don't forget the far right conservatives who have fought this every step of the way with absurd slogans about the Government between you and your doctor, completely ignoring that we've had profit driven insurance companies in this exact role all along. Does anyone really think a company beholden to investors and Wall Street is more compassionate? Do you really think Cigna's CEO is going to lose any sleep over your lack of health coverage as long as he gets his million dollars in bonus money this year?

Last night on Countdown, Keith Olbermann gave an editorial about the current health reform bill being considered in the Senate. It was somber, direct and unfortunately accurate. I highly encourage you to read the text and/or watch the video:  Olbermann: Ruined Senate Bill Unsupportable