'Too much talk and pork in the US Senate?' --y'think? by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

'Too much talk and pork in the US Senate?' --y'think?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 10:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 564
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, December 21, 2009 9:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Government offices are closed in Washington today because of the weather, but the Senators have not been spared. Why were they being asked to vote in the dead of the night in the middle of a snowstorm, asked the senator opening the debate, Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander? His own answer was that there was a rush because Democrats didn't want to explain what the bill meant.

Two things are critical to getting a bill through the Senate: bringing on the pork, and cutting the talk. Some might consider these two are politics in its purest form: democracy as constituency-based self-interest and creative use of the rule book. Others may say that they are exactly the sort of thing that many people dislike about politics in general and Washington politics in particular.

This vote in the small hours in a snow-shrouded Senate was not about the contents of the bill. It was to stop endless debate designed solely to stop the passing of legislation, otherwise known as the filibuster. Most legislatures know something of the device but in the Senate it has been raised to a high art form. Over the weekend, clerks read 383 pages of amendments to an almost empty chamber for something like seven hours.

To put a halt to this sort of thing the Democrats running the Senate needed 60 of the 100 senators to vote for a motion. To get enough on side they had to offer changes to the bill itself. Some of these were general, like dropping a federally-run not-for-profit insurance scheme, usually known as "the public option". Too many conservative Democrats had doubts about it for it to live.

But the last vote they needed was of Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson. He too had a worry that also concerned many, over abortion. So it was agreed, via a fairly complex formula, that no federal money would be used to fund abortions. But that wasn't enough, so the pork barrel was wheeled in. Now I must make it clear, what I mean by "pork" doesn't suggest anything improper, just a politician getting a better deal for his or her constituency than is available for everyone else.

Senator Nelson has got a cool $45m for his state over 10 years, meaning the federal government will pay most of the costs of Medicaid, the health scheme for those on very low incomes, in Nebraska, but nowhere else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 21, 2009 9:45 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

You mean the Obama era isn' what you were led to believe?

Really?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 21, 2009 11:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

You left out the punchline.

"Now the planned bill will expand Medicaid and many states feel they can't afford the bill at the moment, so Republicans put forward a proposal to extend the federal payment to all 50 states. The amendment was politely rejected. Putting aside the strong feels about healthcare itself, what do you think of business being done this way?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/12/too_much_t
alk_and_pork_in_the.html

Actually, I've seen editorials which posit that all the wrangling among Democrats about what to keep and what to drop in the healthcare bill is just occurring so folks can get a little pork (as above) before they all line up and vote in a bloc.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 21, 2009 11:22 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
You mean the Obama era isn' what you were led to believe?

I'm more shocked by his contention that the Senators talks a lot and likes pork.

Next he'll be telling us Democrats want to raise taxes and spend money.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 21, 2009 11:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oops, Geezer, I thought I had run my mouse over the entire article...that must have been at the end, yes? Thanx!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 21, 2009 2:15 PM

DREAMTROVE

Alas,

Another administration as dumb as the last. They are sacrificing all of their ideals to get every single vote on their side of the aisle rather than compromise with anyone on the other side.

Politics as usual.

A decent piece of legislation could be passed by ignoring corrupt turncoat democrats like the Benator and Joementum, and winning support from rational conservatives by including options such as the right to "opt out" of the plan, or "cost cutting" measures that might restrict the pork of the nation's largest labor union: The AMA.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 21, 2009 2:27 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
You mean the Obama era isn' what you were led to believe?

I'm more shocked by his contention that the Senators talks a lot and likes pork.

Next he'll be telling us Democrats want to raise taxes and spend money.

Next you'll be telling us that Republicans want to cut taxes to the ultra-rich and still spend money. But at least they'll spend them on USEFUL things, like invading Iraq and Afghanistan. ;)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 21, 2009 3:01 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
winning support from rational conservatives

Uhhh, at this time in history, isn't "rational conservatives" a bit of an oxymoron? As is the concept of winning support from them; they've out-and-out SAID they want no healthcare reform at all, and they're proud of their "party of no" standings...so...

Mike...just

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 21, 2009 5:17 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Alas,

Another administration as dumb as the last. They are sacrificing all of their ideals to get every single vote on their side of the aisle rather than compromise with anyone on the other side.

Politics as usual.

A decent piece of legislation could be passed by ignoring corrupt turncoat democrats like the Benator and Joementum, and winning support from rational conservatives by including options such as the right to "opt out" of the plan, or "cost cutting" measures that might restrict the pork of the nation's largest labor union: The AMA.

I agree, DT, but only up to a point. I'm not at all convinced that there IS any possibility of a compromise with anyone "on the other side". I'd like to see the Democrats show some backbone and bypass the bluedogs, but I don't imagine for a moment that there is ANY chance of courting votes from the other side of the aisle. Such are the times we live in, it would seem. :(

Olympia Snowe, for instance, was only willing to go as far as she did on the earlier vote to bring the bill out of committee because she isn't facing reelection until 2012, and she no doubt assumes that others will have short memories, and all her "transgressions" against her party will be forgotten, if not forgiven.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 9:03 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Unfortunately, Mike, I agree with everything you said. And for those who blame the Dems because they hold so much "power", I'd remind them that holding "just enough" power isn't enough to get anything done, if the other side is determined to stop them.

I heard where the filibuster was used only 7% a few years ago, and now is used 70% of the time. That pretty much stops Congress cold from doing anything.

Sadly, the Repubs were right in wanting a "smaller" tent...the inclusion of the Blue Dogs is what stops the Dems from achieving anything, without big gimmes to buy off the blue dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 10:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There is more "stopping" power in the Senate than forward push. (The House has no fillibuster tactic.) Just goes to show... If the Dems had enough BACKBONE, they coulda stopped the Repubs for the past eight years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE