Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A case study in the world's greatest dysfunctional body

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A case study in the world's greatest dysfunctional body

    Harry Reid's Senate Blockade


    The U.S. Senate failed to advance another piece of popular bipartisan legislation late Monday, and the reason tells the real story of Washington gridlock in the current Congress. To wit, Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate as a place to debate and vote on policy.

    The Majority Leader's strategy was once again on display as the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to move a popular energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Ohio Republican Rob Portman. Mr. Reid blamed the defeat on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really came down to Mr. Reid's blockade against amendments that might prove politically difficult for Democrats.

    The Nevadan used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related amendments to an energy bill. This blockade is now standard procedure as he's refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP amendments since last July. Mr. Reid is worried that some of these amendments might pass with support from Democrats, thus embarrassing a White House that opposes them.

    In the case of Portman-Shaheen, Republicans had prepared amendments to speed up exports of liquefied natural gas; to object to a new national carbon tax; to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency's war on coal plants; and to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline. A majority of the public supports these positions and many Democrats from right-leaning or energy-producing states claim to do the same. The bill against the EPA's coal-plant rules is co-sponsored by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin.

    Yet the White House and Mr. Reid's dominant liberal wing won't take the chance that a bipartisan coalition might pass these amendments, most of which the House has passed or soon would. President Obama would thus face a veto decision that would expose internal Democratic divisions. So Mr. Reid shut down the amendment process. Republicans then responded by refusing to provide the 60 votes necessary to clear a filibuster and vote on the underlying bill.

    It's important to understand how much Mr. Reid's tactics have changed the Senate. Not too long ago it was understood that any Senator could get a floor vote if he wanted it. The minority party, often Democrats, used this right of amendment to sponsor votes that would sometimes put the majority on the spot. It's called politics, rightly understood. This meant the Senate debated national priorities and worked its bipartisan will. Harry Reid's Senate has become a deliberate obstacle to democratic accountability.

    And speaking of accountability, every supposedly pro-energy Democrat supported Mr. Reid in his amendment blockade. That includes Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, who is running TV ads back home attacking the Obama Administration energy policies that Mr. Reid is protecting from bipartisan majority rejection. She still claims to support a vote on the Keystone XL pipeline, and she blamed Republicans for not going along with Mr. Reid's vague assurance that he would allow a stand-alone vote on Keystone later this month.

    But why not force the vote now? If Ms. Landrieu really had Keystone as a top priority, as she claims, she'd have joined Republicans in demanding an immediate amendment to a bill that she knows the White House is reluctant to veto. And she'd have insisted that Mr. Reid allow a 50-vote threshold for passage, rather than Mr. Reid's 60-vote supermajority.

    Ms. Landrieu instead is playing Mr. Reid's double game, demanding a Keystone vote even as she undermines its passage. She is running for election by boasting about her clout as the new Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, but she is so ineffectual that she can't get her own party to allow a vote on what she claims is one of her top priorities.

    The lesson for voters is simple: If they want anything meaningful done in the last two years of the Obama Administration, they will have to elect a Republican Senate.
    May we raise children who love the unloved things - the dandelion, the worm, the spiderlings.
    Children who sense the rose needs the thorn and run into rainswept days the same way they turn towards the sun...
    And when they're grown and someone has to speak for those who have no voice,
    may they draw upon that wilder bond, those days of tending tender things and be the one.

  • #2
    Here's a thought: since both parties engage in this kind of thing routinely, how about requiring that every bill be voted on based on its merits as written? If someone wants to add something, let them propose another bill, instead of trying to hang amendments on one that's otherwise pretty much non-controversial.
    "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

    Comment


    • #3
      We need term limits
      If it pays, it stays

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
        Here's a thought: since both parties engage in this kind of thing routinely, how about requiring that every bill be voted on based on its merits as written? If someone wants to add something, let them propose another bill, instead of trying to hang amendments on one that's otherwise pretty much non-controversial.
        I like that idea.

        I also like the idea of not requiring a committee to act as gatekeeper.
        "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
        -John Locke

        "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
        -Newman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by scott View Post
          I like that idea.

          I also like the idea of not requiring a committee to act as gatekeeper.
          I agree. I can see the value in having committees that develop some expertise on certain aspests of legislation, but let them review and comment on a bill for the guidance of the other legislators, not have the make-or-break power to keep it from a vote.
          "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
            I agree. I can see the value in having committees that develop some expertise on certain aspests of legislation, but let them review and comment on a bill for the guidance of the other legislators, not have the make-or-break power to keep it from a vote.
            I can see a dual process; routine bills go through committee and any other bill with 40 or more sponsors can bypass committee.
            "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
            -John Locke

            "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
            -Newman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by scott View Post
              I can see a dual process; routine bills go through committee and any other bill with 40 or more sponsors can bypass committee.
              Different cut-offs for House and Senate? Otherwise, I'm on board. Let's draft legislation and I'll send it to my legislators and you send it to yours.
              "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                Different cut-offs for House and Senate? Otherwise, I'm on board. Let's draft legislation and I'll send it to my legislators and you send it to yours.
                Yes, different cut offs. Probably 5 Senate co-sponsors.
                "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
                -John Locke

                "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
                -Newman

                Comment

                Working...
                X
                😀
                🥰
                🤢
                😎
                😡
                👍
                👎