Harry Reid Needs Sleep

So this is worth only a chuckle, but apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) accidentally voted against his own bill before changing his vote. It wouldn’t have made a difference, of course, but it’s still funny.

December 24, 2009 | Filed Under Shorts | Comments Off 

Critical Vote On Health Care Passes Senate

Officially, the Senate has not passed health care reform. Unofficially, the fight is over for this round. Senate Democrats overcame a filibuster by a party-line vote of 60-40, including the two independent senators who caucus with the Democrats.

As I said, it’s not officially over; the above vote merely provided official “cloture.” However, it is merely window dressing to get the bill passed by Christmas Eve, which seems very likely now.

The Heritage Foundation outlines what this bill will do to America’s budget, the unborn and taxes. In short, it’s a bad bill, which we already knew. However, there is still hope. The Senate and House bills must be compromised in conference- where the two chambers make two bills into one- and then voted on again in each chamber separately. The two biggest issues, as far as I see, that could shut down this reform effort are abortion and the public option. The House bill includes the latter, the Senate one does not. The Senate bill, however, allows public funds to be used for abortion and the House one does not. I hope Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) holds strong on his abortion language and kills the bill. A pro-life amendment would help the health care bill that finally passes (if one does) not fund the murder of the unborn.

Fox News has a very revealing analysis about where various monies went to various senators in order to bribe them votes for the cloture vote. As Fox notes in the article, uncertain votes were brought in line as a direct result of how the Senate leadership decided to use our money.

December 21, 2009 | Filed Under Shorts | 1 Comment 

Change The Filibuster?

Robert Creamer makes a good case over at Huffington Post for changing the filibuster rules. He critiques, offers multiple solutions and then defends against some of the more popular counters against his idea.
I am not a constitutional scholar, nor a scholar of congressional history, but Creamer misses several points:
1. He claims liberal policies become popular. I’m not sure popular is the right word- perhaps entrenched? Enforced by the heavy hand of law, despite public opinion?
2. “Change” is a word used heavily by liberals, and one of Creamer’s claims is that the filibuster is used to prevent change. Since he thinks Republicans hate change, the filibuster is a bad thing in its current form since it allows opponents of change a powerful weapon. However, it depends on what one thinks “change” is. Gun control and abortion are less popular than ever, so what say we change those for the better? Let’s also see what traction a flat tax or the Fair Tax could gain with a different filibuster. That’s “change” I think Americans could easily support, and change Creamer probably wouldn’t like.
3. We are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic. Hence why we have elected officials and not nationwide votes on every issue.
4. The will of the people, Mr. Creamer, is not with you on health care reform.

December 17, 2009 | Filed Under Shorts | Comments Off 

Because their Majority… isn’t Major Enough

Now, I know that I may be a bit behind with this one. However, I wanted to use Chris Matthews? expressed concern with overturning the 60 vote cloture rule (and by that I mean to point out that Mr. Matthew?s argument in having the 60 vote rule overturned) demonstrates his lack of respect for the Founders, their wisdom, and how our government is to work.

The Senate was established as the more ?prudent? and contemplative house of the two legislative bodies. The House of Representatives more closely represents the constituency, and is more favorable to the ideologically inclined. This point has been exacerbated for some years as district ?gerrymandering? has become a tool for solidifying seats, and in doing so, polarizing the House. That is a topic for another time perhaps. We are here to ponder the question of the Aristocracy of the Legislator.

I have thought of Mr. Matthews as a more ardent scholar of politics and the machinations of our government when it came to television punditry. I cannot point to a specific reason why I once held such a prejudice, but in recent years I have discovered that I was sadly mistaken: I mean, badly mistaken. Unfortunately, Bethesda has such an effect on people. This video, in which he argues for new rules in the Senate regarding filibusters, demonstrates his lack of empathy for any minority-party in the Congress. Why wasn?t Mr. Matthews advocating these new rules when the Republicans were in power? Any true Conservative would have said no had the Republicans attempted such a bold move toward tyrannical majority-rule, and low-and-behold, they didn?t unless I?m wrong.

Imagine, the Cloture Rule was established in 1917, so before this occurred stopping a filibuster was even more difficult than it is today. The 60 vote rule that currently governs the Senate (Rule 22) is a fair and prudent barrier to constant turmoil and change. This recent attempt by Democrats demonstrates their collective disregard for practices that allow for prudence and full examination of the facts. I have a friend whom I debate on and off, who shies from his liberal tendencies and refuses to call himself anything other than a Moderate. Hopefully, others who call themselves ?moderates? see that this change does not allow for moderation at all, and a constant chipping away at such barriers to majority super-rule by the governing parties will help accelerate the speed at which our Republic is crumbling from the inside.

-rj

March 24, 2009 | Filed Under Banner, Featured Content, Politics and Policy | Comments Off