Tag: House

At other times I’d use the DJ’s friend. Paradise by the Dashboard Light – Meatloaf Ok, this is a terrible song and I hate it with a passion. It’s blatantly misogynistic and celebrates rape culture. On the other hand it was a sure fire hit with ladies dragging guys out of their chairs to the …

Continue reading

Of course occasionally I’d let you dance. Let’s Dance – David Bowie The Politics of Dancing – Reflex Gonna Make You Sweat – C+C Music Factory

Another thing I’d do for fun is play several very different takes on the same tune. Tomorrow Never Knows – The Beatles Tomorrow Never Knows – Phil Collins Tomorrow Never Knows – Danielle Dax Tomorrow Never Knows – Alison Mosshart Still want to dance with me?

You see, the important thing about my jokes is they amuse me. When I was a DJ I used to stitch together several songs that had nothing in common but the title. Rise – Jonas Blue Rise – Origa Rise – Katy Perry

This might be amusing for a while. Beethoven – Eurythmics Ray of Light – Maddona Crazy – Alanis Morissette

Kind of just to prove I can junk up my sites with all kinds of self indulgent trash (and frequently do). I don’t want to dull the political message but, I have fun. How Soon Is Now? – The Smiths Windpower – Thomas Dolby If Left To My Own Devices – Pet Shop Boys And …

Continue reading

In this final section, I’ll cover the portion of our talk in which we discussed the differences and distinctions in government between the House and Senate.  Stevenson was a first-hand witness to their devolution for eleven years while a member of the Senate.  Having won a special election in 1970 to serve out the remainder of a term vacated when a Senator died in office, Stevenson then won a full term in his own right.  By its conclusion, burned out and disillusioned, he decided that nearly two full terms was enough for him.  He instead returned to his home state of Illinois, preparing to run for Governor.  That is quite a story in and of itself, and one I will leave for those who wish to read his new book, again titled simply, The Black Book.

Notice the curious case of passivity and resignation coming from the so – called “progressive” and “liberal” caucuses in the House of Congress lately on this Republican Wet Dream of extending the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest segment of our society during a Depression ?  And unfunded foreign occupation/wars causing an immense deficit?

There are a few faint sparks of realization in the Democratic caucus, that the President’s trade he cut with Republican Senators to gut Social Security (and hope nobody notices)  by decreasing the payroll tax for it 2%, in exchange for extending some unemployment benefits for millions, for a year,  maybe is going to get them in even bigger trouble down the road.     Even if their own President is willing to call them a bunch of “purist”  poopyheads in public, to get what he wants.  

The House Rules Committee vote on the rule to let this abomination go through was supposed to be this evening, and now it’s delayed.   Speaker Pelosi has decided on a curious tact of allowing a scootch of dissent on the whopping Estate Tax giveaway, while ignoring the rest of the Senate’s version of the tax bill as being worthy.  Extending the Bush – era tax cuts is going to add another trillion dollar hole to the deficit.  This pathetic Congress can’t even get it together to at least come up with a coherent narrative as to why the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest were part of a national policy disaster which caused our current problems, and should be repealed.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ho…

The House was set to vote on the rule governing debate on the broad tax bill, but the measure was withdrawn at the last minute when leaders realized it was likely to be rejected. Liberals opposed to the deal Obama struck with Republicans were upset that the procedure approved by the House Rules Committee on Wednesday did not allow them a clean opportunity to vote on the legislation the Senate passed on Wednesday. A final vote on the tax deal had been planned for Thursday evening.

Under the rule approved Wednesday, lawmakers would first vote on an amendment to the estate tax provision of the tax bill, which Democratic leaders want raised to a higher level. If that measure passed, the entire tax bill would return to the Senate, meaning lawmakers would have, in effect, approved the underlying measure with the single change to the estate tax. Liberals objected to that procedure, saying they wanted an opportunity to reject the entire bill, not just the estate tax provision.

If the estate tax amendment failed – which is expected – then the House would vote on the underlying Senate bill.

Notice how the above Hill story says they expect the estate tax amendment to fail also.    Yes, this is such a crappy deal that President Obama cut with the Senate Republicans, that we also are going to watch them make sure billionaires  like the Walton Family can pass on larger estates, while millions of regular Americans continue to lose their life savings and meager retirement funds to foreclosures, job losses, and medical bill bankruptcies, because that Health Care Bill has mostly NOT been implemented.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D, NY 28, Rochester, Buffalo, Erie)  of the so – called Progressive Caucus, one of the most “Liberal” members of the House,  is the current head of the Rules committee that is working this charade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…

http://www.rules.house.gov/bil…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said some Democrats criticized procedures that would only allow lawmakers to introduce one amendment to the bill, and which, if passed, would send the amended package immediately back to the Senate. The current rule allows each party one amendment and an hour and a half of debate time, with 45 minutes of the Democrats’ time being granted to those in opposition to the bill. The likely amendment would be a change to the bill’s estate-tax provision, presented by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.).

“A lot of members are saying ‘I’d like to amend it, but I’d like to vote against it,’ ” Waxman said.

Catch 22 !  You vote against the Estate tax in the House, and this POS tax giveaway goes directly back to the Senate who then  gives it gift wrapped to the President to sign !  

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), who led the charge against the tax deal, said he wants Democrats to be given a chance to make additional amendments to the bill, including changes to tax cuts that could threaten revenue for Social Security.

The leadership is not allowing debate over Social Security because “they don’t have the time,” Welch said. He said Democratic leaders were not “twisting arms” on the matter and would allow dissenting members to state their case.

Still, he said the momentum from the Senate would make it difficult to block the bill.

“I think the die was cast basically in the Senate,” Welch said. “Where we had an opportunity … was by making senators who were going to hold the middle-class tax cuts hostage to the tax cuts at the high end, make them debate that and vote that over and over again.”

They don’t have the time ?

Then why the **** is the Senate going to blow all that non existent time, taking 50 hours reading the budget bill in the Senate ?

12/16/10  GOP will paralyze Senate Floor with reading of 1,924 page spending bill.

http://thehill.com/homenews/se…

Republicans will paralyze the Senate floor for 50 hours by forcing clerks to read every single paragraph of the 1,924-page, $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill.

Senate clerks are expected to read the massive bill in rotating shifts around the clock – taking breaks to drink water and pop throat lozenges  – to keep legislative business on track, according to a Democratic leadership aide.

If Republicans follow through on their threat, legislative business couldn’t resume until late Saturday in order to give the staff enough time to read the bill aloud, according to a Democratic leadership estimate.

Sen. DeMint (R, SC)  :  “Again, We’re trying to run out the clock.”

Sen. Kyl (R, AZ)  :  “”To suggest that we can dual-track an issue as important as the funding of the government with this almost 2,000-page, $1 trillion-plus bill at the same time that we are seriously debating the START treaty is a fantasy.”

So called Liberal bloggers, paraphrased: “We’re trying to ignore this latest betrayal because it makes it awkward on the Holiday Cocktail Circuit.”

My personal interactions with my real friends –  I don’t know of anyone who actually supports this continued capitulation routine, nor the crappy Republican policies being put forth as “compromises,” with a Dem supermajority which refuses to govern with it.    

While we’ve all been busy watching the “oil spill live cam”, a similar uncontrolled discharge has been taking place in Washington, DC

In this case, however, it’s lobbyists that are spilling all over the landscape as the House and Senate attempt to merge their two visions of financial reform.

They’re trying desperately to influence the outcome of the conference in which House and Senate negotiators have been engaged; this to craft the exact language of the reconciled legislation.

There’s an additional element of drama hovering over the events as eight House members, including one of the most vocal of the Republican negotiators, face ethics questions related to this very bill.

The best part: if you’re enough of a political geek, you can actually watch the events unfold, unedited and unfiltered, from the comfort of your very own computer.

So far, it’s been amazing political theater, and if you follow along I’ll tell you how you can get in on the fun, too.

Speaker Pelosi pulled a brilliant move at the end of the last weeks legislative session.

   House Democrats are home for a long Memorial Day break with a gift-wrapped wedge issue delivered just in time for district campaigning. One of their final actions before adjourning late Friday was passing a measure that would strip tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas by a 215-204 vote.

talkingpointsmemo.com

  The Grand Outsourcing Party. Expect Dems to run on this come election time.

More brilliance below the fold.

On this day where the negative news about the War in Afghanistan, fresh doubts about President Obama, and a lack of Democratic unity in the Senate regarding Health Care drives a sourly pessimistic news cycle, now is as good a time as any to push back against the doom and gloom brigade.  It may be time for the Democratic party to begin to reform itself first before it can ever make a solid effort to reform the country.  As much as Republicans have provided a more or less solid base of opposition and obstruction, Democrats have only appeared marginally united and only then for brief periods of time.  While I am aware that this is hardly anything new, disorganization will prove to be our own undoing unless we look inward and take stock of our shortcomings.  Everyone talks about this, of course, but as Mark Twain put it regarding discussions concerning weather, nobody does anything about it.      

The most current gloomy AP story of yesterday was predictably dire,

WASHINGTON – The 60 votes aren’t there any more.

With the Senate set to begin debate Monday on health care overhaul, the all-hands-on-deck Democratic coalition that allowed the bill to advance is fracturing already. Yet majority Democrats will need 60 votes again to finish.

Some Democratic senators say they’ll jump ship from the bill without tighter restrictions on abortion coverage. Others say they’ll go unless a government plan to compete with private insurance companies gets tossed overboard. Such concessions would enrage liberals, the heart and soul of the party.

The first stirrings of a concept known as Intersectionality began to develop in the 1960’s and 1970’s in opposition to the exclusivity, post-modernism influenced arguments of a prior generation of activists and thinkers.  In brief, Intersectionality rightly assumes that taking into account a variety of lenses and perspectives, as well as how they interact with each other is a much better means of attacking a problem.  Instead of taking one or two issues in isolation, viewing the similarities and acknowledging the spot at which all points meet would, as it is proposed, facilitate common purpose much more easily. In that spirit, seeking to address interrelated issues that comprise a complex matter rather than focusing too heavily on quibbling details would do our Senators and Representatives well.  

As the media has presented it, one would assume that the reservations brought up by individual members of Congress while in hot debate over health care have been matters of profound heft.  Certainly the political football of both Stupak and the Public Option are not issues to be taken lightly, but having read many of the published reports regarding day to day conduct in committee, the substantive concerns have often taken a back seat to needless minutia or pointless hair-splitting.  Threats and counter-threats in this laughably extended proceeding have ceased being coercive and might as well be duly noted in the Congressional Record without objection.  The mystical filibuster, for example, once was feared and sparsely used, and now has become part of process wallpaper to such a degree that even the threat of the procedural measure when invoked produces shrugged shoulders more than abject terror.  True filibusters are rare in any case.          

The Democratic party might at least consider the idea of Intersectionality if it is to prevent more than nominal GOP gains in 2010 and if it deigns to rule for an extended period of time.  Having won, it must now find a way to not overstay its welcome in the good graces of the American people.  Democrats know very well what they do not want to be and aren’t so versed on what they think they ought to be.  Many activists believe that a new way of looking at established rules would push every Democratic figure forward rather than being mired in conventional modes of thought that are long past their expiration date.  Many would argue that several of the long term legislators with seniority are long past their expiration date as well.  It is an unfortunate fact that we have been rather frequently and alarmingly prone to factionalism in recent history, which is partially a result of a disturbing lack of more or less uniform direction.  It should be noted that I do not see this as some greater trend along the same lines as peering at an ant farm, whereby what seems from a distance to be chaotic is upon closer inspection merely a method to the madness.  

Seeking to find mutual purpose between individuals and individual organizations alike, rather than pointing out differences and highlighting distinctions could well be our salvation.  What complicates this process, however, are the multitude of non-profits and PACs that dot the landscape, many of which are devoted to a single issue.  Each was founded out of a desire to make sure that the unique concerns of a particular group or cause was not neglected in the legislative process.  They were created based on an inequality or need that cried for alleviation, but with time, however, these groups began to resemble government agencies, whereby bureaus that could have been consolidated with others for the sake of efficiency were allowed to exist alongside similar departments which did more or less identical work.  Networking is still a fairly foreign concept to many of the myriad of entities that compromise the Democratic party and help set its agenda.  How we think influences how we govern and how we seek to influence that which governs.  Though the current model may have had its place once, the time has come to modify our thinking and with it our strategy.  Focusing too heavily on where we are not alike rather than how we are alike is, arguably, what led to the decline of the party post-Carter and contributed to the 1994 election debacle.  

I wrote a post over the weekend which touched some nerves.  In it, I discussed the way our that own fundamental structure as liberals makes getting us on the same page an exercise akin to herding cats.  One of the comments left was something to the effect of “I’m a Progressive and no one tells me what to do.”  Fair enough, except that I wasn’t suggesting that the person in question (or anyone, really) follow blindly behind any cause or personality.  What I was, however, arguing is that we can’t always isolate ourselves in our own identity group and assume that its concerns are of paramount concern to the whole.  Until we identify as Democrats first and other identities later, we’ll always have unintentionally split allegiances.  Any group established for originally altruistic means quickly becomes obsessed with justifying its own existence and in so doing losing sight of the original intent.  A common thread runs through so many organizations and it goes well beyond a simple label of “Progressivism”.  The most successful educational strategies link together a variety of subjects and show students how each is interconnected.  This is where true learning begins and this might also be the point at which true unity is allowed to thrive.    

I don’t believe in groupthink and I certainly don’t believe in playing follow-the-leader, but I do know that it is certainly easier when waste and superfluity is trimmed away.  I do also know that if everyone had been on the same wavelength before Stupak, then women’s rights wouldn’t have been so easily bartered away for the sake of a narrow victory.  If we truly lived our gospel of multiculturalism and plurality, then human rights would mean more than just the latest atrocity perpetrated in a nation far, far away.  If we practiced what we preached, there wouldn’t be a need for the Gay District, since LGBTs would live boringly normal lives right next door to us.  If we took up the cause of intersectionality, there would be no others who are not like us in some way, shape, or fashion.  While I am writing on this particular topic, I am reminded of a woman who is a contributing editor to a Feminist site I regularly visit; she uses this quote as her e-mail signature:

“Engrave this upon your heart: there isn’t anyone you couldn’t love once you heard their story.” –Mary Lou Kownacki    

Decry it as naïve optimism if you wish, but post-partisanship, if we have not thrown it upon the dungheap of history quite yet, begins with this simple statement.  That which separates us is often artifice, over-reaching, or over-compensation.  One President micromanages the Health Care debate, which fails miserably.  Another President puts Congress in control, failing to understand that he is capable of keeping bickering legislators in line without seeming dictatorial.  We are our own worst enemy, far too often.  Arguably we regained both chambers of Congress due to a GOP that had been remarkably good at shooting itself in the foot, if not other members.  One wonders what will be our strategy in 2010 besides praying that the economic data and unemployment numbers improve drastically and that the Health Care reform bill passes.  How will we learn from four years of mixed results?  I can guarantee that the existing framework and system is no viable solution.  We know what we are not, now it’s time to determine that which we are.  

It is with no small discouragement that I put my thoughts down today.  I never expected to be this disappointed with President Obama’s leadership ability and his handling of the proceedings.  Still, I concede that perhaps part of it is that the sheer number of daunting challenges which face us must be held in check by the realization that the legislative process is plodding and slow.  Every President, to some degree or another, bases his or her definition of Executive authority in contrast to the conduct of the previous person to hold the office.  Former President George W. Bush’s desire to circumvent the legislative branch and concentrate power in the White House at the expense of other branches no doubt shaped Obama’s desire to give Congress its fair share of say and impact.  This is a noble gesture, provided it works, and thus far it has not.  My hope is that our President will realize that there is a difference between ruling like a dictator and ruling like a strong Executive, and the lines between the two are neither fine, nor blurry.    

Because the responsibilities of the President are rather vaguely noted in our Constitution, each occupier of the office has taken his own interpretation of what precisely his job description connotes.  Those who have boldly adopted a stance that the Presidency ought to intercede directly and without apology into affairs some might consider the domain of other branches have been variously criticized for threatening to rule as an autocrat.  This is inevitable, since human selfishness and common sense dictates that everyone would like as big a piece of the pie as he or she can get.  Everyone will also be reliably counted on to object loudly if that piece ends up being reduced in size, especially if one thinks it owed to him or her.  Throw in partisan rancor, exaggeration, and media narrative and here one has a familiar formula that has been levied at any number of Presidents who, with the passage of time, history has seen fit to denote as “Great”.  

The reverse of this, of course, is being too conciliatory to other branches of government, a stance that has regrettably been President Obama’s undoing in recent months.  Presidents before have kept a tight leash on Congress, not out of some desire for complete control, regardless of how much Senators, Representatives, and pundits scream about it, but out of a genuine understanding that the Executive branch must set the tone, the pace, and the direction.  This is especially true now when though both the House and Senate have substantial Democratic majorities, the leadership tends to viscerally underwhelm and no one person has the force of personality to stand out front and be the face of Congressional mettle and resolve.  With so much that needs to be done, the President cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and watch with his hands on his hips.  He needs to take an active role in the game and if that means that the other players feel as though someone’s trying to grab the headlines from them, then so be it.    

Public opinion of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and of Congress in general reflects this dire situation of which we are faced.  A do-nothing accusation lends itself easily to guilty-until-proven-innocent when no one has yet successfully sold Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, Environmental Reform, or any other measure now on the docket.  What we have in its place are overly cautious and thoroughly uninspiring pronouncements that promise ultimate success in the wimpiest possible construction ever devised.  They almost beg to not offend the hearer.  The clear implication is that the latest version of the bill is a coalition of the fragile affair that could break apart at any moment.  This does not exactly foment trust, devotion, and fidelity in the eyes of voters.      

As is my wont, in instances like these, my mind drifts to similar struggles in different ages.  Historical events roughly four and a half centuries ago shaped the formation of our Union and indeed, mirror ours in certain ways.  

The climax of the English Civil War was the ascent of a commoner, Oliver Cromwell, to head the island nation.  A member of Parliament before the war, Cromwell successfully lead the forces of the legislative body into battle against those supporting the crown and in so doing won eventual victory.  A brilliant military strategist and general, Cromwell held little patience for the delays and cross-currents which bogged down passage and enactment of reforms, which meant that with time Cromwell concentrated more and more authority into his own hands.  Though he might have been impatient, one cannot help but sympathize to a degree with his dilemma, particularly right now when partisan or even inter-party bickering has brought even the most modest reform measure to a complete halt.    

As for the legislative frustrations that typified the times, they first began in the form of the Long Parliament, which was compromised of an expansive group of dissatisfied legislators aghast at the base incompetence of a heavily unpopular King.  This then gave way to the high drama of Pride’s Purge.  The Long Parliament was dissolved in large part because it met for eight years solid but, due to factionalism and indecisiveness, could never manage to come to a solid conclusion or resolution regarding much of anything.  The largely deposed King, Charles I, stalled every negotiation by playing different factions in the Parliamentary alliance against each other to his own advantage.  When a significant faction sought to keep the King in control, albeit as only a figurehead, thereby disregarding the authority of the army, a coup d’état commenced.  The Purge brutally, skillfully removed fully half of the body, leaving behind only those who supported the army, at which point the monarchy was effectively dissolved, the King beheaded, and England’s first and only attempt to rule without a sovereign instituted.      

What came next was the so-called “Rump Parliament”, a term that, as is sometimes the case, was made by its opposition as a means of derision but stuck nonetheless.  To this day, the phrase survives and is used to mean a gathering comprised of remnants of a much larger group or organization.  Though initially successful, the Rump met its end four years later.  Its undoing was a combination of its failure to come up with a new, working Constitution and its flagrant disregard of the wishes of Cromwell, who commanded that the body dissolve, which it refused to do.  After personally observing the stalemate for himself, the soon-to-be Lord Protector bellowed,

You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately … Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

After the Rump came the appropriately-titled Barebones Parliament, which was even less successful.  In disgust, Cromwell took control as a near-dictator and was kept in power by the backing by the army until his death five years later.  The complexities of those times are fascinating and cannot be done justice by a brief synopsis, but my greater point is to note the morass between then and now and, in so doing, note how much easier would be our lot if Congress could ever get a thing accomplished without bogging down into a state of maddening paralysis.  The Cromwellian Protectorate lasted only slightly longer than one modern-day Presidential term in office, at which point English citizens grew weary of it and re-established the monarchy.  It is that lesson above all others which I wish I could impart to our elected representatives and the current occupant of the White House, else they squander a golden opportunity.    

How tempting it would be if the ability existed to instantly call for new elections or even a way to rid ourselves of Representative and Senators whose stated agenda seems to be obstructionism and baseless fear-peddling.  To return to how I began this post, I know that we are stuck with the men and women we have in Congress.  I also understand that we have the theoretical right to throw these people out if they fail to be satisfactory stewards of our trust and our concerns, but one would be remiss to not note how they are often more indebted to the sway of fund raising, high value donors, and corporate interest.  Moreover, I concede that the system as it exists is patently not designed for the kind of major overhauls we desperately require.  The safeguards in place are designed in part for wiser, paternalistic heads to soberly contemplate, stroke beards meaningfully, and then cautiously proceed.  There are too many procedural rules, stalling tactics, and needless esoterica embedded deeply in a branch of government whose ways and means are frequently noted as “arcane”.

However, the time for real leadership arrived about four or five months ago.  While I concede that President Obama picked his strategy for Health Care Reform based on the failed example of President Clinton, it is long past due for a change in strategy.  Sometimes in seeking to avoid a mistake, we over-compensate and create new problems in the process.  Cautiousness is sometimes a viable public option, but as regards a Democratic caucus that is beholden to so many different identity groups, so much ideological difference, and a big tent that strains to be wide enough to accept everyone, else they pitch their own somewhere else, Presidential authority is the only way to get everyone on board.  If the Left has a true skill, it is in finding hairline cracks in party unity.  If the Obama of 2008 can return, then all will be forgiven and we can move forward.  Otherwise, we will be stuck with mealy-mouthed, soft-pedaled promises and over-cautious optimism.