It is not sufficient for Wyoming residents to have 70 times the clout of Californians in the U.S. Senate. Their power in the U.S. House of Representatives is nearly double that of Montana’s people.
Wyoming and Montana are among the seven states which are too small to be represented by more than one representative in the House. Washington, D.C., is home to 56,000 more people than Wyoming and is still forbidden from electing a voting representative to the House.
Dalton Conley and Jacqueline Stevens, professors at New York University and Northwestern, respectively, authored a New York Times op-ed on a broader context about Congress that reminds us that low-population states with a single representative range far afield in population. Wyoming’s representative serves slightly more than half as many people, 544,270, as the representative for Montana, population 974,989. (NYT, A23, 1/24/11) (U.S. Census Bureau, July 2009)
This disparity parallels the power imbalance in the Senate on a smaller scale, literally.
Because each state is allowed two senators, all 50 states have precisely the same amount of clout. As the least populous state, Wyoming is excessively powerful in the Senate compared to California, population 36.9 million, the largest number.
There are probably all kinds of disparities among the 435 House districts. Each representative is supposed to serve 700,000 people, though it seems like yesterday when the number was 600,000.
Conley and Stevens recount the House consisted of 65 members in 1787 and grew to its current number after 1910. “That’s because the 1920 census indicated that the majority of Americans were concentrating in cities, and nativists, worried about the power of ‘foreigners,’ blocked efforts to give them more representatives,” they write.
They urge expanding the number of House members and “shrinking the size of districts” which would afford a number of advantages, including an end to the disparity among low-population states. “More districts would likewise mean more precision in distributing them equitably, especially in low-population states,” they add.
An idea worth considering. However, they could be criticized on grounds that the House membership is already too big.
This writer’s humble suggestion: Allow congressional districts to overlap state lines. Delaware can share a second House member with Pennsylvania or Maryland, and Wyoming can donate two-sevenths of its lone representative’s attention to Colorado’s needs.
Or, the Senate could be abolished and its 100 seats would be added to the House. Population adjustments could then be made. The Senate was designed to provide a forum for wiser heads - like scandal-scarred John Ensign (Nevada) and David Vitter (Louisiana)? - to review actions of the House. The Senate does nothing but duplicate the partisan wrangling that is prevalent in the House.
While we may not concur with Conley and Stevens’ solution to this problem, we share their concern with these and other disparities in representation.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Taking the filibuster to court
If the U.S. Senate majority today sought to pass a publicly-funded health-care system or repeal tax cuts for the wealthy, a minority of senators could still block said efforts. In fact, they probably would exploit their power of the filibuster.
So what can we do? Make a federal case out of it?
Absolutely. The idea is not mine. Credit Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa. He suggested just that as he vainly appealed to his Senate colleagues on Thursday, Jan. 27, to vote for up to three resolutions as part of a package to curb the filibuster.
The Senate took some limited steps Thursday to improve its procedures, but fell far short of what it should have done.
To compensate, Harkin said, “We must now have to look at the courts to find some relief in this matter…I quite frankly think a case can be made to the courts.”
The Constitution authorizes the Senate to formulate its own rules, but any American should feel violated if they support the policies of the Senate majority. In fact, the current majority represents 190 million Americans, nearly two-thirds of the population, because each state is represented by two senators; the least and most populous states have the same amount of clout.
Any senator can filibuster, or threaten to filibuster, proposed legislation without taking to the floor to make their case, as James Stewart did in the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The Senate needs 60 votes to end a filibuster, not a plain majority of 51 votes. The process is called cloture.
The Senate majority was prevented from approving any kind of government-run health-care - which was referred to as the public option - and the abolition of tax cuts for the rich because of the 60-vote bar.
All five resolutions to alter the rules had to receive 67 votes, two-thirds of the Senate membership. Harkin especially protested this 67-vote barrier.
If this or any other element of Senate rules can make for a legal
challenge, then by all means let’s hope someone goes for it.
The most consequential outcome was not even subject to a vote. The Senate leadership reached an informal agreement. Democrats will allow Republican senators to submit nearly all the amendments they want, and Republicans will limit their use of the filibuster.
Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, quoted in The Oregonian, said, “There is nothing that touches the impact of the filibuster on amendments and nothing that touches the impact on bills, so we still may see the same obstruction we’ve seen before.”
Merkley, Harkin and Tom Udall of New Mexico comprised the
driving force behind a resolution to require that all senators who
invoke the filibuster must address the legislation on the floor.
Most Democrats voted for the measure, but it could neither get past
the 67-vote barrier nor even a majority vote.
Harkin quixotically introduced a bill permitting a majority to end cloture which was rejected by a 12-84 vote.
“The framers were very clear about where a supermajority can be used,” Harkin told his colleagues during the debate, televised on C-span. “The first Senate allowed the majority to bring it (legislation) to a vote…We have to be able to react a little faster than we did in the 19th century…We cannot govern a superpower when a minority can dictate…”
Harkin pointed out that the filibuster was established after Vice President Aaron Burr pointed out that the majority party in the Senate would not permit the minority party to debate legislation. However, the Republicans have abused the use of the filibuster during the last four years under Democratic control.
“The power is not what we can do but what we can stop,” he said. “What I fear is that this Senate will continue to be dysfunctional…The American people will get more frustrated.”
Harkin’s bill was co-sponsored by Richard J. Durbin of Illinois;
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland; and Jeanne Shaheen, New
Hampshire. Also voting for the measure were Udall, Mark Begich,
Alaska; Richard Blumenthal and Joseph I. Lieberman, both of
Connecticut; Kirsten E. Gillibrand, New York; John F. Kerry,
Massachusetts; Herb Kohl, Wisconsin; and Frank R. Lautenberg,
New Jersey.
However, the Senate overwhelmingly passed two bills to forbid
any senator from placing an anonymous hold to block a bill or a
nomination and to read lengthy amendments, which has been
employed as a stalling tactic.
What a giant step forward. Why were senators allowed to do this in
the first place?
So what can we do? Make a federal case out of it?
Absolutely. The idea is not mine. Credit Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa. He suggested just that as he vainly appealed to his Senate colleagues on Thursday, Jan. 27, to vote for up to three resolutions as part of a package to curb the filibuster.
The Senate took some limited steps Thursday to improve its procedures, but fell far short of what it should have done.
To compensate, Harkin said, “We must now have to look at the courts to find some relief in this matter…I quite frankly think a case can be made to the courts.”
The Constitution authorizes the Senate to formulate its own rules, but any American should feel violated if they support the policies of the Senate majority. In fact, the current majority represents 190 million Americans, nearly two-thirds of the population, because each state is represented by two senators; the least and most populous states have the same amount of clout.
Any senator can filibuster, or threaten to filibuster, proposed legislation without taking to the floor to make their case, as James Stewart did in the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The Senate needs 60 votes to end a filibuster, not a plain majority of 51 votes. The process is called cloture.
The Senate majority was prevented from approving any kind of government-run health-care - which was referred to as the public option - and the abolition of tax cuts for the rich because of the 60-vote bar.
All five resolutions to alter the rules had to receive 67 votes, two-thirds of the Senate membership. Harkin especially protested this 67-vote barrier.
If this or any other element of Senate rules can make for a legal
challenge, then by all means let’s hope someone goes for it.
The most consequential outcome was not even subject to a vote. The Senate leadership reached an informal agreement. Democrats will allow Republican senators to submit nearly all the amendments they want, and Republicans will limit their use of the filibuster.
Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, quoted in The Oregonian, said, “There is nothing that touches the impact of the filibuster on amendments and nothing that touches the impact on bills, so we still may see the same obstruction we’ve seen before.”
Merkley, Harkin and Tom Udall of New Mexico comprised the
driving force behind a resolution to require that all senators who
invoke the filibuster must address the legislation on the floor.
Most Democrats voted for the measure, but it could neither get past
the 67-vote barrier nor even a majority vote.
Harkin quixotically introduced a bill permitting a majority to end cloture which was rejected by a 12-84 vote.
“The framers were very clear about where a supermajority can be used,” Harkin told his colleagues during the debate, televised on C-span. “The first Senate allowed the majority to bring it (legislation) to a vote…We have to be able to react a little faster than we did in the 19th century…We cannot govern a superpower when a minority can dictate…”
Harkin pointed out that the filibuster was established after Vice President Aaron Burr pointed out that the majority party in the Senate would not permit the minority party to debate legislation. However, the Republicans have abused the use of the filibuster during the last four years under Democratic control.
“The power is not what we can do but what we can stop,” he said. “What I fear is that this Senate will continue to be dysfunctional…The American people will get more frustrated.”
Harkin’s bill was co-sponsored by Richard J. Durbin of Illinois;
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland; and Jeanne Shaheen, New
Hampshire. Also voting for the measure were Udall, Mark Begich,
Alaska; Richard Blumenthal and Joseph I. Lieberman, both of
Connecticut; Kirsten E. Gillibrand, New York; John F. Kerry,
Massachusetts; Herb Kohl, Wisconsin; and Frank R. Lautenberg,
New Jersey.
However, the Senate overwhelmingly passed two bills to forbid
any senator from placing an anonymous hold to block a bill or a
nomination and to read lengthy amendments, which has been
employed as a stalling tactic.
What a giant step forward. Why were senators allowed to do this in
the first place?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Blood and butts: Sarah, Paul and Cathie
Author’s note: This gets a tad personal. I love both Maine and New York City, and my Jewish identity remains strong.
Sounds like a new folk-singing trio: Sarah, Paul and Cathie. At best, they are the anti-Peter, Paul and Mary.
In the space of a few days, the Jewish people, African-Americans and just about every other ethnic group were insulted, respectively, by a former Alaska governor, the new governor of Maine and the new chancellor of New York City’s schools.
You may recall that the former Alaska governor - do I really need to spell out who she is? - accused her critics of committing a “blood libel” when they tied violent rhetoric to the shooting rampage in Tucson that left six dead and seriously injured U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Some Jews, including this writer, gave her the benefit of the doubt that she was not aware of the “blood libel’s” anti-Semitic roots.
Palin was given a second chance to explain herself, but she dug her hole deeper when she was interviewed Monday night, Jan. 18, by Sarah-friendly Sean Hannity of Fox News. Her words: “Blood libel obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands and in this case…that’s exactly what was going on,” as quoted in USA Today.
Blood libel authoritatively, not obviously, means being falsely accused of having blood in one’s matzah for the Jewish holiday of Passover. From medieval times onward, Christians accused Jews of killing Christian children and using their blood to make matzah, which is unleavened bread. Palin might have learned of this, but she was still dense enough to universalize this accusation.
As the Martin Luther King Jr. commemoration approached, leaders of the N.A.A.C.P. in Maine complained to The Portland Press Herald that Gov. Paul LePage turned down several invitations from them, prompting them to worry if he cared about their concerns. African-Americans comprise 1.2 percent of the 1.3 million people who live in Maine, and the N.A.A.C.P. is no radical organization; the organization has been criticized as too passive.
As The New York Times reported, LePage claimed he had scheduling conflicts on the King holiday, Monday, July 17, saying, “The fact of the matter is there’s only so many hours in a day, so many hours in a week, and so much that you can do.”
When a reporter for WGME-TV asked about the apparent pattern of his slights to the group, LePage responded, “Tell them to kiss my butt. If they want to play the race card, come to dinner; my son will talk to them.” LePage has an adopted son from Jamaica.
LePage worsened the situation when his spokesman, Dan Demeritt, released this statement: “This is about a special interest group taking issue with the governor for not making time for them and the governor dismissing their complaints in the direct manner people have come to expect from Paul LePage.”
Scheduling conflicts are understandable, but LePage could have delegated someone to meet with N.A.A.C.P. leaders. For that matter, there are departments that deal with issues of concern to the N.A.A.C.P., so he could have directed a department head to undertake the detail work on those issues.
Which brings us to Waterville, Me., 200 miles north of Boston. It was home to former Sens. George Mitchell and the late Edmund Muskie, both highly respected Democrats. LePage was mayor of Waterville before being elected governor last November with 38 percent of the vote, as a Republican. The two other major candidates, both moderate to liberal politicians, received a combined total of 56 percent of the vote. The second highest vote-getter received 37 percent of the votes.
If Maine had runoff elections, LePage would still be mayor of Waterville and the N.A.A.C.P. would probably have been treated with respect by the runoff winner.
LePage took steps to make up for his crude conduct. He promised to meet with N.A.A.C.P. leaders in the future and attended a commemoration breakfast for King in Waterville on Jan. 17. It should go without saying that the N.A.A.C.P. did not deserve this abuse in the first place.
Cathie Black, the new schools chancellor for New York City, wondered aloud at a task force meeting on overcrowding: “Could we just have birth control for a while? It would really help us.”
Those already familiar with Black might concede she is new and was thrust into the job with no experience in education. She attended Catholic schools in the Midwest and her children went to a boarding school…in Connecticut. Mayor Michael Bloomberg was assailed for appointing her; Bloomy was first elected mayor as a Republican and later switched to independent.
Yet one hardly needs experience in the educational field to avoid making grossly insensitive remarks. Common sense would go a long way in that direction.
In a New York Daily News account, Councilman Charles Barron, a Brooklyn Democrat, suggested the obvious - that her joke has racist overtones. The school population teems with children of many races, religions and nationalities, and some of these groups are known for producing large families. We’re not sitting in judgment of any reputed patterns. However, here is a high-income white woman weighing in on the sexual habits of the unwashed native population.
Councilwoman Letitia James, also a Brooklyn Democrat, noted, “It implies that the birth rate is the only contributor to the overcrowding in schools; not the lack of funding for public school education and the continual closure of schools.”
Natalie Ravitz, a spokeswoman for Black, told the News, “She regrets if she left a different impression by making an off-handed joke in the course of that conversation.”
If it is any consolation, Black need not apologize to Orthodox Jews. They usually send their sizeable broods to private Yeshiva schools.
Sounds like a new folk-singing trio: Sarah, Paul and Cathie. At best, they are the anti-Peter, Paul and Mary.
In the space of a few days, the Jewish people, African-Americans and just about every other ethnic group were insulted, respectively, by a former Alaska governor, the new governor of Maine and the new chancellor of New York City’s schools.
You may recall that the former Alaska governor - do I really need to spell out who she is? - accused her critics of committing a “blood libel” when they tied violent rhetoric to the shooting rampage in Tucson that left six dead and seriously injured U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Some Jews, including this writer, gave her the benefit of the doubt that she was not aware of the “blood libel’s” anti-Semitic roots.
Palin was given a second chance to explain herself, but she dug her hole deeper when she was interviewed Monday night, Jan. 18, by Sarah-friendly Sean Hannity of Fox News. Her words: “Blood libel obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands and in this case…that’s exactly what was going on,” as quoted in USA Today.
Blood libel authoritatively, not obviously, means being falsely accused of having blood in one’s matzah for the Jewish holiday of Passover. From medieval times onward, Christians accused Jews of killing Christian children and using their blood to make matzah, which is unleavened bread. Palin might have learned of this, but she was still dense enough to universalize this accusation.
As the Martin Luther King Jr. commemoration approached, leaders of the N.A.A.C.P. in Maine complained to The Portland Press Herald that Gov. Paul LePage turned down several invitations from them, prompting them to worry if he cared about their concerns. African-Americans comprise 1.2 percent of the 1.3 million people who live in Maine, and the N.A.A.C.P. is no radical organization; the organization has been criticized as too passive.
As The New York Times reported, LePage claimed he had scheduling conflicts on the King holiday, Monday, July 17, saying, “The fact of the matter is there’s only so many hours in a day, so many hours in a week, and so much that you can do.”
When a reporter for WGME-TV asked about the apparent pattern of his slights to the group, LePage responded, “Tell them to kiss my butt. If they want to play the race card, come to dinner; my son will talk to them.” LePage has an adopted son from Jamaica.
LePage worsened the situation when his spokesman, Dan Demeritt, released this statement: “This is about a special interest group taking issue with the governor for not making time for them and the governor dismissing their complaints in the direct manner people have come to expect from Paul LePage.”
Scheduling conflicts are understandable, but LePage could have delegated someone to meet with N.A.A.C.P. leaders. For that matter, there are departments that deal with issues of concern to the N.A.A.C.P., so he could have directed a department head to undertake the detail work on those issues.
Which brings us to Waterville, Me., 200 miles north of Boston. It was home to former Sens. George Mitchell and the late Edmund Muskie, both highly respected Democrats. LePage was mayor of Waterville before being elected governor last November with 38 percent of the vote, as a Republican. The two other major candidates, both moderate to liberal politicians, received a combined total of 56 percent of the vote. The second highest vote-getter received 37 percent of the votes.
If Maine had runoff elections, LePage would still be mayor of Waterville and the N.A.A.C.P. would probably have been treated with respect by the runoff winner.
LePage took steps to make up for his crude conduct. He promised to meet with N.A.A.C.P. leaders in the future and attended a commemoration breakfast for King in Waterville on Jan. 17. It should go without saying that the N.A.A.C.P. did not deserve this abuse in the first place.
Cathie Black, the new schools chancellor for New York City, wondered aloud at a task force meeting on overcrowding: “Could we just have birth control for a while? It would really help us.”
Those already familiar with Black might concede she is new and was thrust into the job with no experience in education. She attended Catholic schools in the Midwest and her children went to a boarding school…in Connecticut. Mayor Michael Bloomberg was assailed for appointing her; Bloomy was first elected mayor as a Republican and later switched to independent.
Yet one hardly needs experience in the educational field to avoid making grossly insensitive remarks. Common sense would go a long way in that direction.
In a New York Daily News account, Councilman Charles Barron, a Brooklyn Democrat, suggested the obvious - that her joke has racist overtones. The school population teems with children of many races, religions and nationalities, and some of these groups are known for producing large families. We’re not sitting in judgment of any reputed patterns. However, here is a high-income white woman weighing in on the sexual habits of the unwashed native population.
Councilwoman Letitia James, also a Brooklyn Democrat, noted, “It implies that the birth rate is the only contributor to the overcrowding in schools; not the lack of funding for public school education and the continual closure of schools.”
Natalie Ravitz, a spokeswoman for Black, told the News, “She regrets if she left a different impression by making an off-handed joke in the course of that conversation.”
If it is any consolation, Black need not apologize to Orthodox Jews. They usually send their sizeable broods to private Yeshiva schools.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Absurdity of the funding flow
It resembles absurdist theater.
Following the flow of money between cities, states and the federal government has always been an exercise in futility. The states and cities, along with other local governments, have often scrambled for money in ways that are beyond comprehension.
This is an apt time to reassess the funding flow as new developments surface. Most chilling is the bill that 30 states must pay for federal loans to provide unemployment benefits. California owes $9.7 billion; Michigan, $3.7 billion; New York, $3.2 billion; and the lowest, Hawaii, $24 million.
While many states are already cutting services, laying off employees and/or raising taxes, they must decide how to repay $41 billion to the federal government, and federal officials project that the debt could rise to $80 billion. This fall, the states will be charged $1.3 billion in interest.
This situation turns economic theories on their head. The shallow solutions considered or already executed by the states involve taxing businesses and borrowing from new sources - after borrowing from the federal government.
At the same time, Congress bestowed a $114 billion Christmas gift onto the wealthiest two percent of Americans for the next two years for income tax cuts and a reduction in the estate tax.
Other ludicrous examples of the funding stream:
- Pennsylvania, at this writing, could run out of money on Feb. 28, 2011, to subsidize health insurance for 40,000 low-income working people;
- New York City was accused in a Justice Department lawsuit of overbilling Medicaid by “at least tens of millions of dollars,” possibly because the city sought to avoid spending its own money for more intensive services;
- Virginia’s governor proposed dipping into the state’s sale tax revenue to spend $140 million on road projects, which critics contended was a bandaid approach, anyway;
- New York’s Bravest - the FDNY - planned to charge up to $490 when responding to car crashes in hopes of raising $1 million yearly.
Not to mention all kinds of other previous ploys to raise money that can be recalled offhand. A round-trip train trip that cost $21.50 from Trenton to Manhattan on April 30, 2010, operated by New Jersey Transit, rose to $31 the next day. Pennsylvania’s last governor unsuccessfully sought to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike and charge tolls on Interstate 80, and his successor now wants to sell off the state-controlled liquor store operation.
Police departments are notorious for fining drivers for moving violations and illegal parking for which cities budget. Casino gambling has become a money machine for Pennsylvania, Connecticut and other states.
President Obama, denied a public-option as part of health-care financing, seeks to stabilize funding of medical insurance by requiring all citizens to pay for coverage.
California, New York and the other 28 states that owe the federal government $41 billion borrowed the money because they needed help to fund benefits for millions of unemployed people, as outlined in a New York Times article.
With the bill coming due soon, the situation cannot help but bring to mind a scene from a scene on “Seinfeld” when actor John O’Hurley, as Elaine’s boss, parodies a mad army general played by Marlon Brando in “Apocalypse Now” who tells Elaine: “You are just an errand girl sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.”
The reality resembles a parody of genuine governance.
The Times piece explains that the states hoped that the economy would have improved considerably before the first interest payments came due or that future Congresses might revise the terms. But the economy has yet to improve enough and the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not seem interested in bailing out the states.
The $41 billion debt is separate from additional weeks of unemployment benefits Congress approved in the stimulus and then extended in late December with the tax cut compromise; federal funds will pay for the extended weeks, the Times reports.
The states borrowed the $41 billion to continue funding their basic unemployment compensation, which generally runs 26 weeks.
To pay the interest on the federal loans, the two most populous states - California and Texas - resorted to borrowing. New York, third largest, is raising payroll taxes on employers and Arizona may go that route.
It is ludicrous that any state would borrow funds from one source, and to pay the interest borrow from another source.
California plans to borrow from a trust fund for disabled workers to pay $362 million to the federal government; total debt is $9.7 billion, highest in the nation. Texas used the bond market to borrow $2 billion to return all the money it borrowed; it judged that the interest on the bonds, which are backed by a tax on employers, would cost less, according to the Times account.
New York and Arizona’s response contradicts the Republican argument for extending tax cuts on the wealthy. GOP members of Congress argued that raising taxes on the rich would prevent small businesses from hiring new people or starting new companies at all. That would be the logical outcome of what these two states could be doing.
New York will charge a tax surcharge on employers to pay $115 million in interest on $3.2 billion, the Times reports. Arizona is considering legislation that would pay off both the principal and interest on $258 million by temporarily raising taxes on employers.
In late December, Congress passed legislation to extend tax relief for the wealthy the next two years that will cost nearly triple the amount states owe the federal government, $41 billion against $114 billion.
The White House Web site states that continuation of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of the nation will cost $91 billion, and the Estate Tax reduction will cost $23 billion.
As Obama pointed out, rich Americans have not asked for lower taxes. The evidence at hand indicates that they are not bothered by higher taxes for them. States and congressional districts with substantial concentrations of the wealthy are represented by Democrats, notably in locales such as Beverly Hills and Manhattan’s Upper East Side.
That money could have readily covered the money borrowed by the states.
Another obvious funding drag would be our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are pros and cons about our foreign ventures, but hundreds of billions of tax dollars have been diverted in that direction.
We cannot be under the delusion that higher taxes on the wealthy and ending the wars will constitute a panacea, but it would certainly make a dramatic difference.
Following the flow of money between cities, states and the federal government has always been an exercise in futility. The states and cities, along with other local governments, have often scrambled for money in ways that are beyond comprehension.
This is an apt time to reassess the funding flow as new developments surface. Most chilling is the bill that 30 states must pay for federal loans to provide unemployment benefits. California owes $9.7 billion; Michigan, $3.7 billion; New York, $3.2 billion; and the lowest, Hawaii, $24 million.
While many states are already cutting services, laying off employees and/or raising taxes, they must decide how to repay $41 billion to the federal government, and federal officials project that the debt could rise to $80 billion. This fall, the states will be charged $1.3 billion in interest.
This situation turns economic theories on their head. The shallow solutions considered or already executed by the states involve taxing businesses and borrowing from new sources - after borrowing from the federal government.
At the same time, Congress bestowed a $114 billion Christmas gift onto the wealthiest two percent of Americans for the next two years for income tax cuts and a reduction in the estate tax.
Other ludicrous examples of the funding stream:
- Pennsylvania, at this writing, could run out of money on Feb. 28, 2011, to subsidize health insurance for 40,000 low-income working people;
- New York City was accused in a Justice Department lawsuit of overbilling Medicaid by “at least tens of millions of dollars,” possibly because the city sought to avoid spending its own money for more intensive services;
- Virginia’s governor proposed dipping into the state’s sale tax revenue to spend $140 million on road projects, which critics contended was a bandaid approach, anyway;
- New York’s Bravest - the FDNY - planned to charge up to $490 when responding to car crashes in hopes of raising $1 million yearly.
Not to mention all kinds of other previous ploys to raise money that can be recalled offhand. A round-trip train trip that cost $21.50 from Trenton to Manhattan on April 30, 2010, operated by New Jersey Transit, rose to $31 the next day. Pennsylvania’s last governor unsuccessfully sought to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike and charge tolls on Interstate 80, and his successor now wants to sell off the state-controlled liquor store operation.
Police departments are notorious for fining drivers for moving violations and illegal parking for which cities budget. Casino gambling has become a money machine for Pennsylvania, Connecticut and other states.
President Obama, denied a public-option as part of health-care financing, seeks to stabilize funding of medical insurance by requiring all citizens to pay for coverage.
California, New York and the other 28 states that owe the federal government $41 billion borrowed the money because they needed help to fund benefits for millions of unemployed people, as outlined in a New York Times article.
With the bill coming due soon, the situation cannot help but bring to mind a scene from a scene on “Seinfeld” when actor John O’Hurley, as Elaine’s boss, parodies a mad army general played by Marlon Brando in “Apocalypse Now” who tells Elaine: “You are just an errand girl sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.”
The reality resembles a parody of genuine governance.
The Times piece explains that the states hoped that the economy would have improved considerably before the first interest payments came due or that future Congresses might revise the terms. But the economy has yet to improve enough and the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not seem interested in bailing out the states.
The $41 billion debt is separate from additional weeks of unemployment benefits Congress approved in the stimulus and then extended in late December with the tax cut compromise; federal funds will pay for the extended weeks, the Times reports.
The states borrowed the $41 billion to continue funding their basic unemployment compensation, which generally runs 26 weeks.
To pay the interest on the federal loans, the two most populous states - California and Texas - resorted to borrowing. New York, third largest, is raising payroll taxes on employers and Arizona may go that route.
It is ludicrous that any state would borrow funds from one source, and to pay the interest borrow from another source.
California plans to borrow from a trust fund for disabled workers to pay $362 million to the federal government; total debt is $9.7 billion, highest in the nation. Texas used the bond market to borrow $2 billion to return all the money it borrowed; it judged that the interest on the bonds, which are backed by a tax on employers, would cost less, according to the Times account.
New York and Arizona’s response contradicts the Republican argument for extending tax cuts on the wealthy. GOP members of Congress argued that raising taxes on the rich would prevent small businesses from hiring new people or starting new companies at all. That would be the logical outcome of what these two states could be doing.
New York will charge a tax surcharge on employers to pay $115 million in interest on $3.2 billion, the Times reports. Arizona is considering legislation that would pay off both the principal and interest on $258 million by temporarily raising taxes on employers.
In late December, Congress passed legislation to extend tax relief for the wealthy the next two years that will cost nearly triple the amount states owe the federal government, $41 billion against $114 billion.
The White House Web site states that continuation of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of the nation will cost $91 billion, and the Estate Tax reduction will cost $23 billion.
As Obama pointed out, rich Americans have not asked for lower taxes. The evidence at hand indicates that they are not bothered by higher taxes for them. States and congressional districts with substantial concentrations of the wealthy are represented by Democrats, notably in locales such as Beverly Hills and Manhattan’s Upper East Side.
That money could have readily covered the money borrowed by the states.
Another obvious funding drag would be our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are pros and cons about our foreign ventures, but hundreds of billions of tax dollars have been diverted in that direction.
We cannot be under the delusion that higher taxes on the wealthy and ending the wars will constitute a panacea, but it would certainly make a dramatic difference.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Impeachment and Tom DeLay
“This criminalization of politics,” says Tom DeLay, “is very dangerous, very dangerous to our system. It’s not enough to ruin your reputation. They have to put you in jail, bankrupt you, destroy your family.”
“This criminalization of politics” did not disturb DeLay in 1998 when he engineered the impeachment of Bill Clinton because the president lied about…his sex life.
DeLay felt far differently about it on Monday, Jan. 10, when Travis County Court Judge Pat Priest sentenced DeLay in Austin to three years in prison for money laundering and conspiracy resulting from his role in a ruse to channel corporate donations to Texas state races in 2002, according to The New York Times.
Perhaps the law employed to convict DeLay is a stretch as a criminal offense. For the record, Texas prohibits corporations from contributing directly to political campaigns.
The evidence presented at the trial showed that DeLay and two associates routed $190,000 in corporate donations in 2002 to several Republican candidates for the state legislature, using the Republican National Committee as a conduit, the Times reports.
The state law in question makes one wonder if such contributions should be banned, but that only underscores the point: DeLay is enduring the very treatment he foisted on Clinton. How does it feel?
DeLay and his Republican friends pushed for Clinton’s impeachment on grounds that he denied in court any sexual activity with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, when it turned out that he had. There have been suggestions that Clinton’s denial did not constitute perjury.
That’s not the point, either. Clinton did nothing all that egregious in violation of his responsibilities as president. However anyone regards Clinton’s behavior, what’s the difference in terms of his job?
It was petty stuff, which is what DeLay claims about his conviction and sentencing. In fact, he charges that the Democratic district attorney was using the law to avenge his empowerment of Republicans.
DeLay was not using the power of impeachment to avenge Clinton’s empowerment of Democrats?
DeLay’s hypocrisy is surfacing now, but what should offend all of us was his abuse of the Constitution’s impeachment clause.
Republicans used the powers of impeachment because of Clinton’s policies aimed at improving the lives of all Americans, especially the underprivileged. Of course, Republicans no doubt regarded his policies as a form of treason.
Impeachment is briefly covered in Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Before anyone says that adultery is no crime, do not forget that many states long ago criminalized various moral and religious digressions. No District Attorney would prosecute pre-marital or extra-marital sex, but it is possible that they are on the books as criminal offenses because a given state legislature never bothered to repeal them.
Many women, incidentally, regard adultery as a severe crime, in their minds. They might even demand punishment that us guys would consider very cruel and very unusual.
That, again, underscores the point. DeLay and his friends pursued Clinton over irrelevant issues. Clinton’s lies were rooted in a situation that was not related to his presidential obligations.
The framers of the Constitution had higher purposes for the impeachment clause than settling political scores. DeLay and the other Republicans failed miserably in the appropriate use of the Constitution.
Now DeLay, who is appealing his sentence, feels victimized by an unfair legal situation. Bad law or not, he was still convicted of violating it.
As Judge Priest told him, “Before there were Republicans and Democrats, there was America, and what America is about is the rule of law.”
Just what does Tom DeLay think America is about?
“This criminalization of politics” did not disturb DeLay in 1998 when he engineered the impeachment of Bill Clinton because the president lied about…his sex life.
DeLay felt far differently about it on Monday, Jan. 10, when Travis County Court Judge Pat Priest sentenced DeLay in Austin to three years in prison for money laundering and conspiracy resulting from his role in a ruse to channel corporate donations to Texas state races in 2002, according to The New York Times.
Perhaps the law employed to convict DeLay is a stretch as a criminal offense. For the record, Texas prohibits corporations from contributing directly to political campaigns.
The evidence presented at the trial showed that DeLay and two associates routed $190,000 in corporate donations in 2002 to several Republican candidates for the state legislature, using the Republican National Committee as a conduit, the Times reports.
The state law in question makes one wonder if such contributions should be banned, but that only underscores the point: DeLay is enduring the very treatment he foisted on Clinton. How does it feel?
DeLay and his Republican friends pushed for Clinton’s impeachment on grounds that he denied in court any sexual activity with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, when it turned out that he had. There have been suggestions that Clinton’s denial did not constitute perjury.
That’s not the point, either. Clinton did nothing all that egregious in violation of his responsibilities as president. However anyone regards Clinton’s behavior, what’s the difference in terms of his job?
It was petty stuff, which is what DeLay claims about his conviction and sentencing. In fact, he charges that the Democratic district attorney was using the law to avenge his empowerment of Republicans.
DeLay was not using the power of impeachment to avenge Clinton’s empowerment of Democrats?
DeLay’s hypocrisy is surfacing now, but what should offend all of us was his abuse of the Constitution’s impeachment clause.
Republicans used the powers of impeachment because of Clinton’s policies aimed at improving the lives of all Americans, especially the underprivileged. Of course, Republicans no doubt regarded his policies as a form of treason.
Impeachment is briefly covered in Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Before anyone says that adultery is no crime, do not forget that many states long ago criminalized various moral and religious digressions. No District Attorney would prosecute pre-marital or extra-marital sex, but it is possible that they are on the books as criminal offenses because a given state legislature never bothered to repeal them.
Many women, incidentally, regard adultery as a severe crime, in their minds. They might even demand punishment that us guys would consider very cruel and very unusual.
That, again, underscores the point. DeLay and his friends pursued Clinton over irrelevant issues. Clinton’s lies were rooted in a situation that was not related to his presidential obligations.
The framers of the Constitution had higher purposes for the impeachment clause than settling political scores. DeLay and the other Republicans failed miserably in the appropriate use of the Constitution.
Now DeLay, who is appealing his sentence, feels victimized by an unfair legal situation. Bad law or not, he was still convicted of violating it.
As Judge Priest told him, “Before there were Republicans and Democrats, there was America, and what America is about is the rule of law.”
Just what does Tom DeLay think America is about?
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Sarah Palin and disturbing patterns
Hey, Sarah P.:
You could not have planned it better yourself.
A moderate/liberal congresswoman is currently incapacitated and a future politician - a 9-year-old child who would run as a Democrat, no doubt - is out of the way permanently. Think of all the would-be candidates who by now figure that politics is not worth their lives - if they were not already scared off by your gun sight images on a map of congressional districts represented by Gabriel Giffords and other centrists and progressives.
It is too abstract to connect your rantings to Jared L. Loughner‘s rampage last Saturday, Jan. 8. He is a deranged person who may or may not have been influenced by people like you, and we cannot know if anti-Semitism factored into his shooting spree. So he was arrested for murding six innocent people and wounding 14 others when Giffords met with constituents in Tucson. Giffords, the first Jewish congresswoman elected from an Arizona district, miraculously survived a gunshot wound to the head.
Yet your political tactics suggest two disturbing patterns - intimidation methods and political assassinations that have transformed history. From your perch in Alaska, perhaps you never had any intention of scaring or hurting anyone, and you meant your words metaphorically. However, your kind of language is downright irresponsible.
The map that you presented can intimidate people. It can make candidates and potential candidates wonder if they should feel threatened. Also threatening are your words: “Don’t retreat! Instead - RELOAD!”, as recounted in Michael Daly’s column in The New York Daily News.
Some of your comrades made similar comments. Sharron Angle, in her unsuccessful campaign against Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, suggested “Second Amendment remedies” to deal with frustrations with government, according to The Wall Street Journal. She also proclaimed, “The first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out,” the Daily News reported.
Giffords’ challenger in the last election, Republican Jesse Kelly, actually held a “targeting victory” fund-raiser last summer when he invited donors to shoot an M-16 with him, according to The New York Times. In October, he said during a rally, “If you dare to stand up to the government they call us a mob. We’re about to show them what a mob looks like.”
Such words are more typically associated with inmates at a mental institution than political candidates. If they talked this way about the president, they might have been vulnerable to prosecution. A threat to the president is a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison.
Political assassinations also have historic consequences. What if Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy had lived to finish their tenure in office?
Of course, Giffords cannot carry out her obligations now. If she is too incapacitated to serve in the long run, a Republican might be elected in a special election or in 2012. You wouldn’t complain about that, would you?
For good measure, the gunman murdered a 9-year-old girl who was recently elected to her student council. Maybe he feared that she would grow up to run for office as a liberal Democrat.
There is precedent for being so cynical. Some years ago, a right-wing columnist suggested that Chelsea Clinton be killed so she could not carry on the family legacy. Not much was made of it then.
You and other conservatives have been very defensive. You topped them all when you accused critics of manufacturing a “blood libel” about you. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not aware that “blood libel” was mainly an accusation used to persecute Jews.
It would be nice if this situation destroys whatever credibility you have left. May the public turn you into Baked Alaska. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
You could not have planned it better yourself.
A moderate/liberal congresswoman is currently incapacitated and a future politician - a 9-year-old child who would run as a Democrat, no doubt - is out of the way permanently. Think of all the would-be candidates who by now figure that politics is not worth their lives - if they were not already scared off by your gun sight images on a map of congressional districts represented by Gabriel Giffords and other centrists and progressives.
It is too abstract to connect your rantings to Jared L. Loughner‘s rampage last Saturday, Jan. 8. He is a deranged person who may or may not have been influenced by people like you, and we cannot know if anti-Semitism factored into his shooting spree. So he was arrested for murding six innocent people and wounding 14 others when Giffords met with constituents in Tucson. Giffords, the first Jewish congresswoman elected from an Arizona district, miraculously survived a gunshot wound to the head.
Yet your political tactics suggest two disturbing patterns - intimidation methods and political assassinations that have transformed history. From your perch in Alaska, perhaps you never had any intention of scaring or hurting anyone, and you meant your words metaphorically. However, your kind of language is downright irresponsible.
The map that you presented can intimidate people. It can make candidates and potential candidates wonder if they should feel threatened. Also threatening are your words: “Don’t retreat! Instead - RELOAD!”, as recounted in Michael Daly’s column in The New York Daily News.
Some of your comrades made similar comments. Sharron Angle, in her unsuccessful campaign against Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, suggested “Second Amendment remedies” to deal with frustrations with government, according to The Wall Street Journal. She also proclaimed, “The first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out,” the Daily News reported.
Giffords’ challenger in the last election, Republican Jesse Kelly, actually held a “targeting victory” fund-raiser last summer when he invited donors to shoot an M-16 with him, according to The New York Times. In October, he said during a rally, “If you dare to stand up to the government they call us a mob. We’re about to show them what a mob looks like.”
Such words are more typically associated with inmates at a mental institution than political candidates. If they talked this way about the president, they might have been vulnerable to prosecution. A threat to the president is a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison.
Political assassinations also have historic consequences. What if Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy had lived to finish their tenure in office?
Of course, Giffords cannot carry out her obligations now. If she is too incapacitated to serve in the long run, a Republican might be elected in a special election or in 2012. You wouldn’t complain about that, would you?
For good measure, the gunman murdered a 9-year-old girl who was recently elected to her student council. Maybe he feared that she would grow up to run for office as a liberal Democrat.
There is precedent for being so cynical. Some years ago, a right-wing columnist suggested that Chelsea Clinton be killed so she could not carry on the family legacy. Not much was made of it then.
You and other conservatives have been very defensive. You topped them all when you accused critics of manufacturing a “blood libel” about you. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not aware that “blood libel” was mainly an accusation used to persecute Jews.
It would be nice if this situation destroys whatever credibility you have left. May the public turn you into Baked Alaska. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
An illegitimate Congress?
First an illegitimate president, now we may have an illegitimate Congress.
Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives - one of them close to home - cast six votes on Thursday, Jan. 6, when they had not yet been sworn in.
A decade ago, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Florida vote-counting system unconstitutional that allowed George W. Bush to become president. That prevented us from learning if Bush or Al Gore won the election via the electoral college, as spelled out in the Constitution.
The swearing-in of the 112th Congress was held for 433 House members on Wednesday afternoon, Jan. 5, as two other members - Michael Fitzpatrick of Bucks County, a Philadelphia suburb, and Pete Sessions of Dallas - attended a reception for more than 500 of Fitzpatrick’s constituents a few hundred yards away, in the Capitol Visitor Center, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Washington Post.
As Speaker of the House John Boehner administered the oath of office on the House floor, Sessions and Fitzpatrick watched Boehner on live television and recited the oath without leaving the reception, at 2:15 p.m. Predictably, House parliamentarians told them they must be officially sworn in, and Boehner administered the oath of office on Thursday.
Fitzpatrick said he thought that the Jan. 5 swearing-in would be held at 2:45, not 2:15. Of course, any situation could arise that might prevent a member of Congress from attending the swearing-in.
Their failure to show up for the oath does not by itself jeopardize the operations of Congress. It is problematic that they cast votes for six legislative measures before taking their oath of office.
Can these measures be legitimate after two illegitimate congressmen cast votes?
If Sessions and Fitzpatrick paid attention when the Constitution was recited on Thursday morning, they would have been aware of Article VI, Clause 3: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
Sessions and Fitzpatrick were not “bound by Oath or Affirmation” when they voted to establish the rules of the House and a 5 percent reduction in congressional office allowances, according to The Washington Post. Their votes were stricken from the Congressional Record on Friday, but is that sufficient?
This fact remains: The House passed six measures in which two illegal votes were cast for each. That could make the entire package of bills illegal. Any one of these bills which, if they need to be ratified by the Senate and signed by the president, could be illegal because illegal votes were cast.
Sessions even chaired a committee meeting on Thursday.
Sessions and Fitzpatrick should have arranged to be sworn in before casting any votes. It takes plenty of gall to cast votes without abiding by the constitutional requirement to be “bound by Oath or Affirmation.” Sessions has spent the last 14 years in Congress and Fitzpatrick was first elected in 2004, defeated two years later and elected again this past November. They should have known better.
Anyone who objects to a law passed in this manner might file lawsuits based on the casting of the two illegal votes.
Also, any law stemming from the committee meeting could also be challenged.
Supporters of these bills might argue that these measures would have passed without the votes cast by Sessions and Fitzpatrick, so it is appropriate to maintain the results. However, the initial inclusion of these votes could taint the end result.
Practically speaking, these measures will probably not be challenged in court. Even if a legal challenge reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, maybe all the Judges on the right and the left will uphold the legislation because it is impractical to do otherwise.
All the same, Congress moved away from our constitutional principles. The House took legislative action that was not legitimate. The only way to make it legitimate is to wipe the slate clean and hold the votes and the committee meeting again.
Certainly, as Rep. Anthony Weiner of the Forest Hills section of Queens asked in open session, the House leadership must be sure that all representatives have been sworn in first.
Many critics have assailed the new Republican majority for a series of hypocritical acts during its first days in power, but all of it pales by this blunder - that the House acted in its official capacity when it was not official.
The House not only violated the Constitution when it undertook those six votes. The House persists in violating the Constitution so long as it refuses to straighten out its self-inflicted mess.
This is not parsing. The law is the law is the law. If our own Congress cannot abide by the law that binds it, then our system is automatically violated.
That is a slap in the face to every citizen of this country.
Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives - one of them close to home - cast six votes on Thursday, Jan. 6, when they had not yet been sworn in.
A decade ago, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Florida vote-counting system unconstitutional that allowed George W. Bush to become president. That prevented us from learning if Bush or Al Gore won the election via the electoral college, as spelled out in the Constitution.
The swearing-in of the 112th Congress was held for 433 House members on Wednesday afternoon, Jan. 5, as two other members - Michael Fitzpatrick of Bucks County, a Philadelphia suburb, and Pete Sessions of Dallas - attended a reception for more than 500 of Fitzpatrick’s constituents a few hundred yards away, in the Capitol Visitor Center, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Washington Post.
As Speaker of the House John Boehner administered the oath of office on the House floor, Sessions and Fitzpatrick watched Boehner on live television and recited the oath without leaving the reception, at 2:15 p.m. Predictably, House parliamentarians told them they must be officially sworn in, and Boehner administered the oath of office on Thursday.
Fitzpatrick said he thought that the Jan. 5 swearing-in would be held at 2:45, not 2:15. Of course, any situation could arise that might prevent a member of Congress from attending the swearing-in.
Their failure to show up for the oath does not by itself jeopardize the operations of Congress. It is problematic that they cast votes for six legislative measures before taking their oath of office.
Can these measures be legitimate after two illegitimate congressmen cast votes?
If Sessions and Fitzpatrick paid attention when the Constitution was recited on Thursday morning, they would have been aware of Article VI, Clause 3: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
Sessions and Fitzpatrick were not “bound by Oath or Affirmation” when they voted to establish the rules of the House and a 5 percent reduction in congressional office allowances, according to The Washington Post. Their votes were stricken from the Congressional Record on Friday, but is that sufficient?
This fact remains: The House passed six measures in which two illegal votes were cast for each. That could make the entire package of bills illegal. Any one of these bills which, if they need to be ratified by the Senate and signed by the president, could be illegal because illegal votes were cast.
Sessions even chaired a committee meeting on Thursday.
Sessions and Fitzpatrick should have arranged to be sworn in before casting any votes. It takes plenty of gall to cast votes without abiding by the constitutional requirement to be “bound by Oath or Affirmation.” Sessions has spent the last 14 years in Congress and Fitzpatrick was first elected in 2004, defeated two years later and elected again this past November. They should have known better.
Anyone who objects to a law passed in this manner might file lawsuits based on the casting of the two illegal votes.
Also, any law stemming from the committee meeting could also be challenged.
Supporters of these bills might argue that these measures would have passed without the votes cast by Sessions and Fitzpatrick, so it is appropriate to maintain the results. However, the initial inclusion of these votes could taint the end result.
Practically speaking, these measures will probably not be challenged in court. Even if a legal challenge reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, maybe all the Judges on the right and the left will uphold the legislation because it is impractical to do otherwise.
All the same, Congress moved away from our constitutional principles. The House took legislative action that was not legitimate. The only way to make it legitimate is to wipe the slate clean and hold the votes and the committee meeting again.
Certainly, as Rep. Anthony Weiner of the Forest Hills section of Queens asked in open session, the House leadership must be sure that all representatives have been sworn in first.
Many critics have assailed the new Republican majority for a series of hypocritical acts during its first days in power, but all of it pales by this blunder - that the House acted in its official capacity when it was not official.
The House not only violated the Constitution when it undertook those six votes. The House persists in violating the Constitution so long as it refuses to straighten out its self-inflicted mess.
This is not parsing. The law is the law is the law. If our own Congress cannot abide by the law that binds it, then our system is automatically violated.
That is a slap in the face to every citizen of this country.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Filibuster plan: Good start falls short
Ironic that U.S. senators debated over the right to debate tactics that jam the works.
The filibuster was the focus of debate on the first day of the Senate session, Jan. 5. Majority party members were not specific during the public debate itself as to how they would eliminate the difficulties touched off by abuse of the filibuster. Republicans were not clear about what they feared by any change in the rules.
Democrats had already proposed changes prior to Wednesday’s debate which are rather mild and fail to guarantee that legislation will not be obstructed from holding an up-or-down majority vote.
Senate Democrats and others have been frustrated by threats of filibusters during the last two years which ended in watered-down laws. Such laws mean that the federal government will have no direct control of the health-care system and hundreds of billions of dollars will be lost in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. To end a filibuster, 60 votes are required; 51 votes are needed for a simple majority vote.
Democrats were compelled to act more than 90 times to end debate in recent years, The New York Times reported.
“The minority has simply been abusing Senate rules,” noted Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, as quoted in the Times.
Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley and Tom Harkin - Democratic senators from New Mexico, Oregon and Iowa - made history by moving to curtail the filibuster. It is among many fixtures of government that obstructs measures to serve the public, dampens the democratic process and permits institutional racism to prevail.
The filibuster is arguably the second best known fly in the ointment of the system, after the electoral college which allows for election of a president even if he cannot attain a majority vote.
Team Udall merits credit for taking these baby steps. They proposed elimination of anonymous holds on legislation and presidential nominees, and they would require that any senator threatening a filibuster must physically argue their case on the floor. Presumably, the minority party might assign senators to rotating shifts.
Udall likely expects that nobody in either party, or independent senators Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut) and Bernie Sanders (Vermont), will spend weeks or months of their valuable time to stem legislation pressed by the majority.
Besides, some senators who attempt this feat could look foolish. On Wednesday, three Republican senators were no match for Jimmy Stewart’s portrayal of an everyman-type senator who conducts a filibuster in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The day prior to the debate, Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander recited a quote at a Heritage Foundation function that the filibuster gives a senator “the right to talk your head off.”
Alexander lied his head off on Wednesday when he claimed that the Affordable Care Act was “rammed through” the Senate. President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly reached out to Republicans and watered down the law in hopes of winning their votes.
Alexander contended that a 60-vote threshold to end debate allows for a “consensus” among senators so that legislation has more broad-based support. The price for this consensus is weakening laws so they provide minimal aid to average citizens and give business interests hefty concessions.
Many jobless citizens will receive unemployment pay for the next 13 months because Obama acceded to Republican demands for tax cuts for the wealthy.
If Alexander embraces consensus, consider that the Democratic majority represents roughly 190 million Americans - even after its losses last November - because more Democrats represent the most populous states and more Republicans represent the least populous states. Four Democratic senators together represent one-sixth of the population, the combined inhabitants of New York and California.
Even when Republicans control the Senate, they usually represent less than half the population, which is currently estimated at 308 million.
Both Alexander and former Sen. John E. Sununu (New Hampshire) suggested that the Constitution’s framers created the filibuster. As Harkin pointed out, the Constitution authorizes each chamber to make its own rules, not establish the rules itself. Their suggestion was made during Alexander’s remarks and a Boston Globe commentary written by Sununu.
Pat Roberts of Kansas rambled on for several minutes, recalling that Democrats opposed filibuster adjustments when Republicans controlled the Senate. That must mean that two wrongs make a right.
John Cornyn of Texas crowed that anyone who tries to change Senate rules is “playing with fire.”
News coverage of the opening skirmishes was skimpy, but fortunately I caught much of the debate on C-span. Television commentators Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow did not let the issue escape their notice.
The Udall plan addresses Republican concerns about allowing debate and inserting amendments to legislation.
The proposal does not ensure that there will be an end to the debate. Practically speaking, neither individual senators nor a bloc of senators will expend an unlimited amount of time on genuine filibustering. Sanders only lasted nine hours last Dec. 10. However, one never knows.
The measure should impose a deadline, one that permits a reasonable amount of time for ample debate.
There has been predictable speculation that Team Udall did not go further for fear that it would sound like a Democratic takeover.
Chances for any meaningful change are unpredictable. More than 50 senators petitioned for a change, but some have different ideas as to how to effect change. Thirteen senators reportedly proposed the Udall plan.
As The Washington Post and other media outlets reported, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid of Nevada and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are privately negotiating a compromise.
Hopefully, the end result of Senate action will break the logjam. Maybe the proposed filibuster changes will be watered down just as the existing filibuster does to majority-supported legislation. Such irony would be no surprise.
The filibuster was the focus of debate on the first day of the Senate session, Jan. 5. Majority party members were not specific during the public debate itself as to how they would eliminate the difficulties touched off by abuse of the filibuster. Republicans were not clear about what they feared by any change in the rules.
Democrats had already proposed changes prior to Wednesday’s debate which are rather mild and fail to guarantee that legislation will not be obstructed from holding an up-or-down majority vote.
Senate Democrats and others have been frustrated by threats of filibusters during the last two years which ended in watered-down laws. Such laws mean that the federal government will have no direct control of the health-care system and hundreds of billions of dollars will be lost in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. To end a filibuster, 60 votes are required; 51 votes are needed for a simple majority vote.
Democrats were compelled to act more than 90 times to end debate in recent years, The New York Times reported.
“The minority has simply been abusing Senate rules,” noted Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, as quoted in the Times.
Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley and Tom Harkin - Democratic senators from New Mexico, Oregon and Iowa - made history by moving to curtail the filibuster. It is among many fixtures of government that obstructs measures to serve the public, dampens the democratic process and permits institutional racism to prevail.
The filibuster is arguably the second best known fly in the ointment of the system, after the electoral college which allows for election of a president even if he cannot attain a majority vote.
Team Udall merits credit for taking these baby steps. They proposed elimination of anonymous holds on legislation and presidential nominees, and they would require that any senator threatening a filibuster must physically argue their case on the floor. Presumably, the minority party might assign senators to rotating shifts.
Udall likely expects that nobody in either party, or independent senators Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut) and Bernie Sanders (Vermont), will spend weeks or months of their valuable time to stem legislation pressed by the majority.
Besides, some senators who attempt this feat could look foolish. On Wednesday, three Republican senators were no match for Jimmy Stewart’s portrayal of an everyman-type senator who conducts a filibuster in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The day prior to the debate, Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander recited a quote at a Heritage Foundation function that the filibuster gives a senator “the right to talk your head off.”
Alexander lied his head off on Wednesday when he claimed that the Affordable Care Act was “rammed through” the Senate. President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly reached out to Republicans and watered down the law in hopes of winning their votes.
Alexander contended that a 60-vote threshold to end debate allows for a “consensus” among senators so that legislation has more broad-based support. The price for this consensus is weakening laws so they provide minimal aid to average citizens and give business interests hefty concessions.
Many jobless citizens will receive unemployment pay for the next 13 months because Obama acceded to Republican demands for tax cuts for the wealthy.
If Alexander embraces consensus, consider that the Democratic majority represents roughly 190 million Americans - even after its losses last November - because more Democrats represent the most populous states and more Republicans represent the least populous states. Four Democratic senators together represent one-sixth of the population, the combined inhabitants of New York and California.
Even when Republicans control the Senate, they usually represent less than half the population, which is currently estimated at 308 million.
Both Alexander and former Sen. John E. Sununu (New Hampshire) suggested that the Constitution’s framers created the filibuster. As Harkin pointed out, the Constitution authorizes each chamber to make its own rules, not establish the rules itself. Their suggestion was made during Alexander’s remarks and a Boston Globe commentary written by Sununu.
Pat Roberts of Kansas rambled on for several minutes, recalling that Democrats opposed filibuster adjustments when Republicans controlled the Senate. That must mean that two wrongs make a right.
John Cornyn of Texas crowed that anyone who tries to change Senate rules is “playing with fire.”
News coverage of the opening skirmishes was skimpy, but fortunately I caught much of the debate on C-span. Television commentators Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow did not let the issue escape their notice.
The Udall plan addresses Republican concerns about allowing debate and inserting amendments to legislation.
The proposal does not ensure that there will be an end to the debate. Practically speaking, neither individual senators nor a bloc of senators will expend an unlimited amount of time on genuine filibustering. Sanders only lasted nine hours last Dec. 10. However, one never knows.
The measure should impose a deadline, one that permits a reasonable amount of time for ample debate.
There has been predictable speculation that Team Udall did not go further for fear that it would sound like a Democratic takeover.
Chances for any meaningful change are unpredictable. More than 50 senators petitioned for a change, but some have different ideas as to how to effect change. Thirteen senators reportedly proposed the Udall plan.
As The Washington Post and other media outlets reported, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid of Nevada and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are privately negotiating a compromise.
Hopefully, the end result of Senate action will break the logjam. Maybe the proposed filibuster changes will be watered down just as the existing filibuster does to majority-supported legislation. Such irony would be no surprise.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Unusual punishment, unusual justice
Observers of the U.S. Supreme Court might question why Justice Sonia Sotomayor advocated for a Louisiana inmate’s complaint of abuse by prison officials.
The more valid question that we can pose is this: Why didn’t the other eight justices join her?
Sotomayor was on target. Anthony C. Pitre’s constitutional rights were violated. He was subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment” when prison officials took steps that jeopardized his health.
A New York Times article tracking hints of Sotomayor’s approach to cases before the court reported on her opinion challenging the court’s refusal to hear Pitre’s case.
Pitre had ceased taking his H.I.V. medicine to protest his transfer from one facility to another. In response, prison officials forced him to perform hard labor in 100-degree heat, and Pitre had to be treated in the emergency room twice as a result.
Lower courts argued that he created his own problems, but Sotomayer wrote, “Pitre’s decision to refuse medication may have been foolish and likely caused a significant part of his pain. But that decision does not give prison officials license to exacerbate Pitre’s condition further as a means of punishing or coercing him - just as a prisoner’s disruptive conduct does not permit prison officials to punish the prisoner by handcuffing him to a hitching post.”
Sotomayor’s opinion was based on the Eighth Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The judge who sentenced Pitre to prison did not sentence him to any special forms of abuse. A prison sentence is the punishment for his crime, not to force the inmate to perform hard labor or to do anything that will cause him injury.
Plenty of people believe that worrying about the Eighth Amendment is idiotic. These criminals didn’t care what they did to their victims. Why should we care about them?
On an emotional level, we should not care about them. However, our criminal justice system was created to bring order to our society. If we drag ourselves down to their level, we are no better than they are. In fact, we are allowing government employees to violate the law themselves.
The prison officials knowingly placed Pitre’s life at risk by forcing him to perform hard labor. They did it twice. After the first time, they should have known that he could be harmed. In Pennsylvania, that translates to the criminal offense of reckless endangerment, and most other states likely provide for comparative offenses.
For that matter, any prison officials who did this or tolerated it should be prosecuted themselves. They committed a crime.
Sotomayor did not go this far, but she could have.
We need not ask why Sotomayor took this position. We need to ask why the other eight justices did not join her or at least give her view consideration.
Perhaps Pitre suffered no permanent harm, but the possibility was there because prison officials placed him in this position.
What is bothersome is that none of the other eight justices caught what Sotomayor did. They are experienced attorneys and judges and even attended elite law schools. Can’t they recognize when an inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights are being violated?
Maybe they did not bother with the case because there was no mention of permanent harm done to Pitre. Does that excuse the actions of prison officials?
At least four of the justices - Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts - should not be on the court. Most court observers have mixed feelings about Anthony Kennedy, and I have never felt inspired by President Clinton’s appointees. Elena Kagen is brand new.
This episode suggests that Sotomayor feels passion for the concerns that shape cases that reach the court. This does not mean she needs to follow a habitual ideology - actually, none of them should - but she is genuinely concerned with how the law impacts on average people.
Her style is reminiscent of Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan and Louis Brandeis.
It is a breath of fresh air.
The more valid question that we can pose is this: Why didn’t the other eight justices join her?
Sotomayor was on target. Anthony C. Pitre’s constitutional rights were violated. He was subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment” when prison officials took steps that jeopardized his health.
A New York Times article tracking hints of Sotomayor’s approach to cases before the court reported on her opinion challenging the court’s refusal to hear Pitre’s case.
Pitre had ceased taking his H.I.V. medicine to protest his transfer from one facility to another. In response, prison officials forced him to perform hard labor in 100-degree heat, and Pitre had to be treated in the emergency room twice as a result.
Lower courts argued that he created his own problems, but Sotomayer wrote, “Pitre’s decision to refuse medication may have been foolish and likely caused a significant part of his pain. But that decision does not give prison officials license to exacerbate Pitre’s condition further as a means of punishing or coercing him - just as a prisoner’s disruptive conduct does not permit prison officials to punish the prisoner by handcuffing him to a hitching post.”
Sotomayor’s opinion was based on the Eighth Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The judge who sentenced Pitre to prison did not sentence him to any special forms of abuse. A prison sentence is the punishment for his crime, not to force the inmate to perform hard labor or to do anything that will cause him injury.
Plenty of people believe that worrying about the Eighth Amendment is idiotic. These criminals didn’t care what they did to their victims. Why should we care about them?
On an emotional level, we should not care about them. However, our criminal justice system was created to bring order to our society. If we drag ourselves down to their level, we are no better than they are. In fact, we are allowing government employees to violate the law themselves.
The prison officials knowingly placed Pitre’s life at risk by forcing him to perform hard labor. They did it twice. After the first time, they should have known that he could be harmed. In Pennsylvania, that translates to the criminal offense of reckless endangerment, and most other states likely provide for comparative offenses.
For that matter, any prison officials who did this or tolerated it should be prosecuted themselves. They committed a crime.
Sotomayor did not go this far, but she could have.
We need not ask why Sotomayor took this position. We need to ask why the other eight justices did not join her or at least give her view consideration.
Perhaps Pitre suffered no permanent harm, but the possibility was there because prison officials placed him in this position.
What is bothersome is that none of the other eight justices caught what Sotomayor did. They are experienced attorneys and judges and even attended elite law schools. Can’t they recognize when an inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights are being violated?
Maybe they did not bother with the case because there was no mention of permanent harm done to Pitre. Does that excuse the actions of prison officials?
At least four of the justices - Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts - should not be on the court. Most court observers have mixed feelings about Anthony Kennedy, and I have never felt inspired by President Clinton’s appointees. Elena Kagen is brand new.
This episode suggests that Sotomayor feels passion for the concerns that shape cases that reach the court. This does not mean she needs to follow a habitual ideology - actually, none of them should - but she is genuinely concerned with how the law impacts on average people.
Her style is reminiscent of Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan and Louis Brandeis.
It is a breath of fresh air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)