Whew! The American people need not worry that U.S. Senate leaders might do their job, as in taking command of the legislative agenda.
We sure do not want to jeopardize the Democratic Senate seats in conservative-leaning states like Montana, Nebraska and North Dakota.
Under the headline “Senate Democrats’ minimalist agenda,” The Washington Post reports that the Democratic majority has intentionally restrained itself to save seats in states like these.
The May 21 Post account states: “Democrats have decided to try to shield those lawmakers from the usual weeks-long debates and instead await for compromises to be reached behind closed doors. Reid’s approach is a bet that doing nothing looks better for them, so long as their arguments resonate with voters in 2012.”
Welcome to governance in 2011. We are stuck with an immovable Senate because doing their jobs might cause some Democrats to lose their jobs in the November 2012 election. The Democratic leadership is worried that they will lose their 51-47 majority if they overplay their hand; two senators are independents who caucus with the Democrats.
What, then, is the point of having a Senate?
Senate gridlock is rooted in the Senate’s composition when delegates from smaller states at the Constitutional Convention feared that the larger states would dominate the government under a Congress with proportionate representation. They compromised by requiring equal representation for all states in the Senate while leaving the House of Representatives with proportionate representation.
The five states that opposed proportionate representation in 1787 would surely benefit by it today, either directly or indirectly. Though a small state, Delaware is part of the liberal Northeast bloc as is Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey…almost forgot, New York was the fifth dissident state. Rhode Island did not participate in the convention, but all six states are currently represented by Democrats in the Senate.
Most low-population states are conservative or conservative-leaning. Most are represented by Republicans in the Senate or alternate between the two parties. If Tom Daschle represented New Jersey or New York rather than South Dakota, where he lost in a re-election bid, he would almost certainly be serving in the Senate today.
Daschle’s fellow Democrats do not want others like him defeated, so they adjust their agenda to protect their Senate seats in swing states. Three of those states, where two incumbents are up for re-election and a third is retiring, are home to 3.5 million people - Nebraska, 1.7 million; Montana, 975,00; and North Dakota, 646,000.
So, 1 percent of the nation’s citizenry can propel the Senate leadership to ignore or minimize the needs and concerns of millions upon millions of Americans. Democrats in the 112th Senate represent 190 million Americans. America’s latest population estimate is 308 million.
The four Democratic senators from New York and California collectively represent one-sixth of America’s population, 36.9 million in California and 19.5 million in New York.
That leaves 56.4 million Americans, and millions from other moderate or liberal states, in the lurch.
If the Senate represented the populace on a more proportionate basis, then far more attention would likely be paid to issues raised by the senators from high-population states such as New York and California.
It is necessary to point out how the Constitution’s requirements for Senate representation limits responsiveness to residents of the more populous states. Clarifying the problem is the first step toward resolving it.
However, I am well aware of the obstacles under the amendment process to changing the rules. On the surface, accomplishing anything substantial appears to be impossible.
One never knows. Maybe it can be done. After nearly 10 years, who genuinely expected America to find Osama bin Laden? Perhaps the same will and determination can be applied to revising the rules.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
A chance for Snowe, Brown to escape GOP
U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown’s political hassles of late present a powerful argument for more independents in Congress, which could mean even them.
If Maine political history repeats itself, Snowe will win with ease in the 2012 general election - if she is not ousted in the Republican primary because saner Republicans have been departing the party. That leaves the GOP with a concentration of yahoos.
Brown may face the same challenge in the Massachusetts Republican primary and, if he survives that, he will be vulnerable to defeat in the general election.
The more conservative Republicans have characterized Brown and Snowe as “rino’s,” or “Republicans in name only,” because their voting records are perceived as too liberal. They try to portray themselves as moderates. Someone described their concept of “moderate” as a person who tries to save a drowning victim 30 feet out to sea by tossing him a lifeline…of 15 feet.
What brings this to mind is Brown’s declaration to graduates of Lasell College on Sunday, May 16, as reported in The Boston Globe: “I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican - just as one party can’t be right 100 percent of the time, it shouldn’t have 100 percent of the power. Unchallenged power grows arrogant over time. It is what has given us one case of graft after another.”
One-party rule is unhealthy in a democracy, but Republican policies compel many of us to vote for Democrats in most elections. After all, if we are repulsed by GOP positions, we usually have one alternative - the Democrats. Ditto for voters displeased with the Democrats. The system discourages independent and third-party candidates because of the winner-take-all outcome permitted in elections.
Brown obviously designed his statement to accommodate his 2012 re-election campaign. As the only Republican in the state’s congressional delegation, Brown’s re-election would preclude one-party rule among members of Congress from Massachusetts and throughout state government.
If Brown is this worried about one-party rule, he can address this concern just as well by running as an independent. He would probably have a better chance to win as an independent and, if he wins, can focus on the needs of Massachusetts residents rather than demands of his party. An advantage to campaigning in Massachusetts lies in geographic convenience. Massachusetts has a large population, but more than half its citizens live within 25 miles of Boston.
Republican or independent, Brown is vulnerable in 2012, especially if the Democratic nominee runs a savvy campaign. He just flipped-flopped on Medicare. On Friday, May 14, 2011, Brown pledged to vote for the House budget plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system, and then promised on Monday, May 23, to vote against it.
Neither Snowe nor Maine’s other GOP senator, Susan Collins, need do much campaigning for re-election. Each has won re-election with high margins in past general elections, but they cannot be so optimistic about future Republican primaries. A number of prominent Republican office-holders elsewhere were defeated in their primaries because the party has become more conservative.
In early May, GOP primary rival Scott D’Amboise of Lisbon Falls accused Snowe’s husband of “stealing and misappropriating taxpayer funding” following a U.S. Department of Justice court motion to intervene in a lawsuit against Pittsburgh-based Education Management Corp. which alleges that the company improperly compensated employees who recruit students to the for-profit college company’s institutions, The Portland Press Herald reported. Snowe’s husband, former Maine Gov. John McKernan, is chairman of the company and has held other high-ranking positions there since 1998.
Note that nothing has been proven that her husband did anything wrong. Of course, this issue could come back to haunt Snowe if there really is something to it.
Snowe responded by calling D’Amboise’s comment “libelous,” adding, “You have a potential opponent here who suggests that he already has a verdict.”
Why should Snowe bother to haggle with this guy in the primary? After three terms in the Senate, Snowe is positioned to win as an independent. Certainly, running as an independent is hard. A candidate needs an organization and money which best comes from an established party. Also, independents siphon votes away from one or both of the other rivals.
Yet Snowe could win handily. Independents who have won statewide elections elsewhere had usually established themselves first as people of stature - in Maine, former Gov. Angus King; Vermont, current Sen. Bernie Sanders; Rhode Island, current Gov. Lincoln D. Chafee; and Connecticut, current Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and former Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr.
As independent senators, neither Snowe nor Brown would be saddled with pressures from any political party. They would be free to vote for what is best for their constituents only. That is hardly the case now.
If Maine political history repeats itself, Snowe will win with ease in the 2012 general election - if she is not ousted in the Republican primary because saner Republicans have been departing the party. That leaves the GOP with a concentration of yahoos.
Brown may face the same challenge in the Massachusetts Republican primary and, if he survives that, he will be vulnerable to defeat in the general election.
The more conservative Republicans have characterized Brown and Snowe as “rino’s,” or “Republicans in name only,” because their voting records are perceived as too liberal. They try to portray themselves as moderates. Someone described their concept of “moderate” as a person who tries to save a drowning victim 30 feet out to sea by tossing him a lifeline…of 15 feet.
What brings this to mind is Brown’s declaration to graduates of Lasell College on Sunday, May 16, as reported in The Boston Globe: “I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican - just as one party can’t be right 100 percent of the time, it shouldn’t have 100 percent of the power. Unchallenged power grows arrogant over time. It is what has given us one case of graft after another.”
One-party rule is unhealthy in a democracy, but Republican policies compel many of us to vote for Democrats in most elections. After all, if we are repulsed by GOP positions, we usually have one alternative - the Democrats. Ditto for voters displeased with the Democrats. The system discourages independent and third-party candidates because of the winner-take-all outcome permitted in elections.
Brown obviously designed his statement to accommodate his 2012 re-election campaign. As the only Republican in the state’s congressional delegation, Brown’s re-election would preclude one-party rule among members of Congress from Massachusetts and throughout state government.
If Brown is this worried about one-party rule, he can address this concern just as well by running as an independent. He would probably have a better chance to win as an independent and, if he wins, can focus on the needs of Massachusetts residents rather than demands of his party. An advantage to campaigning in Massachusetts lies in geographic convenience. Massachusetts has a large population, but more than half its citizens live within 25 miles of Boston.
Republican or independent, Brown is vulnerable in 2012, especially if the Democratic nominee runs a savvy campaign. He just flipped-flopped on Medicare. On Friday, May 14, 2011, Brown pledged to vote for the House budget plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system, and then promised on Monday, May 23, to vote against it.
Neither Snowe nor Maine’s other GOP senator, Susan Collins, need do much campaigning for re-election. Each has won re-election with high margins in past general elections, but they cannot be so optimistic about future Republican primaries. A number of prominent Republican office-holders elsewhere were defeated in their primaries because the party has become more conservative.
In early May, GOP primary rival Scott D’Amboise of Lisbon Falls accused Snowe’s husband of “stealing and misappropriating taxpayer funding” following a U.S. Department of Justice court motion to intervene in a lawsuit against Pittsburgh-based Education Management Corp. which alleges that the company improperly compensated employees who recruit students to the for-profit college company’s institutions, The Portland Press Herald reported. Snowe’s husband, former Maine Gov. John McKernan, is chairman of the company and has held other high-ranking positions there since 1998.
Note that nothing has been proven that her husband did anything wrong. Of course, this issue could come back to haunt Snowe if there really is something to it.
Snowe responded by calling D’Amboise’s comment “libelous,” adding, “You have a potential opponent here who suggests that he already has a verdict.”
Why should Snowe bother to haggle with this guy in the primary? After three terms in the Senate, Snowe is positioned to win as an independent. Certainly, running as an independent is hard. A candidate needs an organization and money which best comes from an established party. Also, independents siphon votes away from one or both of the other rivals.
Yet Snowe could win handily. Independents who have won statewide elections elsewhere had usually established themselves first as people of stature - in Maine, former Gov. Angus King; Vermont, current Sen. Bernie Sanders; Rhode Island, current Gov. Lincoln D. Chafee; and Connecticut, current Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and former Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr.
As independent senators, neither Snowe nor Brown would be saddled with pressures from any political party. They would be free to vote for what is best for their constituents only. That is hardly the case now.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Filibustering in Bizarro Washington World
Harry Reid negotiates the George Costanza way in Seinfeld’s Bizarro World.
Reid, the Senate majority leader, reached an accord last Jan. 27, 2011, with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to retain the filibuster power that Republicans employed to block any kind of government-run health-care system and persist with tax cuts for the wealthy.
Reid and Mitchell’s pact allows Republican senators to submit nearly all the amendments they want to a given measure, and Republicans will limit their use of the filibuster.
Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, quoted in The Oregonian at the time, 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’s fears were realized on Tuesday, May 17, when Democrats proposed ending tax breaks for five major oil companies accused of unfairly padding industry profits, according to The New York Times. The measure would have passed if a majority vote was sufficient, but the 52-48 vote fell short of the 60 votes required to end debate.
In a fundraising e-mail distributed for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee the next day, Reid whined: “It’s a no-brainer: Big Oil doesn’t need taxpayer subsidies. After all, the five largest oil companies raked in profits of $32 billion in the first quarter of 2011 - while Americans are paying four bucks a gallon at the pump. And yet, they continue to collect billions in tax dollar handouts at a time when we need to cut spending.
“It’s unfair, and MUST stop. But last night, Republicans derailed a Democratic bill that would end this double-fisted cash grab and save $21 billion.”
Another “no-brainer”: Big Senate doesn’t need a filibuster. Four months ago, Reid “derailed a Democratic bill that would end this double-fisted” power grab and save us all lots of aggravation.
Merkley was joined in January by Tom Harkin of Iowa and Tom Udall of New Mexico in a bid to “to end this double-fisted” filibuster power
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 trio pressed for 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.
You can compare just about any antics in the Senate to Jerry Seinfeld’s Bizarro World. Seinfeld fans should recall that George spoiled their talks with NBC to produce a show about “nothing” because he was aggrieved that their $13,000 offer was way short of Ted Danson’s package.
Once the magnitude of his blunder dawned on him, George begged for reconsideration. NBC offered $8,000 this time.
Jerry explained to George that the idea of negotiations “is to get you’re price up, not down. This is how they negotiate in the Bizarro World.”
Or how Harry Reid negotiates in the Senate.
The Senate is plagued with structural problems because the Constitution requires that each state has equal clout, potentially allowing the 26 least populous states to gang up on the larger states. Practically speaking, more small states are conservative and more large states are moderate to liberal.
With their slight majority, the 51 Democrats and two independents represent 190 million Americans out of 308 million, and they represented 200 million before Republicans whittled down the majority last November. The four Democrats elected in New York and California collectively represent one-sixth of the nation’s population.
Reid has worked hard for various causes to benefit the public, but how does it help anyone to hand the Republicans a decisive weapon like the filibuster?
Reid in the past defended the filibuster when Republicans controlled the Senate, and Democratic senators feared losing this device if they return to the minority. Democrats also might have feared that they might be demonized if they curbed or ended the filibuster.
They might have sustained some political damage in the short term, but they would have ensured themselves a level playing field if they took decisive action against the filibuster.
Reid’s negotiating style extends the operational patterns in the Senate, which should also be known as Bizarro Washington World. You cannot pass a measure with a majority vote, but 41 votes - or 41 percent - can obstruct legislation?
Seinfeld’s writers could well have been inspired by the Senate to create Bizarro World.
Reid, the Senate majority leader, reached an accord last Jan. 27, 2011, with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to retain the filibuster power that Republicans employed to block any kind of government-run health-care system and persist with tax cuts for the wealthy.
Reid and Mitchell’s pact allows Republican senators to submit nearly all the amendments they want to a given measure, and Republicans will limit their use of the filibuster.
Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, quoted in The Oregonian at the time, 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’s fears were realized on Tuesday, May 17, when Democrats proposed ending tax breaks for five major oil companies accused of unfairly padding industry profits, according to The New York Times. The measure would have passed if a majority vote was sufficient, but the 52-48 vote fell short of the 60 votes required to end debate.
In a fundraising e-mail distributed for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee the next day, Reid whined: “It’s a no-brainer: Big Oil doesn’t need taxpayer subsidies. After all, the five largest oil companies raked in profits of $32 billion in the first quarter of 2011 - while Americans are paying four bucks a gallon at the pump. And yet, they continue to collect billions in tax dollar handouts at a time when we need to cut spending.
“It’s unfair, and MUST stop. But last night, Republicans derailed a Democratic bill that would end this double-fisted cash grab and save $21 billion.”
Another “no-brainer”: Big Senate doesn’t need a filibuster. Four months ago, Reid “derailed a Democratic bill that would end this double-fisted” power grab and save us all lots of aggravation.
Merkley was joined in January by Tom Harkin of Iowa and Tom Udall of New Mexico in a bid to “to end this double-fisted” filibuster power
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 trio pressed for 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.
You can compare just about any antics in the Senate to Jerry Seinfeld’s Bizarro World. Seinfeld fans should recall that George spoiled their talks with NBC to produce a show about “nothing” because he was aggrieved that their $13,000 offer was way short of Ted Danson’s package.
Once the magnitude of his blunder dawned on him, George begged for reconsideration. NBC offered $8,000 this time.
Jerry explained to George that the idea of negotiations “is to get you’re price up, not down. This is how they negotiate in the Bizarro World.”
Or how Harry Reid negotiates in the Senate.
The Senate is plagued with structural problems because the Constitution requires that each state has equal clout, potentially allowing the 26 least populous states to gang up on the larger states. Practically speaking, more small states are conservative and more large states are moderate to liberal.
With their slight majority, the 51 Democrats and two independents represent 190 million Americans out of 308 million, and they represented 200 million before Republicans whittled down the majority last November. The four Democrats elected in New York and California collectively represent one-sixth of the nation’s population.
Reid has worked hard for various causes to benefit the public, but how does it help anyone to hand the Republicans a decisive weapon like the filibuster?
Reid in the past defended the filibuster when Republicans controlled the Senate, and Democratic senators feared losing this device if they return to the minority. Democrats also might have feared that they might be demonized if they curbed or ended the filibuster.
They might have sustained some political damage in the short term, but they would have ensured themselves a level playing field if they took decisive action against the filibuster.
Reid’s negotiating style extends the operational patterns in the Senate, which should also be known as Bizarro Washington World. You cannot pass a measure with a majority vote, but 41 votes - or 41 percent - can obstruct legislation?
Seinfeld’s writers could well have been inspired by the Senate to create Bizarro World.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Scalia, no class act(ion) for justice
Maybe Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer was thinking of two or more of his Supreme Court colleagues when he wrote, “Only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”
The associate justice regarded by court critics as leading court fanatic, Antonin Scalia, wrote the majority opinion on Wednesday, April 27, 2011, depriving ordinary consumers of another avenue to contest possible injustice. Scalia’s opinion was supported by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Breyer’s disdainful retort was part of his dissent that was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. It was the usual 5-4 line-up for a contentious issue.
The court ruled that businesses may use standard-form contracts to prohibit consumers who claim fraud from joining together in a single arbitration, according to The New York Times.
Vanderbilt University Law Professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick explained, “The decision basically lets companies escape class actions, so long as they do so by means of arbitration agreements…It’s one of the most important and favorable cases for businesses in a very long time.”
Vincent and Liza Concepcion of California filed the lawsuit against ATT&T Mobility seeking class-action treatment after objecting to a $30 fee for what was said to be a free cellphone, the Times reported.
AT&T responded by relying on the contract requiring the couple to settle disputes through arbitration and prohibited them from joining with others to seek class-action treatment, whether in arbitration or in traditional litigation in court.
The company argued that the case could neither move forward in court nor as a class action in any forum, but lower federal courts would not enforce the arbitration agreement and permitted the case to proceed. The courts followed a 2005 California Supreme Court decision that prohibited class waivers as unconscionable, according to the Times.
Scalia wrote in the majority opinion that the lower courts did not properly apply the Federal Arbitration Act which overrides some state court rulings against arbitration. The California Supreme Court’s ruling prohibited class waivers in all standard-form contracts, whether applicable to arbitrations or court proceedings, as unconscionable if they gave rise to claims that the companies issuing them had set out “to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small amounts of money,” the Times reported.
Scalia wrote, “Requiring the availability of class wide arbitration interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration.”
Breyer stated, “Where does the majority get its contrary idea - that individual, rather than class, arbitration is a fundamental attribute of arbitration?
He pointed out that class arbitrations are more efficient and, primarily important, minor frauds such as that claimed by the California couple will not be resolved.
He wrote, “What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Conceptions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?” Quoting from another case, he added, “Only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”
Vulnerable people in this society have limited avenues to obtain justice. Wealthy people sometime file lawsuits over the most petty affronts. Attorneys turn down claims from people if they cannot see a cost-effective case in it or they cannot afford the legal fees.
Scalia and other conservatives embrace the “original intent” of the framers of the Constitution. Was it their “original intent” to leave ordinary people without legal recourse?
The associate justice regarded by court critics as leading court fanatic, Antonin Scalia, wrote the majority opinion on Wednesday, April 27, 2011, depriving ordinary consumers of another avenue to contest possible injustice. Scalia’s opinion was supported by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Breyer’s disdainful retort was part of his dissent that was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. It was the usual 5-4 line-up for a contentious issue.
The court ruled that businesses may use standard-form contracts to prohibit consumers who claim fraud from joining together in a single arbitration, according to The New York Times.
Vanderbilt University Law Professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick explained, “The decision basically lets companies escape class actions, so long as they do so by means of arbitration agreements…It’s one of the most important and favorable cases for businesses in a very long time.”
Vincent and Liza Concepcion of California filed the lawsuit against ATT&T Mobility seeking class-action treatment after objecting to a $30 fee for what was said to be a free cellphone, the Times reported.
AT&T responded by relying on the contract requiring the couple to settle disputes through arbitration and prohibited them from joining with others to seek class-action treatment, whether in arbitration or in traditional litigation in court.
The company argued that the case could neither move forward in court nor as a class action in any forum, but lower federal courts would not enforce the arbitration agreement and permitted the case to proceed. The courts followed a 2005 California Supreme Court decision that prohibited class waivers as unconscionable, according to the Times.
Scalia wrote in the majority opinion that the lower courts did not properly apply the Federal Arbitration Act which overrides some state court rulings against arbitration. The California Supreme Court’s ruling prohibited class waivers in all standard-form contracts, whether applicable to arbitrations or court proceedings, as unconscionable if they gave rise to claims that the companies issuing them had set out “to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small amounts of money,” the Times reported.
Scalia wrote, “Requiring the availability of class wide arbitration interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration.”
Breyer stated, “Where does the majority get its contrary idea - that individual, rather than class, arbitration is a fundamental attribute of arbitration?
He pointed out that class arbitrations are more efficient and, primarily important, minor frauds such as that claimed by the California couple will not be resolved.
He wrote, “What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Conceptions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?” Quoting from another case, he added, “Only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”
Vulnerable people in this society have limited avenues to obtain justice. Wealthy people sometime file lawsuits over the most petty affronts. Attorneys turn down claims from people if they cannot see a cost-effective case in it or they cannot afford the legal fees.
Scalia and other conservatives embrace the “original intent” of the framers of the Constitution. Was it their “original intent” to leave ordinary people without legal recourse?
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Red states don't gripe about gov't storm aid
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina: “It should have some spending cuts as a down payment on controlling the size of our federal government.”
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Richmond, Va.: “We’ve had to bring this president kicking and screaming to the table to cut spending.”
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio: “It’s time for us to get serious about how we’re spending the nation’s money.”
These Republicans, along with others in Congress and statehouses like Trenton and Madison, demand smaller government and lower spending, yet they have not complained about the federal government’s aid to the Republican-dominated Southern states ravaged by storms and tornadoes that left 350 people dead.
“They have been very proactive and very reactive to our requests,” Rep. Robert B. Aderholt, a northern Alabama Republican, told The New York Times.
Aderholt was praising the Obama administration’s response to the storms, mainly through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. When the president visited Tuscaloosa, Ala., the hardest hit area in the region, Obama said, “We’re going to make sure that you’re not forgotten and that we do everything we can make sure that we rebuild.”
Obama signed a disaster declaration for Alabama on Thursday, April 28, 2011, and subsequently signed disaster declarations for Georgia and Mississippi.
FEMA administrator W. Craig Fugate explained that the declarations sought by these states mean that the federal government will pay 75 percent of the uninsured costs to repair public buildings; that residents can qualify for modest recovery grants; and that businesses can apply for low-interest loans.
FEMA also assigned liaison officers to Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee, a spokesman said.
Aderholt, a veteran House member who seems more reasonable than extremist Republicans, is not resisting the government’s aid to Alabama and the other southern states. Most of them are represented by Republicans in the Senate, the House and their respective governor’s offices.
Probably some people wish that Obama had rejected these disaster declarations in the spirit of shrinking government. If Republicans want less government, why would they accept federal aid for storm relief?
Back in Washington, the GOP House and Senate members from these states have been plotting to eliminate programs that help all Americans generally and big cities specifically.
Never did they express such urgent concern when they voted to invade two fragmented countries one after the other and cut taxes for the wealthy.
The hypocrisy is glaring, but the disasters plaguing the South show that even southern states need government. The only effective means of resolving America’s many problems is to involve government, directly or indirectly.
We all certainly recognize that there are many problems with government.
Ronald Reagan’s proclamation that “Government is the problem” distorts the situation. Government is “a” problem when it does not carry out its responsibilities properly. Did Reagan do his job or was he “the problem” for eight years?
The same question can be posed to Boehner, Cantor and Graham.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Richmond, Va.: “We’ve had to bring this president kicking and screaming to the table to cut spending.”
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio: “It’s time for us to get serious about how we’re spending the nation’s money.”
These Republicans, along with others in Congress and statehouses like Trenton and Madison, demand smaller government and lower spending, yet they have not complained about the federal government’s aid to the Republican-dominated Southern states ravaged by storms and tornadoes that left 350 people dead.
“They have been very proactive and very reactive to our requests,” Rep. Robert B. Aderholt, a northern Alabama Republican, told The New York Times.
Aderholt was praising the Obama administration’s response to the storms, mainly through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. When the president visited Tuscaloosa, Ala., the hardest hit area in the region, Obama said, “We’re going to make sure that you’re not forgotten and that we do everything we can make sure that we rebuild.”
Obama signed a disaster declaration for Alabama on Thursday, April 28, 2011, and subsequently signed disaster declarations for Georgia and Mississippi.
FEMA administrator W. Craig Fugate explained that the declarations sought by these states mean that the federal government will pay 75 percent of the uninsured costs to repair public buildings; that residents can qualify for modest recovery grants; and that businesses can apply for low-interest loans.
FEMA also assigned liaison officers to Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee, a spokesman said.
Aderholt, a veteran House member who seems more reasonable than extremist Republicans, is not resisting the government’s aid to Alabama and the other southern states. Most of them are represented by Republicans in the Senate, the House and their respective governor’s offices.
Probably some people wish that Obama had rejected these disaster declarations in the spirit of shrinking government. If Republicans want less government, why would they accept federal aid for storm relief?
Back in Washington, the GOP House and Senate members from these states have been plotting to eliminate programs that help all Americans generally and big cities specifically.
Never did they express such urgent concern when they voted to invade two fragmented countries one after the other and cut taxes for the wealthy.
The hypocrisy is glaring, but the disasters plaguing the South show that even southern states need government. The only effective means of resolving America’s many problems is to involve government, directly or indirectly.
We all certainly recognize that there are many problems with government.
Ronald Reagan’s proclamation that “Government is the problem” distorts the situation. Government is “a” problem when it does not carry out its responsibilities properly. Did Reagan do his job or was he “the problem” for eight years?
The same question can be posed to Boehner, Cantor and Graham.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Chimp flap in California
Marilyn Davenport of Fullerton, Calif., must have been shocked to learn that her comparison of a black man to a chimpanzee is considered racist.
I joke with African-American friends about racial differences to the point that it gets silly. One friend at work was offended that I passed up a chocolate bar, and I responded that my doctor warned that chocolate was bad for me. I think I know where to draw the line. I would not distribute an e-mail that superimposes President Obama’s face on the figure of a chimp accompanied by the words: “Now you know why - No birth certificate.”
Perhaps they think differently in Orange County. Try this explanation on for size. According to The Los Angeles Times, Davenport wrote these words for members of the central committee of the Orange County Republican Party:
“I’m sorry if my e-mail offended anyone. I simply found it amusing regarding the character of Obama and all the questions surrounding his origin of birth. In no way did I even consider the fact he’s half black when I sent out the e-mail. In fact, the thought never entered my mind until one or two other people tried to make this about race.
“We all know a double standard applies regarding this president. I received plenty of e-mails about George Bush that I didn’t particularly like, yet there was no ’cry’ in the media about them.”
Comparing African-Americans with chimps, monkeys and what have you has long been a common racial slur.
County Republican Chairman Scott Baugh called on her to resign, stating in an e-mail to her that her message is “dripping with racism and is in very poor taste.”
“I looked at it, my jaw dropped,” sid Michael Schroeder of Orange County, who formerly chaired the California Republican Party.
Schroeder told The Orange County Register she “doesn’t represent the party - but how we respond to it does.”
We can wonder what really moves Baugh and Schroeder to condemn her. There has been bad blood between Davenport and Baugh, and the GOP has long taken positions harmful to vulnerable people of all races and religions. They are probably also concerned about the party’s image.
Baugh and Schroeder still did the right thing, and their response merits our appreciation.
Committee member Tim Whitacre called Davenport’s e-mail “motivational, fun” having no ties to Republican affairs. Maybe so, but now we know their personal attitudes toward African-Americans as a group, which adds to our distrust of Republicans.
Davenport dubbed the leak of her e-mail “cowardly” and wrote, “Anyone brave enough to come forward?”
If Davenport did nothing wrong, why is she so worried about leaks?
Top honors for bizarre statements must go to Deborah Pauly, first vice president of the county GOP, who told the Register: “It’s an ethical violation to embarrass the Republican Party. If you’re going to address ethics violations, you need to look at all the people who have brought dishonor to the Republican Party.”
There are sure plenty of governors and members of Congress who are competing “to embarrass the Republican Party.”
I joke with African-American friends about racial differences to the point that it gets silly. One friend at work was offended that I passed up a chocolate bar, and I responded that my doctor warned that chocolate was bad for me. I think I know where to draw the line. I would not distribute an e-mail that superimposes President Obama’s face on the figure of a chimp accompanied by the words: “Now you know why - No birth certificate.”
Perhaps they think differently in Orange County. Try this explanation on for size. According to The Los Angeles Times, Davenport wrote these words for members of the central committee of the Orange County Republican Party:
“I’m sorry if my e-mail offended anyone. I simply found it amusing regarding the character of Obama and all the questions surrounding his origin of birth. In no way did I even consider the fact he’s half black when I sent out the e-mail. In fact, the thought never entered my mind until one or two other people tried to make this about race.
“We all know a double standard applies regarding this president. I received plenty of e-mails about George Bush that I didn’t particularly like, yet there was no ’cry’ in the media about them.”
Comparing African-Americans with chimps, monkeys and what have you has long been a common racial slur.
County Republican Chairman Scott Baugh called on her to resign, stating in an e-mail to her that her message is “dripping with racism and is in very poor taste.”
“I looked at it, my jaw dropped,” sid Michael Schroeder of Orange County, who formerly chaired the California Republican Party.
Schroeder told The Orange County Register she “doesn’t represent the party - but how we respond to it does.”
We can wonder what really moves Baugh and Schroeder to condemn her. There has been bad blood between Davenport and Baugh, and the GOP has long taken positions harmful to vulnerable people of all races and religions. They are probably also concerned about the party’s image.
Baugh and Schroeder still did the right thing, and their response merits our appreciation.
Committee member Tim Whitacre called Davenport’s e-mail “motivational, fun” having no ties to Republican affairs. Maybe so, but now we know their personal attitudes toward African-Americans as a group, which adds to our distrust of Republicans.
Davenport dubbed the leak of her e-mail “cowardly” and wrote, “Anyone brave enough to come forward?”
If Davenport did nothing wrong, why is she so worried about leaks?
Top honors for bizarre statements must go to Deborah Pauly, first vice president of the county GOP, who told the Register: “It’s an ethical violation to embarrass the Republican Party. If you’re going to address ethics violations, you need to look at all the people who have brought dishonor to the Republican Party.”
There are sure plenty of governors and members of Congress who are competing “to embarrass the Republican Party.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)