Eye Recommend --- Busting the Filibuster

BUSTING THE FILIBUSTER, by Alex Altman -- (I have copied the entire article here since Time magazine, while allowing sharing through Facebook or Google+, will not allow non-subscribers to access full articles with just a link.) 

While both parties are guilty of filibuster abuse, the past four years have provided an example of unprecedented application.  Mitch McConnell's use of the filibuster to stall a bill he had introduced demonstrates how ludicrous the situation has become.  It is time to make our Senate a place of progress rather than procedural paralysis.

The underlines are mine.


"Jeff Merkley first came to the Senate as a 19-year-old intern in 1976, in an era before cell phones and C-SPAN, back when the upper chamber still got things done. "I saw legislation in action," he recalls. So he was shocked when he returned in 2009, this time as the junior Senator from Oregon, to find that the world's greatest deliberative body spent very little time deliberating. Merkley says the root of the dysfunction was easy to spot: widespread abuse of the filibuster, the procedural tactic Senators use to block a vote on a bill or presidential nomination.

Now Merkley and a handful of other Democratic reformers are trying to cure the Senate's paralysis by curbing the use of the filibuster. While their proposal will struggle to overcome Republican objections, it could lead to changes that make the Senate a place of real work once again. But don't hold your breath.

The filibuster, a term that derives from the Dutch word for pirate, was never intended to be a feature of the Senate. It became possible in 1806, after Vice President Aaron Burr suggested that the Senate streamline its rule book by dropping a provision that empowered the majority to end debate on a bill. The change allowed a single member to stall legislation, and the tactic gained popularity. In 1917, Woodrow Wilson--faced with opposition to his plan to arm merchant ships during World War I--muscled through Senate Rule 22, which created the so-called cloture vote, by which Senators can overcome the filibuster. Until the mid-1970s, filibusters were rare.

In today's polarized Senate, use of the tactic has skyrocketed. Members of both parties have wielded it to stop all sorts of things. Since 2007, Democrats have invoked cloture almost 400 times to break Republican filibusters. In December, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell filibustered one of his own bills--a moment that crystallized the chamber's sad journey from a once great debating society to something of a laughingstock. The Senate, says Democratic Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, is a "graveyard for good ideas."

Merkley, Udall and Iowa's Tom Harkin want to force filibusters out of the shadows and into the spotlight. Current Senate rules permit "silent" filibusters, enabling members to stymie proceedings from the comfort of their hideaway offices. The heart of the Democrats' proposal would require Senators to hold forth on the floor when they want to delay a vote, in the kind of dramatic soliloquy immortalized in the Frank Capra movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The change would not only require Senators to devote precious time to filibustering but also make them accountable to voters for frivolous obstruction.

This being the Senate, Merkley and Udall want to fix the filibuster with a procedural gambit of their own. Senate practice requires a two-thirds majority to alter the rules, but a simple majority can make tweaks at the outset of a legislative session. The 113th Congress opened on Jan. 3. But rather than adjourn, the Senate went into recess, freezing the chamber on its first legislative day to buy time to debate the fate of the filibuster. The Senate may be sluggish, but at least it has the power to make a single day last for weeks.

Republicans won't easily relinquish the minority party's biggest weapon. The talking filibuster is a "deal killer" for Republicans, predicts Sarah Binder, an expert on congressional procedure. And as Merkley learned when he floated a similar proposal two years ago, filibuster reform is unpopular with some senior Democrats who spent time in the minority and want to preserve their leverage should they end up there again.

Merkley says Democrats now have the 51 votes required to force reform, a prospect that could coax the GOP to negotiate. He sees "the makings of a substantive bipartisan deal" to ease the legislative logjam while ensuring the minority's right to offer amendments. Compromise has been in short supply on Capitol Hill, but one of the few forces capable of provoking change is public censure. Recent polls showed that voters ranked the 112th Congress as less popular than cockroaches, colonoscopies and communism. If anything can make the members of the Senate work together, it's the threat of being sent home."

The United States of the NRA?

Following the killing of 20 elementary school children in Newtown, CT in November, President Obama has finally decided that we need to take another look at gun control in this country.  Vice President Joe Biden has been meeting with community and industry leaders in an effort to find some common ground on the issue and is expected to to deliver his recommendations on Tuesday.  Not surprisingly, the NRA does not support the President and Vice President's efforts.

what eye thynk:    The NRA's answer to our mass murder epidemic is simple and clear:  more guns--armed guards in schools, guns in churches, guns in bars, in parks...  The NRA has no "enough" button.  They continue to push and push and push.  Once every citizen owns a military style arsenal for their personal use, what then?  When a rifle rack comes standard on every car, will they push for an optional bazooka mount for the roof of your mini-van?

This past week I've seen video of NRA supporters going completely nuts over this issue; and while I have to believe these people represent the lunatic fringe of extremism, I find their passion and their willingness to voice it to the world just a little frightening.  In my perfect world, people who think like this are aware of how off the charts they are in terms of normal behavior and that awareness awakens a degree of shame that keeps them quiet and contained.  I don't like that these people have made me rethink my definition of "normal". 

The Piers Morgan interview with radio host Alex Jones, (who wants to deport Mr. Morgan over his anti-gun views), went viral.  "1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!  Doesn't matter how many lemmings you get out there on the street, begging for 'em to have their guns taken. We will not relinquish them.  Do you understand?!"

A video created by James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, a company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills in Tennessee, shows Mr. Yeager promising to "start killing people" if President Obama succeeds in passing new gun control laws.

These are not examples of rational behavior, yet the NRA applauds them for their extremism and that support fosters even more dangerous actions.  With no one to tell them they have gone too far, how far will one of these extremists go?

Yes, there are common sense gun owners in this country--lots of them, I'm married to one.   But common sense carries a soft voice.  Let us hope that Vice President Biden can hear us over the bellowing that is the stock in trade of the NRA.  Because, contrary to what people like Alex Jones and James Yeager would have us believe, the NRA doesn't run this country.  We do.

A.I.G. Wisely Says "No" to Maurice Greenberg, Poster Child for Greed and Ingratitude

This week, A.I.G. bought television time to run ads thanking America for bailing them out in 2008 when it looked like the company would go under.  The U.S. Treasury recently sold the last of its stock back to A.I.G. for a profit.

On that basis, former top executive Maurice Greenberg is suing the United States over the bailout claiming the terms required by the U.S. Treasury hurt the interests of stockholders, including himself, by unfairly diluting the holdings of shareholders and thus denying them profits that went instead into the U.S. Treasury. 

On Wednesday, Mr. Greenberg met with A.I.G.'s Board of Directors in attempt to persuade them to join his lawsuit.  After being hit with widespread negative publicity earlier in the week when news of the meeting became known, A.I.G. wisely declined Mr. Greenberg's offer.  He will continue on his own.

what eye thynk:    Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth!  Mr. Greenberg is upset that, rather than lose money by saving his company, (which apparently would have been fine with him--I doubt, had that happened, we would be seeing Mr. Greenberg offering to reimburse us for our generosity), the U.S. Treasury actually made a profit and now he sees that profit as rightfully belonging to himself and his fellow stockholders.  Really?  How did they earn it?  By driving the company to the brink of total collapse?

The company was in crisis because of toxic investments and a board of directors that failed to properly oversee their mortgage businesses.  When the U.S. Treasury stepped in to save the company in 2008, the situation was so bad that there were no private investors willing to finance the company through a managed bankruptcy.  

We, the taxpayers, took a chance--a huge chance--to try to save the company.  Without the U.S. Treasury, A.I.G. surely would have gone the way of Lehman Bros.  The Board of Directors of A.I.G. agreed to the government’s terms for a bailout and were happy to be saved from the prospect of losing everything.  Mr. Greenberg voiced no objections at that time.

So now, rather than being grateful he still has an A.I.G. investment portfolio, he wants to bite the hand that saved him.  With his ridiculous lawsuit, Mr. Greenberg has managed to take greed to a whole new level.  Disgusting.

Quick Fact - Company That Lost 2/3 of Work Force on 9/11 Gives $10M to Sandy Victims

Cantor Fitzgerald lost 658 employees in the World Trade Center on 9/11.  Now the company, along with its affiliate BGC Partners is stepping up with a $10M gift to help families devastated by Hurricane Sandy.  They have selected 19 schools in the damaged areas and are giving each family a debit card worth $1000 to use as they see fit--whether that be repairs, replacement furniture or new toys.  There are no strings attached.   The schools chosen are in areas where company employees live.

After 9/11, Cantor Fitzgerald formed a relief fund to assist company families who lost loved ones in the terrorist attack.  Each year, on the anniversary of the attack, the company donates the day's revenues and employees donate their day's pay to charity.  Last September that total was $12M.

Read more:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nyc-firm-hit-hard-911-10m-sandy-aid-18177731

Eye Recommend - National Cathedral to Wed Same-sex Couples

NATIONAL CATHEDRAL TO WED SAME-SEX COUPLES, by Ben Brumfeld
http://us.cnn.com/2013/01/09/us/us-same-sex-weddings/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

This makes me so happy!!!!!!

The Washington National Cathedral is "an active house of worship in the Episcopalian Church, said the Cathedral's dean, Gary Hall.  The denomination has developed a blessing rite that mirrors current wedding ceremonies for heterosexual couples and allows each bishop to decide to allow same-sex marriages in their churches or not.

Bishop Mariann Budde decided to allow the rite, since same-sex marriage is legal in the District of Columbia and now in neighboring Maryland as well, Hall said.

It was Budde's decision that led Hall to create the same-sex rite.

He sees it as 'another historic step toward greater equality'."

Maxine Takes on the Republican Party

what eye thynk:   This would be funny if it weren't so true.

Quick Fact - The House Approves Funding to Defend DOMA

An addendum to today's earlier post re: misplaced priorities...

In another case of wasting resources, the new House of Representatives also found time last week to authorize House lawyers to continue putting together cases promoting the enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act  for the Justice Department.

"The vote (to approve funding) done as one of the first actions of the new Congress, is the first time that the entire House has acted to approve the House's defense of DOMA and comes as the Supreme Court is considering one of the challenges to the law."  (Chris Geidner, BuzzFeed staff writer)

This is a total waste of time and taxpayer dollars since the Justice Department has already said it will not take up any case defending the DOMA, sighting questions about the law's constitutionality.