A few days ago I said that I would be coming back to write about filibuster.
Before I get into my position on this I will provide a small synopsis of the filibuster, where the word comes from and its effect on our political system.
The term filibuster was first used in 1851, and it is a word derived from Spanish filibustero meaning pirate or freebooter. Thus the word filibuster would mean pirating or taking control of the time of debate. It is not a new concept. The Roman Senate had members that would filibuster.
Both Houses of Congress allowed its members to filibuster. The House of Representatives allowed the filibuster until 1842 when a rule was passed that stopped the use of it.
In the Senate it would require 67 senators to stop a filibuster. The rule was then changed to 60 in 1975.
The Senate used to use the filibuster to stop or extend debate of bills.
In the period 1999-2002 an average of 58 filibusters took place. In the period ending 2008 there were over 110 filibusters, almost double of the previous minority. In most instances used for reasons that are unnecessary such as allowing proposed staff members of the Executive branch to be brought to a vote on the floor.
This is arguably the main reason why the public in the United States is frustrated with its government, nothing gets done. The Senate has become the place where all bills end up dying.
Before my conclusion I will draw a comparison with the election of US senators. When the constitution was written members of the senate were elected by state legislatures. Between 1911 and 1912 the Seventeenth Amendment to the constitution was passed changing Articles 1 & 3 allowing US senators to be directly elected.
Lastly, this also brings me to the election of US presidents. This is probably one of the few democracies in which the public does not elect its presidents directly. The concept of the electoral college may have been useful at the time when the constitution was written. This system seems to favor the minority to govern over the majority like we witnessed in 2000, where Al Gore had the most votes and George W. Bush, supposedly, the most electoral votes. Although that election ended being decided by the Supreme Court, in what even conservatives should admit, was an over reach of the Federal Government. I wonder where the Tea Parties were back then when Washington was over reaching many times in local decisions.
It is time to do away with both the electoral college, a concept that has become obsolete, and the possibility of filibuster. The US does not have a representative system like other democracies, such as the most European nations have, where every vote is represented, so why should we allow the minority party to block every single piece of legislation.
By removing the possibility of filibustering we would stop people who do not represent the interest of their constituents, and who seem to be only interested in representing the people who pay for their campaigns, to whom they owe favors. This will become more acute starting with the next election thanks to the unfortunate decision by this Supreme Court to allow corporations to fund elections.
The only people who are opposed to these ideas are the people that in the name of democracy are really only interested in holding on to power.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Health care
To the people who say that we only need to fix “a little bit” the roof in terms of healthcare hopefully with Anthem Blue Cross' 30 to 39 percent rate hike in California this will become a rude awakening of what the reality is, and why we need to overhaul the whole system, and why we need either single payer or at least a public option.
We should also mention that Anthem Blue Cross made a 2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009. I suppose that the increase is to recover the millions that they spent derailing the possible bills in both houses and funding the demonstrations to stop those bills and hearings.
Insurance companies increased their premiums 78% from 2000 to 2006, while the inflation had been less than 3% a year.
I can imagine that conservatives still believe that insurance companies will voluntarily start reducing their rate of increases, or better still, that costs will come under control by addressing the lawsuits that push costs higher. Unfortunately for them, lawsuits only represent 2% of the costs. In other words, that will not do the trick. The other option that conservatives say that will help bring down costs is buy buying insurance across state lines. I remember my next door neighbor was telling me once a story about Mutual of Omaha. My neighbor was offered insurance by this company for his mother. Everything was fine until she got sick and had to be hospitalized. He never got a penny out of them, and ended up having to pick up the tab himself. That option is another mirage, unless we have some organization looking over insurance companies, and enforcing whatever they commit themselves to cover.
While the opposition has only offered sand castle alternatives that in reality will end up making matters worse, the cost of healthcare keeps rising and more people will run out of coverage.
Their idea of the market taking care of itself is what caused the meltdown of 2008 and the bailout of the banks of 1989. Total lack of control.
The republicans believe that it is my way or the highway, even though they are the minority party.
It is unfortunate that this party, that represents only the interests of the haves, and is always on the wrong side of the issues, such as with the Civil Rights Act, lacks any message with the exception of “no”.
It is probably time to address the filibuster in the senate.
I will discuss that in a future blog.
We should also mention that Anthem Blue Cross made a 2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009. I suppose that the increase is to recover the millions that they spent derailing the possible bills in both houses and funding the demonstrations to stop those bills and hearings.
Insurance companies increased their premiums 78% from 2000 to 2006, while the inflation had been less than 3% a year.
I can imagine that conservatives still believe that insurance companies will voluntarily start reducing their rate of increases, or better still, that costs will come under control by addressing the lawsuits that push costs higher. Unfortunately for them, lawsuits only represent 2% of the costs. In other words, that will not do the trick. The other option that conservatives say that will help bring down costs is buy buying insurance across state lines. I remember my next door neighbor was telling me once a story about Mutual of Omaha. My neighbor was offered insurance by this company for his mother. Everything was fine until she got sick and had to be hospitalized. He never got a penny out of them, and ended up having to pick up the tab himself. That option is another mirage, unless we have some organization looking over insurance companies, and enforcing whatever they commit themselves to cover.
While the opposition has only offered sand castle alternatives that in reality will end up making matters worse, the cost of healthcare keeps rising and more people will run out of coverage.
Their idea of the market taking care of itself is what caused the meltdown of 2008 and the bailout of the banks of 1989. Total lack of control.
The republicans believe that it is my way or the highway, even though they are the minority party.
It is unfortunate that this party, that represents only the interests of the haves, and is always on the wrong side of the issues, such as with the Civil Rights Act, lacks any message with the exception of “no”.
It is probably time to address the filibuster in the senate.
I will discuss that in a future blog.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Tea Party Nation
As the Tea Party Convention comes to an end we can see what the members of this movement stand for by reading what the crowd cheered for. Comments such as “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country” from former Congressman Tom Tancredo.
He has a reputation that precedes him as a anti-immigrant, ant-minority “person”.
As an immigrant myself these comments worry me because it seems that the United States is going backwards instead of looking into the future. These were the same attitudes that led to segregation.
People seemed to forget that, with the exception of native Americans, we are all immigrants. The difference is how long has your family been here.
While the Chinese are on their way to overtaking the US in being the biggest economy in the world we are still worried about the fact that Obama is not born in this country, that minorities can vote and that everything is solved by cutting taxes. What I mean by everything is simple, I always say if republicans would be doctors they would medicate a cold, cancer, and heart failure with the same medicine: tax cuts.
If the economy is good => tax cuts
If the economy is bad => tax cuts
If we invade a country => tax cuts
If we are attacked => tax cuts
If we need health care => tax cuts
Nobody denies that deficits are not healthy for the economy, for the currency, and for the future of the country, but where were all these people while the previous administration was doubling the national debt in 8 years? For those who don’t know when Bush was sworn the national debt was 5 trillion, by the time he was gone it almost 10 trillion (9.8 trillion).
If the Tea Party movement is represented by people like Tancredo and Sarah Palin I wonder where is this country heading to.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Budget deficit reduction
Obama has said that he will propose a spending freeze of 447 billion dollars over the next 3 years in his State of the Union. This only includes domestic programs and leaves out the biggest expenditure in the budget, the Department of Defense.
This, in a time of deep recession is not only reckless but also ill advised. Not only will it not reduce the budget deficit but it will aggravate the recession.
Obama’s team should read some history. When Frank D. Roosevelt succumbed to the pressure of reducing the deficit in the thirties he then admitted years later that he made a mistake by extending the depression.
I understand those who say that we need to attack deficits, but by the same token that raising taxes is not a good idea during recessions, trying to reduce deficits during deep recessions, is reckless.
To make matters worse when they talk about cutting or eliminating programs the same sectors of the population, the needy, are the first ones to get hit.
Many people say that Hitler should have read history before invading Russia (the Soviet Union at the time), as he would avoided some common mistakes that Napoleon had made 100 years before during his unsuccessful invasion of Russia.
Here we are facing the same problem.
If he wants to reduce the high unemployment that is at the core of the discussion right now, deficit reduction is not going to take care of it.
It is unfortunate that the Obama administration is more concerned with damage control because of the loose in Massachusetts than what it is about setting policies that will revive the economy. The president seems to have lost his footing, and by doing that he has also lost the energy that he had during the campaign, and is loosing his base.
If he thinks that he will please any conservatives with this measure he is mistaken. Some members of the house have started mocking the cut as “going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest”. The country is too polarized, and the opposition is only focused on obstructing any proposal that he brings to Capitol Hill, so that they have a platform to run next November.
There are other measures to reduce unemployment, but due to lack of activity and investment of the private sector it will take a substantial amount of time to get out of the hole that we are in.
This, in a time of deep recession is not only reckless but also ill advised. Not only will it not reduce the budget deficit but it will aggravate the recession.
Obama’s team should read some history. When Frank D. Roosevelt succumbed to the pressure of reducing the deficit in the thirties he then admitted years later that he made a mistake by extending the depression.
I understand those who say that we need to attack deficits, but by the same token that raising taxes is not a good idea during recessions, trying to reduce deficits during deep recessions, is reckless.
To make matters worse when they talk about cutting or eliminating programs the same sectors of the population, the needy, are the first ones to get hit.
Many people say that Hitler should have read history before invading Russia (the Soviet Union at the time), as he would avoided some common mistakes that Napoleon had made 100 years before during his unsuccessful invasion of Russia.
Here we are facing the same problem.
If he wants to reduce the high unemployment that is at the core of the discussion right now, deficit reduction is not going to take care of it.
It is unfortunate that the Obama administration is more concerned with damage control because of the loose in Massachusetts than what it is about setting policies that will revive the economy. The president seems to have lost his footing, and by doing that he has also lost the energy that he had during the campaign, and is loosing his base.
If he thinks that he will please any conservatives with this measure he is mistaken. Some members of the house have started mocking the cut as “going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest”. The country is too polarized, and the opposition is only focused on obstructing any proposal that he brings to Capitol Hill, so that they have a platform to run next November.
There are other measures to reduce unemployment, but due to lack of activity and investment of the private sector it will take a substantial amount of time to get out of the hole that we are in.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
An unfortunate decision of the supreme court
When I first came to the United States I felt that the country was in decline, such as any other empire in history, and that my kids or grandchildren would be the ones witnessing the end of it, but as I was telling a conservative friend recently, we are living the end of the empire, pretty much in every aspect that we can think of, education, social, infrastructure. Today this supreme court, and it is no mistake that I have not written it in capital letters, the same that gave us president George W. Bush, arguably the worst president in the history of this country, legislated from the bench, and allowed, what I think may end up being, the last nail in the coffin, the icing on the cake, and that is to allow corporations and unions to donate unlimited political funds.
Where are the people that have always said “I do not want justices who will legislate from the bench”.
First let us analize this idea that corporations and unions are in the same plain field. That is like saying that parents and children are in a same plain field. Whoever thinks that is the case is lives in a different world.
Corporations can outfund unions many times.
Corporations through their chosen ones will have the opportunity to outlaw the first amendment, unions, and everything else that is in their way.
We have seen in just the healthcare process what corporations, before the decision of today, are able to do with unlimited funds to defeat a possible law that could mildly reduce their huge profits.
Some people out there would say that “this is democracy at its best”.
With corporations running the house there will be no democracy, it will the government of the people, for the corporations and by the corporations.
God help the United States and what the future may bring with this decision.
Where are the people that have always said “I do not want justices who will legislate from the bench”.
First let us analize this idea that corporations and unions are in the same plain field. That is like saying that parents and children are in a same plain field. Whoever thinks that is the case is lives in a different world.
Corporations can outfund unions many times.
Corporations through their chosen ones will have the opportunity to outlaw the first amendment, unions, and everything else that is in their way.
We have seen in just the healthcare process what corporations, before the decision of today, are able to do with unlimited funds to defeat a possible law that could mildly reduce their huge profits.
Some people out there would say that “this is democracy at its best”.
With corporations running the house there will be no democracy, it will the government of the people, for the corporations and by the corporations.
God help the United States and what the future may bring with this decision.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Massachusetts election
As the Democrats lost a Senate Seat that had been in the hands of Edward Kennedy for almost fifty years many things will be on the line, the biggest one health care reform.
As it was, the Senate seat was a water down version of the House bill, which, in my opinion, is not going to do the trick containing costs, and extending coverage to every citizen. That is what the Europeans and Canadians have done, and it works. If it wouldn’t, like Republicans say it doesn’t, they would have reformed it by now.
After almost 25 years in this country I am still in amazement how people in this country vote against their own interests.
They think that by sending a member of the opposition they are punishing the present administration. In reality they are only punishing themselves, because if health care is not reformed, which is what these voters are implying with their votes, they will pay the consequences sooner or later, in fairness sooner rather later, with higher costs and less coverage.
But it is easy to blame the voters for their choice, but this seat was not in a Conservative state within the bible belt of the country.
It was in, what is possibly, the most liberal state in the Union, Massachusetts.
And we can blame candidate Coakley for what seems to have been a poorly run campaign, but at the end of the day, it is the Party who was at fault.
Just like Rush Limbaugh says that the way that conservatives will win is by moving to the right, unless the Democratic party moves to the left, with conviction, and not by putting their toes in the water to test the temperature of the country, they will lose badly in November. For starters they should remove Senator Lieberman from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee, and push Senator Nelson to run as either as an Independent or as a Republican. He does not hold any Democratic values. And even if that means having less members in the Senate it will define the Party. Right now it wants to please everybody, which is impossible.
Somebody said many years that you cannot server two masters.
As it was, the Senate seat was a water down version of the House bill, which, in my opinion, is not going to do the trick containing costs, and extending coverage to every citizen. That is what the Europeans and Canadians have done, and it works. If it wouldn’t, like Republicans say it doesn’t, they would have reformed it by now.
After almost 25 years in this country I am still in amazement how people in this country vote against their own interests.
They think that by sending a member of the opposition they are punishing the present administration. In reality they are only punishing themselves, because if health care is not reformed, which is what these voters are implying with their votes, they will pay the consequences sooner or later, in fairness sooner rather later, with higher costs and less coverage.
But it is easy to blame the voters for their choice, but this seat was not in a Conservative state within the bible belt of the country.
It was in, what is possibly, the most liberal state in the Union, Massachusetts.
And we can blame candidate Coakley for what seems to have been a poorly run campaign, but at the end of the day, it is the Party who was at fault.
Just like Rush Limbaugh says that the way that conservatives will win is by moving to the right, unless the Democratic party moves to the left, with conviction, and not by putting their toes in the water to test the temperature of the country, they will lose badly in November. For starters they should remove Senator Lieberman from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee, and push Senator Nelson to run as either as an Independent or as a Republican. He does not hold any Democratic values. And even if that means having less members in the Senate it will define the Party. Right now it wants to please everybody, which is impossible.
Somebody said many years that you cannot server two masters.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Obama's First Year as President
As we celebrate Obama’s first year as president I have mixed feelings regarding his administration. On a one hand I am glad that we are no longer under the Bush-Cheney mismanagement in every respect, financial, diplomatic. On the other hand there are major disappointments regarding Obama, starting with some of his choices such as Summer and Geitner. These are people who were in part involved with the debacle that we are still living with, and that we will pay financially for years to come. What makes matters worse is that we have thrown money to big banks that we didn’t have and that, in retrospect, we should have never done. Those banks turned around and used the money to give themselves big bonuses, and lobby Congress to block any major reform. Main Street America has been hurting in part because these institutions have been reluctant to lend to businesses and to borrowers who wanted to take advantage of the cheep and abundant housing market. Of course there are still people out there who still believe that the housing market has touched bottom and turned around, and others who say that values still need to go further down. To both I say the same: “if you can foresee the future let me borrow your crystal ball”.
Going back to the banking industry, together with the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry, they are the leaches of this country, and are running the place to the ground.
There is a movement out there right now who is trying to encourage people to take their hard earned money and take it from the big banks and put it in local banks. Unfortunately the average American is misinformed and greatly brainwashed into believing that their money is safer in big institutions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their money is just as secure in small and large institutions alike because it is guaranteed by the Federal Government. And if we have to base ourselves in recent events the institutions gambling with the peoples monies were the large ones.
I remember when I moved to the United States in 1985 banks could not cross state lines, and regardless of the regulations there were in New York institutions such as Manufacturers Hannover Trust, The Bank of New York, Chemical. These banks are long longer in existence, they were taken over. Then banks were allowed to cross state lines. This did nothing for small business and the average citizen. The banking industry needs to be heavily regulated.
Another disappointment has been the stimulus. First with an economy that is 16 trillion in size, 750 billion is just a drop in the bucket, second the types of investments and when they take place is not going to turn around the unemployment number soon, and with that the democrats will likely lose the House and quite a few Senate seats in November. With this happening a lot of Obama’s plans will most likely not happen. What makes matters worse is that if the Democrats cannot hold to the Massachusetts Senate seat that will be decided in the very near future, Obama’s healthcare bill will also be history.
Another big disappointment is the healthcare bill, and what has seemed a total lack of passion on Obama’s part. As much as I dislike EVERYTHING the Republicans stand for if this would have been their proposal, like the tax cuts of 2001, the Invasion of Iraq of 2003, and so on, we would have had a bill passed and signed by now, and would have taken effect immediately, not in 2014 like the proposals in the Legislative branch have right now.
I wonder if this is how he is treating his number one bill, under circumstances that will unlikely repeat themselves for some time, having the House, filibuster proof Senate and the Executive branch. How is he going to manage if Democrats loose the House and Senate seats. We know that Republicans have been the party of NO, but if he doesn’t have more force, the future doesn’t look good for him and his party.
Maybe the election of 2010 will come as a rude awakening to Obama and the rest of the Democrats.
Going back to the banking industry, together with the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry, they are the leaches of this country, and are running the place to the ground.
There is a movement out there right now who is trying to encourage people to take their hard earned money and take it from the big banks and put it in local banks. Unfortunately the average American is misinformed and greatly brainwashed into believing that their money is safer in big institutions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their money is just as secure in small and large institutions alike because it is guaranteed by the Federal Government. And if we have to base ourselves in recent events the institutions gambling with the peoples monies were the large ones.
I remember when I moved to the United States in 1985 banks could not cross state lines, and regardless of the regulations there were in New York institutions such as Manufacturers Hannover Trust, The Bank of New York, Chemical. These banks are long longer in existence, they were taken over. Then banks were allowed to cross state lines. This did nothing for small business and the average citizen. The banking industry needs to be heavily regulated.
Another disappointment has been the stimulus. First with an economy that is 16 trillion in size, 750 billion is just a drop in the bucket, second the types of investments and when they take place is not going to turn around the unemployment number soon, and with that the democrats will likely lose the House and quite a few Senate seats in November. With this happening a lot of Obama’s plans will most likely not happen. What makes matters worse is that if the Democrats cannot hold to the Massachusetts Senate seat that will be decided in the very near future, Obama’s healthcare bill will also be history.
Another big disappointment is the healthcare bill, and what has seemed a total lack of passion on Obama’s part. As much as I dislike EVERYTHING the Republicans stand for if this would have been their proposal, like the tax cuts of 2001, the Invasion of Iraq of 2003, and so on, we would have had a bill passed and signed by now, and would have taken effect immediately, not in 2014 like the proposals in the Legislative branch have right now.
I wonder if this is how he is treating his number one bill, under circumstances that will unlikely repeat themselves for some time, having the House, filibuster proof Senate and the Executive branch. How is he going to manage if Democrats loose the House and Senate seats. We know that Republicans have been the party of NO, but if he doesn’t have more force, the future doesn’t look good for him and his party.
Maybe the election of 2010 will come as a rude awakening to Obama and the rest of the Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)