Pitching A Fit

The image is from the same site as in the previous post. Another good one.

Clearly there's something really rotten in the state of the Senate when one guy can block legislation. That's minority rules gone wild. Also, it's pretty pathetic that the Ds have, in essence, acquiesced, having little hissy fits but letting the guy go beddie-bye at night. That's filibuster gone even softer than the Rs could have dreamed. (Congressional Ds are nothing if not spineless. Gotta admire the ol' hurler on that score.) In this era of problems potentially fatal to the republic, not to mention the planet, our government simply can't continue to operate under the current Senate rules. And, whereas both parties are perfectly happy with the rules depending on which is in or out of power, if we don't elect enough legislators with the wisdom and guts to make the changes, we may as well toss in the towel. Spend the rest of our savings, have a little fun, then hook up the hose.

On the other hand -- and this makes it even worse -- the guy has a point: he wants the costs of the jobs bill to be folded into the stimulus money. Now he's voted against "pay-go" rules in the past; and, like most Rs, he was fine with the deficits that came from the Bush tax cuts and prescription drug program. So, yeah, he's a hypocrite. (And, I'm told, since being elected, he breathes air.) Plus, there are effects of his action that go far beyond the jobs bill. To make his point by poking it into the eye of so many people is a little raw.

The jobs bill up which he is holding is a pathetic little bill, pared down from a significantly bigger and potentially more effective one on which there'd been some bipartisan agreement, to one made up nearly exclusively of tax cuts; one about which there's little to no enthusiasm from economists. A complete capitulation, in other words, to Republican ideas. Useless and bass-ackwards, just the way they like it. Nevertheless, taking the $18B from the stimulus money, so it doesn't add further to debt, doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me. I admit to not knowing the fine points, or why it might not be possible, if that's the case. Still -- as one who has always believed in the idea of pay-go except in extraordinary circumstances (like the worst economic crisis since the Depression, for example) -- I'd say there's some merit to the guy's demand, even though he seems to be an asshole's asshole.

So here we are, once again, in the throes of stupidity on all sides of the Senate, bounded by outdated and ineffectual rules, with solutions needed, provided inadequately, and still unmanageable. As usual, Jon Stewart explains it best.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Senate After Dark
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

[....Time passes.....] So he just gave up the filibuster, as it seemed Ds were ready to make him stay up all night. But now he's placed a hold on ALL presidential nominees. And, as one of the articles confirms, just a month ago he voted against pay-go rules. So he's still an asshole and a hypocrite, and the Senate rules still suck.

A More Perfect Union

Who will defend this guy? Richard Shelby has put a hold on all of Obama's nominations until his pork is plated. In an act akin to a two-year-old tantrumming (I declare that a word, properly spelled) in the supermarket, he's made it clear he has no regard for the people's business. In its outrageousness, it's only a more glaring example than usual of what the Congressional Republicans have all been doing for the last year: gimme what I want or you get nothing. America, go to hell.

Of course it speaks to the perversity of Senate rules, which are unlikely to get changed since both parties would like to be able to kibosh the other. (Prediction: when the Democrats are back in the minority in the Senate, they'll never be as piggish as the current crop of Republicans. They never have, for several reasons, not the least of which is that some will have a conscience.) That the rules have been abused in unheard of quantities since Obama's election goes without saying. The scorched earth tells the truth. One man: no vote. Fifty-nine percent of the votes: no legislation.

But it also makes clear, once again, in bigger font than we've seen, what the past year has been about. It's one thing, as John Boner tries to claim, to stand on principles. Yeah. Sure. They're a principled bunch, our Congresshoard. But (he says once again, sighing deeply) this is a democracy. There's another principle here, on which to put a foot, too, if ever so lightly: we need a government. No one (he repeats) has a right to expect to get his way in all things, all the time. Any of the time, for that matter. But the Republicans, those lovers of country, those believers in the Constitution, those (if briefly) "country firsters" couldn't care less. Is so far beyond appalling that there simply are no words. "Stand on principles." Translation: block the door until we get everything we want, while the people get... who cares what they get? Principled guy all right.

A strategy, it has been said, emerges: those pig-headed and unAmerican Republicans want Obama to fail, no matter the cost to the country. That much is clear. But now, it seems, they've doubled down: they're going to act so outrageously in so many ways over so many things so much of the time that there's simply no way to get noticed when complaining about it. Where do you start? It's brilliant, really. If there's one thing those guys are, it's brilliant at getting government to fail. They do it when they're in power, and they do it when they're out.

And they have the memory-bereft tea-baggers to cheer them on.

.