Showing posts with label Filibuster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Filibuster. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

5 reasons why the American people can't stand the Republican party

5 reasons why the American people can't stand the Republican party 


Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) (R) speaks during a press conference as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) (L) looks on at the U.S. Capitol December 21, 2012 in Washington, DC.The Republican party often has people scratching their heads and it's not just "liberals" who are doing it. With The Republican party splitting into multiple factions, the once proud political party has been thrown into disarray Here are five reasons why the American people can't stand the Grand Old Party.
1. Bush wastes money and American lives-
After the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, everyone throughout the country felt a variety of emotions. Some were upset, others scared or just plain angry. There isn't a right or wrong answer in how people felt because what happened was so horrific. It's natural to want revenge and that is how George W. Bush and the Republican party were able to get the country into a huge mess while lining their own pockets. Preying on the fear that came with the attacks on 9/11, the Bush administration decided to wage war, but with the wrong country. With his father, George H.W Bush, unable to capture Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s, George W. Bush wanted to finish the job that his father couldn't.
Knowing that Iraq was run by an evil dictator, had plenty of oil and could be a goldmine for companies to rebuild, Bush used the fear that overcame the United States to wage war with a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on that September day. Saddam Hussein was captured less than a year into the invasion of Iraq, but nearly a decade later the United States was still there.
The reason given to the American people for the invasion was that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction," but later Americans were told that Iraq didn't have these weapons and that the United States had received "bad intelligence." Many believe that there were never any weapons in Iraq and that it was an excuse to invade the country. Many companies, such as Dick Cheney's Halliburton, made billions rebuilding in Iraq while others ran off to the bank as well. According to a 2007 report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the war in Iraq would cost $1.9 trillion dollars, or about $6,300 for each U.S citizen. Mix that with the thousands of courageous soldiers who lost their lives or became injured and you have a mess that every American should be mad about.
2. GOP Depression-
Today's economic climate is a scary one. Though the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.9%, there is still only one job opening for every four Americans looking for work. As Ronald Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70% to 28% during his eight years in office and deregulated big business and the financial sector, the United States was placed on a path of economic destruction. President Clinton stabilized the economy enough that he was able to hand a surplus to George W. Bush in 2001, but all the reckless actions by Wall Street drove the United States to the brink until a taxpayer bailout of the banks was needed in 2008. They say history repeats itself and that is true in this case.
When the economy took a hard down turn in the 1980s and in 2008, if was because the same economic policies were repeated that caused the Stock Market to crash in 1929. The Great Depression was caused by deregulation and bad tax policies, put in place by three consecutive Republican presidents. Starting with Warren Harding in 1921, through Calvin Coolidge and then Herbert Hoover, the United States fell into an economic depression. It took President Franklin D. Roosevelt, his New Deal and World War 2 to help get the United States back on track. Roosevelt had to deal with Republican opposition in congress and a new war, but after years in office, was able to get the job done.
3. Medicare Part D-
Republicans today seem to hate anything that the government does until they need it. Conservatives scream about programs like Social Security and unemployment benefits, but once they enter retirement or lose their jobs, they're quick to hold on to government assistance. Republicans want to privatize programs like Social Security and Medicare by taking them out of the government and putting them into greedy hands on Wall Street. While conservatives are opposed to these programs now, you don't need to go back too far to find Republicans supporting parts of programs like Medicare.
George Bush signed into law the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Medicare Part D) which went into effect on January 1, 2006. The program was supposed to subsidize the costs of prescription drugs for those who receive Medicare, but it was never paid for. In the long run, Medicare Part D raised prices, cost taxpayers billions of dollars and while the cost of Medicare Part D has been projected to be less than originally thought, much of the declining cost is due to President Obama's new health care law that was passed in 2010.
4. Sexual Morality?-
The Republican party pounds their chest as the voice of morality, clutching their Bible, fighting back against the LGBT community and abortion and love to bring up that President Clinton cheated on his wife. If people make certain claims, they should learn to look in the mirror first. Former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich has been married three times and has a dark history of infidelity. While Gingrich was one of the leading voices against President Clinton in the 1990s, he was actually cheating on his own wife. In fact, while his wife was in remission with cancer, Gingrich served her divorce papers.
The list of Republicans who have engaged in sexual affairs is endless. Former Republican mayor of Waterbury, Connecticut, Philip Giordano, is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing two underage girls. Republican congressman and anti-gay activist, Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar while Republican legislator, Richard Gardner, admitted to molesting his two daughters. This doesn't mean that Democrats haven't done anything like this in the past, they have, but there's an old saying - "those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones."
5. Unions aren't the problem!-
Just the word "union" seems to have a negative connotation these days. Conservatives point their finger at unions for every fiscal issue that the country has closing their eyes to the fact that unions are fighting for the middle class. Whether you're a member of a union of not, you must understand what a union is there for. Unions are a collective voice for workers to make sure that their rights are protected. These rights are not limited to, but include safe working conditions, fair pay, health care and other benefits. As executive pay has risen to an all-time high, wages for workers remain stagnant and are at an all-time low. Unions are put together to make sure that those at the top don't hold back the average middle class worker, but Republicans have tried to destroy the voice of the middle class for decades.
From the time Ronald Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers on August 5, 1981 to Republicans trying to push for "right-to-work" laws across the country, the voice of the middle class is starting to become silent. Republicans claim union workers are "lazy" and "greedy," but that is not the case. Are there workers who take advantage of the benefits of being in a union? Of course there are, every system has issues, but the majority are grateful and work hard. If Republicans want to truly be patriotic they should start supporting the middle class, not just the wealthy.

Monday, November 25, 2013

Cruz, comity, and comedy

Cruz, comity, and comedy

 
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) sat down with Bloomberg News’ Al Hunt the other day, who asked the Republican senator about the “nuclear option.” Alas, the message didn’t match the messenger (via Caitlin MacNeal).
HUNT: Will it complicate passing budgets or debt ceilings or anything?
 
CRUZ: Of course it will. I mean, it will poison the atmosphere of the Senate.
I should note that I’ve only seen the transcript, and therefore have no idea whether the right-wing Texan was able to say this with a straight face.
 
Either way, let’s not forget that this is the same Ted Cruz who helped oversee his party’s government-shutdown strategy. Cruz has repeatedly drawn the ire of his own Republican colleagues who’ve been the targets of his extremist tactics. Cruz won’t endorse his own Senate allies. A “remarkable number” of lawmakers in both parties have come forward “to say that they think Cruz is kind of a jerk.”
 
He’s the guy who wants to talk about poisoning the atmosphere of the Senate? Maybe someone else can take the lead on defending institutional comity?
 

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Rand Paul Throws a Tantrum on CNN and Calls Harry Reid A Big Bully

Rand Paul Throws a Tantrum on CNN and Calls Harry Reid A Big Bully

 
Thursday, November, 21st, 2013, 3:27 pm
rand-paul-cnn

The crying has only just begun now that Republicans won’t be able to hold up judicial and executive branch nominees (the filibuster rule changes do not apply to SCOTUS nominees or legislation). Mitch McConnell’s spokesperson inaccurately accused Obama of court packing, and now Rand Paul started a whine fest on CNN during which he complained that Republicans need an anti-bullying ordinance to protect them from “dictator” Harry Reid.
Video:


Senator Rand Paul said on CNN, “I think what we really need is an anti-bullying ordinance in the Senate. I mean, now we’ve got a big bully, Harry Reid says he’s just going to break the rules and make new rules. Never been done this way before.”
“He’s gotta have everything his way, he’s gotta control everything. This is more about them trying to control the agenda and shift it away from Obamacare than it is about anything else. Basically, he’s become the dictator of the Senate. He’s going to bend and break the rules to get his way.”
Rand Paul has been one of the main sources of Republican obstruction in the Senate, so it isn’t a surprise that he would cry a river over the fact that he has lost a critical tool that he has used both to gum up the works and call attention to himself.

Harry Reid’s rule change will make it a lot more difficult for look at me 2016 Republican wannabes like Paul and Ted Cruz to use obstructing the Senate to further their presidential ambitions. Obstruction of nominees will no longer be a prime PR tool for Sen. Paul as he daydreams about a presidency that may never be.
The root problem is that Rand Paul rejects the purpose of the Senate. Sen. Paul doesn’t believe in passing laws. Rand Paul thinks he is in the Senate to prevent progress. If Paul can’t obstruct, he serves no purpose in the Senate.
Sen. Paul is throwing a tantrum because he had his favorite toy taken away. Instead of looking like a visionary leader for America’s future, Rand Paul is stomping his feet because Republicans are no longer going to get their obstructionist way on everything.
Mostly though, Rand Paul is upset because he lost a vehicle to promote Rand Paul.
Rand Paul Throws a Tantrum on CNN and Calls Harry Reid A Big Bully was written by Jason Easley and Sarah Jones for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Thu, Nov 21st, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

New Bill Would Force Congress To Stay In Washington Until It Passes A Budget

New Bill Would Force Congress To Stay In Washington Until It Passes A Budget

Posted:   |  Updated: 11/20/2013 1:51 pm EST

no budget no vacation
WASHINGTON -- New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, the senior Democrat on the House Rules Committee, introduced legislation Wednesday that would prevent Congress from skipping town for the holidays if the House fails to pass a budget agreement by mid-December.
The "No Budget, No Vacation" bill would hold lawmakers accountable for their pledge to reconcile the vastly different House and Senate budgets by Dec. 13, which was one of the key components of last month's deal to end the 16-day shutdown of the federal government. Since then, members of the Budget Conference Committee, led by the House and Senate budget chairs, have twice convened publicly, but there's been little indication that they're headed for a breakthrough.
Democrats will thus attach a vote on Slaughter's resolution to a procedural motion known as "the previous question" on Wednesday. The maneuver is one of the few ways in which the minority in the House can attempt to take control of the floor briefly away from the majority, but it's unlikely to succeed because it would need Republican votes.
Democrats are hopeful, however, that the vote will be tricky for Republicans amid reports that House GOP leaders are done legislating for the remainder of the year and have distributed a blank agenda for 2014 to their members. In a press release, Slaughter cites such articles and points out that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reportedly joked in a private meeting with Republicans that the House shouldn’t even remain in session in December.
"This Republican House has redefined the term unproductive by setting records for futility with its glacial legislative pace and then shutting down the government when they don’t get their way," Slaughter said. "Now, after this dismal record, the Majority is planning to go on a vacation before fulfilling our most basic role to fund the government. It is time to stop governing crisis–to-crisis and finally give the American people and American businesses the certainty that comes with passing a federal budget. No budget, no vacation."
Slaughter voiced similar frustration over the lack of legislative action in the House on Tuesday when a second vote series was canceled. "Oh did we work too hard today?" she quipped, according to BuzzFeed's Kate Nocera.
As The Huffington Post reported earlier this year, the 113th Congress is on track to be the least productive in modern history, a tough record to beat given the 112th Congress was already the least productive since the 1940s. Boehner has called such reports "total nonsense," and said the American public would like to see Congress repeal laws rather than simply pass them.
But the House GOP has been scrutinized for stalling on comprehensive immigration reform and failing to pass spending bills at the levels set by Republican appropriators.
In terms of a budget agreement, Boehner and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the House Budget Chair, have ruled out any budget deal that includes new tax increases. Democrats have maintained that the federal budget cuts known as sequestration must be replaced with a combination of tax revenues and targeted spending cuts, setting up a possible stalemate ahead of the mid-December deadline.
Boehner nonetheless expressed optimism Tuesday that both sides could agree on a spending level for 2014, a day after top Republican appropriators warned against keeping sequestration in place in a letter to Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.).
"It’s important that we do appropriations bills here to fund the government," he said at a press conference. "The idea that we should operate under what are called continuing resolutions is a poor way to do business."
Read the 'No Budget, No Vacation' bill below:
Resolution: No Budget, No Vacation
 
  ..................................................................... (Original Signature of Member)
113TH
CONGRESS 1ST
SESSION

H. RES. ll

Prohibiting the consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for adjourn-ment unless the House has adopted a conference report on the budget resolution.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ms. S
LAUGHTER
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on
lllllllllllllll

RESOLUTION

Prohibiting the consideration of a concurrent resolution pro-viding for adjournment unless the House has adopted a conference report on the budget resolution.
Resolved,
That it shall not be in order to consider a
1
concurrent resolution providing for adjournment unless
2
the House has adopted a conference report on S. Con. Res.
3
8, establishing a budget for the United States Govern-
4
ment, by December 13th, 2013.
5
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:34 Nov 19, 2013Jkt 000000PO 00000Frm 00001Fmt 6652Sfmt 6201C:\DOCUME~1\NLWOFSY\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\RULES2~1.XMLH
November 19, 2013 (2:34 p.m.)
F:\NLW\DEM\RULES2013.XML
f:\VHLC\111913\111913.131.xml           (564885|1)
 

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Harry Reid is set to go nuclear

Harry Reid is set to go nuclear

 
Senator Harry Reid appears set to go nuclear — before Thanksgiving.
With Senate Republicans blocking a third Obama nomination to the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a senior Senate Democratic leadership aide tells me Reid is now all but certain to move to change the Senate rules by simple majority — doing away with the filibuster on executive and judicial nominations, with the exception of the Supreme Court – as early as this week.
At a presser today, Reid told reporters he was taking another look at rules reform, but didn’t give a timeline. The senior leadership aide goes further, saying it’s hard to envision circumstances under which Reid doesn’t act.
“Reid has become personally invested in the idea that Dems have no choice other than to change the rules if the Senate is going to remain a viable and functioning institution,” the aide says. That’s a long journey from where Reid was only 10 months ago, when he agreed to a toothless filibuster reform deal out of a real reluctance to change the rules by simple majority. Asked to explain the evolution, the aide said: “It’s been a long process. But this is the only thing we can do to keep the Senate performing its basic duties.”
Asked if Reid would drop the threat to go nuclear if Republicans green-lighted one or two of Obama’s judicial nominations, the aide said: “I don’t think that’s going to fly.”
Reid has concluded Senate Republicans have no plausible way of retreating from the position they’ve adopted in this latest Senate rules standoff, the aide says. Republicans have argued that in pushing nominations, Obama is “packing” the court, and have insisted that Obama is trying to tilt the court’s ideological balance in a Democratic direction — which is to say that the Republican objection isn’t to the nominees Obama has chosen, but to the fact that he’s trying to nominate anyone at all.
Reid believes that, having defined their position this way, Republicans have no plausible route out of the standoff other than total capitulation on the core principle they have articulated, which would be a “pretty dramatic reversal,” the aide continues.
“They’ve boxed themselves in — their position allows them no leeway,” the aide says, in characterizing Reid’s thinking. “This is not a trumped up argument about the qualification of a nominee. They are saying, `we don’t want any nominees.’”
The aide says Reid believes he now has 51 Dem Senators behind a rules change, if it comes down to it. The Huffington Post reports that some Dem Senators who have previously opposed changing the rules — such as Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein — are now open to it. “I believe that we are there,” the aide tells me.
The key to understanding what’s happening now is that it is fundamentally different from the last “nuclear” standoff. In that one, Republicans blockaded a handful of executive nominations (such as Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) in part out of an objection to the function of the agencies they had been picked to lead. Republicans ultimately dropped their objections in exchange for Dems agreeing not to change the rules.
But now, Dems have already agreed not to change the rules once, and the filibustering continues, even though Republicans admitted when the last deal was reached that they were wrong to block Obama from staffing the government. And now, the GOP position is not grounded in an objection to Obama’s nominees or to the function of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; it’s grounded in the argument that Obama should not have the power to fill these vacancies on the court at all. As Jonathan Chait argues, Republicans may not have even thought through the full implications of the position they’ve adopted. But Dems have, and taking it to its logical conclusion, they believe Republicans have presented them with a simple choice: Either they change the rules, or they accept those limits on Obama’s power. And that really leaves only one option.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Warren: If GOP Continues To Filibuster, Senate Has 'Duty' To Change Rules

Warren: If GOP Continues To Filibuster, Senate Has 'Duty' To Change Rules

 TPM Livewire 

 Catherine Thompson –

"If Republicans continue to filibuster these highly qualified nominees for no reason other than to nullify the President's constitutional authority, then senators not only have the right to change the filibuster rules, senators have a duty to change the filibuster rules," Warren said.
The freshman senator also turned the "court-packing" allegation leveled against President Barack Obama by the GOP on its head, accusing Senate Republicans of attempting to "rig" the lower court in favor of business interests.
"In the next five years, the D.C. Circuit will decide some of the most important cases of our time," she said, "including cases that will decide whether Wall Street reform will have real bite or whether it will just be toothless … These big industry players want business-friendly judges to help them out."
Warren struck that same populist chord in September when she warned of what she called "pro-corporate" trend in the Supreme Court, citing an academic study that counted the five conservative-minded judges currently sitting on the high court among the top 10 pro-corporate justices in a half century.
[h/t Huffington Post]
Correction: This post has been updated to reflect that Nina Pillard was the third of Obama's nominees to the D.C. Circuit to be blocked by Senate Republicans.

Friday, November 8, 2013

GOP Senator In 2005: ‘I Would Never Filibuster Any President’s Judicial Nominee, Period’

GOP Senator In 2005: ‘I Would Never Filibuster Any President’s Judicial Nominee, Period’

By Ian Millhiser on November 8, 2013 at 9:47 am

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who is filibustering the president's judicial nominees, period.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN),
 who is filibustering the president’s
 judicial nominees, period.
CREDIT: AP
Last week, Senate Republicans filibustered Patricia Millett’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as part of a broader effort to keep that court under Republican control. One of the senators who joined that filibuster was Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who pledged in 2005 that “I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.”
Next week, nearly every Republican is expected to vote to filibuster President Obama’s other two nominees to the DC Circuit, one of whom is one of the most important women’s rights attorneys of the last two decades. Sen. Alexander, the man who pledged never to filibuster any judicial nominee, is also likely to join these filibusters.
Nor is Alexander alone in his willingness to do something that he once pledged never, ever to do. To the contrary, here are quotes from 11 other sitting senators, many of whom didn’t just oppose judicial filibusters, but outright labeled them unconstitutional:
  • Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It’s the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.”
  • Tom Coburn (R-OK): “If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent. That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. And that happened for 200 years.”
  • John Cornyn (R-TX): “We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations.
  • Mike Crapo (R-ID): “Until this Congress, not one of the President’s nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.”
  • Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional”
  • Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.”
  • Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”
  • Jeff Sessions (R- AL): “[The Constitution] says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties by a two-thirds vote, and simply ‘shall advise and consent’ on nominations…. I think there is no doubt the Founders understood that to mean … confirmation of a judicial nomination requires only a simple majority vote.”
  • Richard Shelby (R-AL): “Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it.”
  • John Thune (SD): Filibustering judicial nominees “is contrary to our Constitution …. It was the Founders’ intention that the Senate dispose of them with a simple majority vote.”
All of these statements were made when George W. Bush was president. But that should not matter because, as Sen. Cornyn said at the time, “we need to treat all nominees exactly the same, regardless of whether they’re nominated by a Democrat or a Republican president.