Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Sometimes I feel that among our distinguished crew of guest bloggers and the prodigious output of Professor Turley, that I seem to be “The Doom and Gloom” guest blogger. It seems I’m always looking at the worst side of things, without the counterbalance of positive articles that most everyone else here produces. This is actually a dichotomy when compared to my personal life. I happen to be one of the luckiest people you can meet and although I’ve suffered my share of life’s tragedies, my outlook is almost always optimistic. Yet when I turn my attention to the condition of this country and the way it is governed, my pessimism overwhelms me intellectually, even as I am predominantly a fairly happy person in my life and thankful for the blessings chance has bestowed upon me.
This past Wednesday I found myself filled with this pessimism, nay total skepticism, that our Country can redirect its downward spiral towards Corporate Feudalism. The catalyst of course was the vote in the Senate killing the proposed gun legislation, 54 to 46 in favor of the legislation. It is no mystery to the reader that the legislation failed, even with a majority voting in favor of it because we have all become familiar with the Senate rules which now inexplicably require 60 votes to move on any legislation. That this particular piece of legislation was defeated wasn’t that important to me. The compromise bill was so watered down as to be neutral, except as an empty gesture towards gun control, upon which in fact it wouldn’t have had any effect upon. I wasn’t bothered by the fact that those 46 who voted against the bill were predominantly Republican, with 4 Democrats. Since the bill represented nothing more than an empty gesture, their votes indicated merely that they were voting in their political interests, which most legislators today tend to do. What bothered me were both Harry Reid and President Obama for their inability to even try to attempt to break up the logjam in Congress via filibuster reform. Perhaps it is the “gloomy” side of me pondering this, but I think that the refusal to move on filibuster reform by the Democrats indicates a reality far more sinister than mere adherence to what is seen to be tradition.
“The filibuster is a powerful parliamentary device in the United States Senate, which was strengthened in 1975 [44] and in the past decade has come to mean that most major legislation (apart from budgets) requires a 60% vote to bring a bill or nomination to the floor for a vote. In recent years the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed.[45] Defenders call the filibuster “The Soul of the Senate.”[46] Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless “three-fifths of the Senators duly. According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could b chosen and sworn”[47] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXIIe achieved by a simple majority, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March. The idea is that on this first day, the rules of the new legislative session are determined afresh, and rules do not automatically continue from one session to the next. This is called the constitutional option by proponents, and the nuclear option by opponents, who insist that rules do remain in force across sessions. Under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster.[47] Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful the procedure takes floor time.“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
Before this new Congress was sworn in Harry Reid kept releasing statements to the press indicating that he was going to make significant changes in the Senate system which basically sets the majority vote at 60, rather than 51. In the first four years of Barack Obama’s first term the filibuster was used more times than the total used in all the years since the founding of this country. In essence the whole process of government on the Federal Level ground to a halt. Powers within the Republican Party openly admitted that their intention was to sabotage Barack Obama to the point that he would lose the next election. The one great Obama victory was the passage what came to be called “Obamacare”, which was a rather watered down health care bill that only mildly addressed the issue of the lack of adequate health care for tens of millions of Americans. I don’t think that it was a coincidence that “Obamacare” represented one of the Republicans main campaign issues in the 2010 and 2012 elections. The truth is that for the Republican Party, for its radically conservative base and for those very wealthy people who back them, a Federal Government unable to get anything done is exactly the kind of Federal Government they want.
My own view of President Obama is that he was indeed the lesser of two evils. He actually resembles Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton most closely from a political perspective, though as a campaigner he runs to the Left. He won his first election with the public noting his tepid opposition to the Iraq War, yet once elected he protected all of the worst features of the Bush presidency. Given the platform he ran on in this past election, he has betrayed it by putting Social Security and Medicare up for cuts as “entitlements”, when they have no part of the problems with our budget and/or national debt. In truth, Romney would do far more damage, but that does not excuse the President’s betrayal of those who voted for him. He is a corporatist of a type that I’ll reference below and yet he’s lulled a lot of people with false promises.
We supposedly have a two party system and besides the Presidency there were at times Democratic majorities in Congress and yet nothing much of those issues considered vital in the “Liberal Canon” got accomplished. While Democrats controlled the Senate, they were paralyzed by the filibuster from even producing anything resembling the type of agenda Democrats put in their party platforms. Nonetheless, with the filibuster to blame, Democratic Senatorial Candidates could run to the “Left” without having to legislate to the “Left”. With the House locked into Republican control due to gerrymandering, Democratic Congressman could also run to the “left” with no consequence since they could blame the Republicans for the inactivity of the legislative process.
When I think about the totality of the picture presented by a relatively inactive Congress in my mind I reach one inescapable conclusion and that is that it is all part of the “game” being run to strip Americans of their rights, leaving most of us a modern serfs. It is an open secret that once a Senator or Congressperson is elected, they must spend about one third of each day of their term soliciting funds, so that can run again in the next election. We all know where a majority of that money being solicited comes from and that is from those who make up the Corporate elite, the “0.01” percent. With a few exceptions, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for instance, we have a One Party Corporate System. The real argument that exists in the U.S. is an argument that takes place in the rarefied circles of the elite. The argument is do you rule the people without any regard for their welfare, or do you rule them with some kindness? This could be said to be the Koch Brothers vs. Warren Buffett debate. I think the Koch Brothers are winning, though slowly. However, if we are to look to “false heroes” like Warren Buffett or Mike Bloomberg to save us, we will look in vain. Money at the level those people experience it ultimately corrupts any altruistic feelings they might have via naked self-interest, as Bloomberg has proven in New York City and as Buffett in tandem with Bill Gates has proven in their support for privatized education. Call me “Mr. Doom and Gloom” but I think the American people are on their own when it comes to looking out for their general welfare and that until we the people go beyond the distractions of the “Right vs. Left” meme; we will remain on a downward slope towards a Corporate Feudal Police State. The politics and the political philosophies are the distractions to keep us from seeing how bad things have really become for the majority of our people. The issue is do we remain the peasants viewing the doings of the “Aristocracy” with chastened awe, or do we unite beyond our differences and realize that we have a common interest in our political and economic freedom. What do you think about my pessimism, am I too depressing?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Realistic approach mike….
Mike,
Your realism is scary. Until we get money out of the political system, we are in for more trouble.
Corporatism is the American way of government. Government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation. If Congress was forced to wear corporate gear such as NASCAR racers wear, at least we would have a clearer idea of where these corporatist representatives would place their votes. This near fascist form of government will not end well….. for the people.
The glass is not only half empty, it’s filled w/ poison and it’s leaking!!
What James Knauer and Tony C. said.
I especially liked James’ “jail time” solution.
P.S. to James: I’m glad you are done with your relocation. I hope it was a “smooth move” as it were.
Your pessimism is appropriate. It isn’t just the filibuster, it is all of the Senate (and House) rules.
Every single one of those rules is up for a vote every single session. The anonymous holds, the delays, the protocols, the “gotchas,” all of it. Including the filibuster. None of them are Constitutionally mandated, the Constitution says the Senate and House make their own rules as they see fit.
Most people do not realize the implications of that simple fact: Every single rule they have, has a majority support for that particular rule. Because if it didn’t, it could be overturned. Individually, or as part of a larger set of rules to be overturned.
The Domino implication of that is simple too: The politicians we have must like the rules, just the way they are.
So let me ask the obvious rhetorical question: Why would that be? What is the value of rules that obstruct you at a every turn and prevent you from taking action?
I personally think the value is apparent; they give the politicians the excuse to beg for money (because somehow they have managed to instill this idea, without creating the outrage it deserves, that if you just send them enough money they will do what you want, and if you do not send them money they won’t). An insanely complex set of rules gives the politicians leverage with which to favor or blackmail lobbyists, it gives them excuses to tell citizens about how the rules stopped them, to deflect the blame that belongs to them for voting for the very rules that stopped them!
Senate rules and House rules are like the CEO and Owner of a company telling you he can’t give you a raise, his hands are tied because it is against the company policy that he wrote and could rescind at any time.
It would be dangerous for the Senate to tell the truth, namely “We didn’t pass background checks because even though 86% of Americans want it, we just don’t want it, it would piss off our friends.”
Instead, they can wring their hands, tear their hair and rend their garments, decrying the “rules” that stopped them. The rules they just collectively voted into force, knowing full well those rules would safely prevent them from acting on the will of their constituents.
Great article, Mike! I agree.
You’re not being pessimistic, just realistic.
I think that Congress, and particularly the Senate, is no longer an effective means to accomplish anything.
Doesn’t have the courage to reflect the will of the constituents.
Doesn’t have the courage to declare war.
Doesn’t have the courage to do anything useful.
Can’t the Senate add a rule for Permanent Recess?
Sorry, my bad. That would be doing something useful.
Once this cat was out of the bag, the constant use of the filibuster threat, it became the de facto standard. It will only be opposed and repealed if both politicial parties no longer see advantage in its preservation. It is analogous with why we most likely will never see term limits self imposed by congress because it would mark the end of the gravy train for its members.
I don’t think of you as an overly pessimistic person Mike, because I don’t trust Congress as it is presently composed at all. So you by comparison could only be more optimistic. 🙂
Great Article!
It is interesting that the ACLU hasn’t intervene on behalf of the ‘suspect’ in the context of having his miranda rights ‘waived’. Why wouldn’t they (Feds) want him (19 year old suspect) have an attorney? What are they planning (or already pre-planned) against him that is probably really for us (bewildred masses)?
I don’t like the smell coming from this kitchen, but I am surprised that we-the-people haven’t noticed this smell a lot sooner. What are the Elites cooking up for us?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced and hastily shepherded a bill repealing the provisions on Thursday, April 11, and the House followed suit the next day. President Obama signed the bill on April 15.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/stock-act-change-insider-trading_n_3100115.html
excerpt:
Who says nothing ever gets done in Washington? Swiftly and without fanfare, Congress and President Obama have made it easier for top federal employees to trade on inside information.
On Monday, Obama signed into a law a change in the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge, or STOCK Act, which was passed in 2012. The change, which was approved unanimously by Congress last week, means that top federal employees, including staffers on Capital Hill and in the White House, will not have to publicly disclose their financial holdings online. That requirement was part of the original STOCK Act, but its implementation had been delayed again and again by Congress. And now it’s dead.
The STOCK Act change does not apply to the president, vice president, members of Congress or candidates for Congress. Obama and Congress loudly passed the original STOCK Act last year after reports in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, along with academic studies, noted that lawmakers with access to market-moving information were suspiciously lucky in the timing of their stock trades. One widely-cited estimate suggests congressional portfolios outperform the broader market by 12 percent annually, though there are reasons to doubt that figure.
“we have a One Party Corporate System”
Bingo. …. And Corporations are people, money is free speech,
Stupid vote is What Stupid vote does. .
“This past Wednesday I found myself filled with this pessimism, nay total skepticism, that our Country can redirect its downward spiral towards Corporate Feudalism.”
This is THE topic of discussion now among friends and family. Everyone seems to want to find a way to bring it up. How much awareness does this represent?
Not yet enough, and not by 1001 miles.
Only the seating of grand juries to probe matters of war crimes addressing all principles involved through the current moment will ever be enough.
Only jail time will fix this. It’ now the only way to break these unspeakable habits.
House Passes CISPA Despite Obama Veto Threat
House lawmakers have passed a controversial cybersecurity bill that allows companies to share customer information with the government. The Obama administration has threatened a veto of CISPA, or the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, following public pressure from critics who say it would violate privacy rights. CISPA passed the House last year but was filibustered in the Senate. Companies including AT&T and Comcast have backed it, while critics including the American Civil Liberties Union mobilized against CISPA, saying it would “create a loophole in all existing privacy laws, allowing companies to share Internet users’ data with the National Security Agency, part of the Department of Defense, and the biggest spy agency in the world — without any legal oversight.”
Reblogged this on euzicasa.
“The issue is do we remain the peasants viewing the doings of the “Aristocracy” with chastened awe, or do we unite beyond our differences and realize that we have a common interest in our political and economic freedom …
What do you think about my pessimism, am I too depressing?”
When optimism is used in a context where pessimism is called for and vice versa, the problem is a failure to appraise the particular reality.
When a direction is obvious, the appropriate optimism or pessimism, whichever may apply, is called for.
I think you have it spot on with regards to our legislative body in D.C.
As usual Mike you hit the nail on the head. If Obama and Reid, wanted to change the filibuster rule they could. They haven’t even tried. As a result, every bill, every law is not subject to a procedural tactic that used to be rarely used resulting in the ability of a fanatical minority to stop democracy in its tracks. Sure I blame the GOP for using it but I blame OBAMA and Reid for their weakness or their duplicity.
I is time to return to majority rule!
Mike,
“The politics and the political philosophies are the distractions to keep us from seeing how bad things have really become for the majority of our people.”
Exactly! The powers that be want to keep us on the “Right vs. Left” meme. It’s their strategy for keeping people’s attention directed away from the reality of what is happening to this country. We Americans need to know what the problems are and where they lie so that we can address them.
As Blouise said: “It is not pessimistic to be realistic.”
Harry Reid could have brought the Manchin/Toomey bill to the floor up-or-down vote that would have required only a majority vote to pass.
But under Senate rules, a simple majority vote would have opened the measure to up to 30 hours of debate, Neither Reid nor the White House wanted such a debate.
So don’t blame Senate rules. Blame Reid and Obama for not wanting senators to actually discuss the bill.
It is not pessimistic to be realistic.
Mike, we know where the problem(s) lay because we are not afraid to identify them. It’s a strength, not a weakness. If one reads our history with an open mind one sees how far we have come as a people. One also sees how much further we have to go. Soldier on.
“Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen..nobody knows the sorrow.”