Actually, I just read their statements, and I’ll answer my own question. They’re waiting till the last minute to emphesize that they don’t support health reform, but are reluctantly letting it come to the floor so that it can at least be debated. Then they’ll vote to end debate but still vote against it when it comes to floor, so that it’ll still pass but they can say they voted against it.
The Senate is very strange.
Pretty much every federal law passed now is massively unconstitutional. Fine, whatever - the issue is long dead now. But I don’t like when people pretend that constitutionality matters somehow in a few pet cases when by and large we’ve discarded the whole thing.
Sure, and it’s a given that Republicans will vote against that on any important measure begun by Democrats. It’s purely about hurting Obama as stated by the shitbag GOPer leaders themselves.
Just imagine, if the entire GOP was trying to be a part of the process instead of obstructing everything and anything for the sake of hurting Obama, Landrieu’s vote would have been worth $0. Instead it’s worth hundreds of millions.
I hope little Carol has the fairness to call up Mitch “Behold my jowels that make Droopy jealous” McConnell and bitch him out for wasting money like this.
-Joe
When Sr. Justice Beef is able to attract a five-vote majority on the Supreme Court to declare Federal health care unconstitutional, get back to us, please. Until then, I’ll go with the Court we have – which has had numerous opportunities to find Medicare unconstitutional, I would presume, not to mention Medicaid, and has not chosen to do so.
(On reread before posting, I don’t mean this as snidely as it sounds – but I’m going to go ahead and post anyway. The point that what the Court accepts as constitutional is binding, short of a constitutional amendment or changes in the court makeup, is, I think, still a good one. I personally think (Federal) DOMA is highly unconstitutional, and a dangerous precedent. Bricker disagrees. But neither of us has received the letter from Obama offering us a seat yet. 
It’s a gradual/precedent thing. Once the first laws that weren’t authorized under article 1, section 8 (which is by far the real meat of the constitution, everything else pales in comparison, including the bill of rights) were passed, then it became easier to do it for the next laws, and so on. Eventually we decide “interstate commerce” means “anything the federal government could possibly want to do” and the laws we come out with are laughably out of line with the constitution. I mean - not even close. I can’t even say this is a judgement call that requires lawyers to resolve, we’re not even in the same ballpark. Pretty much every federal law of the last few decades has acted on powers not granted to congress.
I realize that’s the reality now, but it always amuses me when people take a pet issue and say “but that’s unconstitutional!” or "but that’s what the constitution says!. Well, we’re ignoring most of the document - this righteous indignation at violating your little pet issue is comical at best.
The Constitution is the will of the people made manifest, given structure so that we might have procedures to express that will. The Constitution is the mirror, not the light.
If the people will it, then all of these impossible things are no longer impossible. To what do we owe the most allegiance? The will of the people or the words of men two centuries dead?
So long as it is interpreted to further justice, equality, and democracy, it is worthy of our reverence and awe. But it wasn’t born that way, in its original form, it would have instituted a tyranny of the well-to-do no better than the tyranny of inherited nobility thrown off. We have made it what it is, and we will make it what it will be.
No, it is older. It always existed in the British Parliament – the most current and important model for a legislative assembly with which the Founding Fathers were familiar.
So, in other words, it is only as good as what the current people in power vote upon. It contains no guarantees for anyone.
In 2211, if we want to reinstitute slavery, they could just say “What did those dead guys from 1865-2110 know? We are going to use the evolving doctrine of fairness to say that Hispanic people can kill and/or enslave any Irish person they choose!”
The words were meant to be timeless, and if such an occasion came to where there was overwhelming support for a change, then there is a procedure to do that in Article V.
What a convoluted thread title. Mary Landrieu is not getting $100M, the people of her state are getting $100M.
With the OP’s logic any bill that gives Louisiana money is really a bribe for Landrieu’s vote. :rolleyes:
Even if her state will get more money than other states, maybe her state needs the money more? If she really believes that then why is it wrong for her to vote for this bill?
And the OP never offers any proof that Landrieu is against the Healthcare Bill. For all we know she thinks it is a good bill but did not like the fact it was holding out on money that she thought her state deserves.
ETA: Ok, Landrieu is publicly saying she doesn’t support healthcare reform. But that still doesn’t mean her vote was a bad one. She only voted to bring it up to a debate. We’ll see what she does on the finale vote.
People keep using the word bribe. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Have you ever heard of a quid pro quo? This is it, in spades.
But how will this affect Festival?
Hey, it’s kind of unfair to require someone to play fair in an unfair fight.
Everyone trades votes for money for their districts. They are not “selling” their votes as you want to use the term, but they are using them wisely.
Do you realize you are holding Landrieu to a framework that hasn’t exists in any legislative body throughout history? If she doesn’t trade her vote then her district will suffer because you do not get anything in Congress without trading votes. Sorry, you work with the system you have not the system you want. You are being pretty naive if you want Landrieu to act otherwise.
So it’s unfair to expect a U.S. Senator to do the right thing, instead of what’s politically expedient? How so?
Vote trading happens. It always has. And it’s one of the reasons why it’s a fool’s errand to let Washington have power of this magnitude. Do you know how legislation almost always goes wrong? Vote trading. What comes out of the final committee often bears little relationship to what went in. So either you have to believe that the first draft of a bill was nowhere near an optimal solution, or that the one coming out isn’t. Either way, you have governance via poker game, where the assets of the citizenry are played like chips while politicians horse-trade away parts of apparently finely honed plans.
Take the supposed ‘net budget savings’ in this bill. One of the things already horse-traded away, thanks to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), was a limit on eligibility for public health care - he got Reid to agree to expand it. There goes some cost containment.
The bill relies of some future Congress cutting 420 billion out of Medicare. Everyone reading this knows that will never happen. Especially not when the entire bulge of the baby boom is retired.
The tax on ‘gold-plated’ health care plans was already traded away, in exchange for a surtax on millionaires. That’s a scalp for the unions. The problem is that this has now removed one of the values of the tax - to limit demand for extra health care services to make delivery more equitable. There’s another cost you’ll be picking up.
Mary Landrieu managed to snag $300 million for her state - a deadweight cost of the plan right out of the gate. And she says the price is going to be even higher for her final vote.
The passage of this vote means the haggling can really get started in earnest. The plan the people will be left with will be the dregs left over after congress has wet its beak. And there will be probably be loopholes, flaws, gaps, and other problems. How can their not be when bills are mutated like this by a gaggle of special interests?
This is why America may be uniquely unsuited to being run by a large central government. Parliamentary Democracies like Canada’s have strong party loyalty, which protects individuals from the influence of lobbyists and special interests. That may make them poorer representatives of their home districts, but it makes the federal government behave more rationally.
Watching the U.S. Congress from outside the U.S. does not give one the sense that you are viewing a great deliberative body. More accurately, it looks like a pack of vultures snapping at each other as they divvy up the carcass of the commonweal.
Well, thank you, Mr. Sunshine!
We’re always relieved to hear from you, Sam, if you are absent for more than a few days, we get to thinking socialized medicine has already knocked you off. I mean, you must be pretty close to the forty year life expectency/ration.
But I’m not sure I see why a less centralized government might be an improvement. Seems just as likely that breaking things up into smaller legislative arenas just offers a lot of less expensive lobbying efforts rather than one big one.
It would be unfair to expect a U.S. Senator to do the “right thing” as someone outside the Senate understands the term.
What is “right” for you and me isn’t “right” in the context of Congress. You need to understand that Congress is set up in a way that encourages vote trading as a way to get things done. If you do not vote trade, you do not influence legislation, and you do not influence legislation in favor of your district. As a result, your district suffers. That is not what I call being a good representative.
Out of curiosity, how does strong party loyalty protect individuals from lobbyists and special interests? I don’t see the connection.
I will agree that the U.S. Congress isn’t all that great. Not much we can do about that.
That may be. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m saying that by its nature it does not lend itself well to complex technical governance and central planning. It’s not a coherent force.
If a politician is forced to vote the party line, then his vote is already captured, and you can’t buy it. And because the people know this, they also don’t expect you to constantly fight to bring home the pork for them. They get that it’s a team effort.
In the U.S., every politician is potentially for sale, on every issue. And great effort is spent to convince the politician that your special interests are also in his or his district’s interest. The whole game is about money and power and influence. And the presence of so much money raises the stakes in campaigns, with so much money being spent that anyone honest is shut out of the process unless they are independently wealthy.
This means the only way to fund a campaign is to take the money of the special interests - along with their influence.
I completely agree.
I see what you mean now. Funny thing is that this lack of party loyalty in the US came from campaign finance reform. Particularly the provisions that curtailed donations to national party committees (e. i. soft money). When the national committees stopped controlling most of the money that shifted the balance of power to individuals with superior fund raising skills.
However, party loyalty does have it’s own dangers. For one thing you have power consolidated with in leadership of the party. That was one of the reasons people wanted campaign finance reform, so that power could be distributed more evenly across the system.
Another thing is that systems with more party loyalty are still not completelly immune from special interests. The NY state legislature is highly partisan, but the teacher’s union still wields an enormous amount of influence. Some groups have enough money to influence an entire state party committee.
However, were they to agree, as a flock of vultures, to cut taxes for the top 1%, well, then they’d be a pack of heroes bestowing butterfly kisses on Baby Jesus!
Can I get an amen?
-Joe