Several news reports (summarized here) indicate that Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) has placed a blanket hold on all executive nominations — some 70 or so in all — over two federal projects that he wants to see in Alabama. This is shameful. It is an abuse of the hold privilege and is precisely the sort of thing that leads voters to doubt GOP sincerity about controlling government spending.
Anonsters says:
C’mon, JAH, give him a break.
He’s an Alabama Republican.
Alabama, where if you don’t believe every word of the Bible is true, you get into hot water.
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/01/bradley_byrne_says_every_word.html
Oh, Alabama. I do miss you.
February 5, 2010, 9:30 amthirdeblue says:
I thought Republican unseriousness on controlling government spending led to people doubting their seriousness on controlling government spending?
I would be more interested in factoids and whatnot that actually, you know, showed seriousness on behalf of Republicans in regards to spending.
February 5, 2010, 9:35 amDerHahn says:
As opposed to this example of Democratic sincerity about controlling government spending, I suppose.
February 5, 2010, 9:38 amsubpatre says:
As opposed to “an abuse of the hold privilege”, what is a use of the hold privilege? [Just saying. The hold doesn't seem to have any legitimate Roberts' equivalence.]
February 5, 2010, 9:48 amThe River Temoc, In Winter says:
Before condemning these projects as “wasteful government spending,” you guys might read the article and learn that one of the “wasteful projects” consists of buying new tankers for the US Air Force. It is universally acknowledged that the USAF needs new tankers — the ones that they are replacing are KC17s (707s). Do we really think that keeping our inflight refueling capacity current is “wasteful spending”?
I make no comment on the propriety of using the hold, or on whether Boeing or EADS-Northrup ought to win the tanker contract, although I have some sympathy for the Alabamans, who are right to take umbrage at Boeing’s protectionist “US tanker” campaign when the EADS-Northrup planes would be built in Alabama.
February 5, 2010, 9:51 amAnonsters says:
Alabamians.
February 5, 2010, 9:54 ambyomtov says:
As opposed to “an abuse of the hold privilege”, what is a use of the hold privilege?
I agree. WTF is this “hold” privilege and what useful purpose does it serve? Why does one Senator get to throw a tantrum and disrupt the government?
If Shelby wants to make a case that the projects should be done in Alabama let him do so.
February 5, 2010, 10:04 amChrisHo says:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/03/obama-denounces-tactic-he-used-senator/
what is good for the goose ….
shame on Mr. Alder for not showing just how both sides do this, I guess it only matters when your side is on the affected end.
February 5, 2010, 10:07 amthirdeblue says:
The River Temoc, In Winter,
Yes…but $40 billion worth of air to air tankers? For $40 billion we’d better get some sort of floating aircraft carrier like in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
February 5, 2010, 10:12 amthirdeblue says:
Republican (to Democrat): You beat your wife.
Democrat (confused): Yes…but you do too.
Republican (OUTRAGED): I DON’T BEAT MY WIFE NEARLY AS MUCH AS YOU DO!!!!
Independent: Wait a minute…
February 5, 2010, 10:14 amJonathan H. Adler says:
subpatre, byomtov –
In my view, a clearly legitimate use of a hold would be to delay a vote so that a Senator may obtain more information from a nominee or to ensure that there is adequate debate on a controversial nominee. Obviously, even the use of holds for these purposes could be subject to abuse. In some cases, I would think a hold could be legitimate if a Senator is seeking information from the Administration on a matter directly related to the nominee’s position (e.g. holding confirmation of someone to head the EPA air office pending an info request about a pending air pollution reg or something like that). There may be others. Senator Shelby’s hold, however, is clearly on the other side of the line.
ChrisHo –
It’s amusing you think the Obama Administration is my “side.” I don’t think many regular VC readers would endorse this view.
JHA
February 5, 2010, 10:19 amBama 1L says:
Can we start calling Shelby “the Senator from Airbus” now?
February 5, 2010, 10:27 amgracchus says:
Actually, both Democrats and Republicans are at fault here. The tankers originally would have been built in Alabama (low bid) but the Senators from WA, both Democrats, pressured the Administration to avoid the low bid. No one is taking a meaured, objective look at the contract to determine what would be in the best interests of the public
February 5, 2010, 10:29 amAllan says:
As a Democrat, moderately liberal, I fully support Senator Shelby’s desire to have more jobs in his state. Alabama, hands down, has more need for good paying jobs than Washington State (which already has Boeing and Microsoft).
Further, this is a very big issue for Alabama. Supporting the jobs in Alabama solidifies Sen. Shelby’s chances at re-election. The Senate rules give him the power. I don’t blame him for using it.
On the other hand, I think there are 98 senators from states other than Alabama. If they want to get rid of the rule, or change it to prevent it from being used on a blanket basis, they can.
February 5, 2010, 10:40 amMark Field says:
Well, there IS the Clinton Administration as an example of Democratic sincerity about controlling government spending. Just sayin’.
February 5, 2010, 10:47 amAlanW says:
Despite growing up in Seattle, most of what I’ve read on the matter suggests that EADS had the better tanker proposal and that Boeing (and Washington’s Congressional delegation) pulled every underhanded trick they could to keep their design in the running. Maybe someone knows more about this, but I also recollect that new tankers were never a real Air Force priority – it was primarily a pork project from the word go.
None of which is to say that Shelby is anything other than the meanest, most parochial sort of bottom-feeder. Here’s to hoping his greed will come back to haunt him the way Ben Nelson’s Medicaid deal for Nebraska did. Probably not, though – buying jets somehow never raises the same objections as health care plans.
February 5, 2010, 11:01 amArthurKirkland says:
If Alabama is still a parasitic state — deriving more benefit from government spending than it provides in taxes — why not move the tanker project to a more deserving state (and one that deserves sympathy)?
February 5, 2010, 11:01 amFrank Drackman says:
Senator Shelby didn’t become a Republican till into his 2d term, the day after the Republicans won back Congress in 1994, not that he’s an opportunist or anything.
February 5, 2010, 11:07 amI don’t like him for a more basic reason…
He looks mentally handicapped, and the left side of his face doesn’t move, like he’s had a stroke or something.
And Alabama might be 49th in all objective measures of Education/Literacy/Illegitimacy, but we put 2 teams in the top 5 College Football Recruiting classes this week, not to mention the Current BCS champs…
Frank Drackman says:
And Shelby should concentrate on what Alabama’s good at…PRISONS!!!, I mean Football
February 5, 2010, 11:09 amBob White says:
The tanker project has been a complete friggin’ nightmare from nearly the inception, and this is just the latest iteration in the ugly Congressional mess about it (as opposed to the ugly Pentagon mess). Agreed with JHA, a pox on Shelby.
February 5, 2010, 11:17 amArtemus says:
It would be nice if you could keep your bigoted comments to yourself.
February 5, 2010, 11:26 amRich M says:
Yes and the “sincerity” of the Clinton Admninistration was particularly apparent after the Republicans took over Congress in ’94. Just sayin’.
February 5, 2010, 11:27 amRoger the Shrubber says:
After 8 years of W, the verdict on that topic is in.
February 5, 2010, 11:31 amyankee says:
Considering the well-known facts about voter ignorance, I strongly doubt one Senator’s use of an obscure procedural device to secure two particular pork-barrel projects has any effect at all on voters’ impressions of GOP sincerity about controlling government spending. It is, of course, one more illustration of the fact that the GOP has no particular interest in controlling government spending.
February 5, 2010, 11:31 ambyomtov says:
Jonathan,
In my view, a clearly legitimate use of a hold would be to delay a vote so that a Senator may obtain more information from a nominee or to ensure that there is adequate debate on a controversial nominee. …. In some cases, I would think a hold could be legitimate if a Senator is seeking information from the Administration on a matter directly related to the nominee’s position (e.g. holding confirmation of someone to head the EPA air office pending an info request about a pending air pollution reg or something like that). There may be others.
OK, but even in these cases shouldn’t there be a tight limit? I can see a Senator being able to delay a vote to have time to ask a question or raise an issue, but once that’s done, whatever the outcome, the hold should expire.
I don’t think it makes sense to give each individual Senator the power to determine what is adequate information, or how much debate is enough. That’s a recipe for paralysis. A Senator dissatisfied with the result can always vote “No,” and try to get others to do the same.
February 5, 2010, 11:33 amBob from Ohio says:
Well, there IS the GOP congress of 1994 to 2000 as an example of GOP sincerity about controlling government spending. Just sayin’.
BTW, “holds” serve no legitimate purpose and should be abolished. Like the filibuster and “blue slips” and all the rest of the rules that make the senate
February 5, 2010, 11:35 amuniquea laughing stock.DerHahn says:
And after one year of Obama, ditto.
February 5, 2010, 11:36 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
I do not follow you Arthur.
Who is more deserving than the have-nots?
Are you against all redistribution of wealth?
Do you countenance the term “parasitic citizens” to denote those who consume more than they contribute?
We can not all be “above average” in the amount of largesse that flows into our state.
February 5, 2010, 11:36 amhugh says:
If we are going to complain about Senator Shelby’s hold, we should remember Senator Levin’s hold IIRC preventing any judges from Michigan being nominated to the 6th Circuit until a family member was seated on that court. Levin got his way and White is now on the bench.
That’s politics.
February 5, 2010, 11:42 amRich M says:
Voter ignorance indeed (see November, 2008, USA).
“…the GOP has no particular interest in controlling government spending.”
Uh, no. That is silly and false. The GOP is the only hope for controlling government spending.
February 5, 2010, 11:45 amWarren Bonesteel says:
Conservative voters didn’t learn much from 2006 or 2008.
On the other hand, the liberals won’t learn anything from the 2010 election cycle, either.
As with the left in 2008, the only thing the right will learn is, “We won, so shut up!”
Both sides keep electing the same people – or the same types of people – over and over again …while expecting different results.
This year, you’ll elect Republicans and wonder why things don’t change and only get worse…the next time, you’ll elect Democrats…and wonder why things don’t change and only get worse.
Me vs you vs this -ism, and that -ology vs this dash-American vs that issue vs the other flavor of the day, all promoted as a distraction in order to keep you preoccupied with who among you is worthy to get the next bit of bread and circuses leftovers from your government.
Veterans argue and fight among themselves about which of them get what handout from the government while disparaging welfare moms. Many members of AARP are against the military and welfare moms, but they’ll say to hell with anyone who wants to tinker with the handouts they get from the government, themselves. Small farmers go on about how unfair it is that anyone else get any handouts from the government, but don’t touch those algriculture subsidies!
One side elects people who promise to enact laws against behaviors they don’t like, while the other does the exact same thing. Meanwhile, you can’t understand why America has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
…and both sides keep doing the same things, over and over and over….while expecting different results.
They both pick sides, whatever the issue (e.g. traditional marriage vs gay ‘rights’), electing people who will make ever more laws and spend ever more money, with neither side stopping to remember that our government was never meant to be involved in any of it.
February 5, 2010, 11:53 amJoe says:
If we are going to complain about Senator Shelby’s hold, we should remember Senator Levin’s hold IIRC preventing any judges from Michigan being nominated to the 6th Circuit until a family member was seated on that court. Levin got his way and White is now on the bench.
If Shelby limited his holds to one subset of pending nominations in his own state, this would be more relevant.
February 5, 2010, 11:54 amTommyPaine says:
The only gesture more egregious would be to delay a major piece of legislation, like say, health care reform, until one could secure for his state some disproportionate windfall ($45M over 10 years) such as getting the fed to pick up the tab for all new medicaid beneficiaries. Now that would really be gaming the system.
February 5, 2010, 11:57 amRowerinVA says:
I forget who wrote this first but I’ll shamelessly reuse it, as it applies to this who-spends-too-much-us-or-them fracas:
Much as I fear the abuses possible in a line-item veto (formally created or simply used by fiat), I don’t see how our system of government will achieve fiscal sanity without one. In fact, I think the US is more likely to elect a conservative president if it believes s/he would wield a line item veto.
February 5, 2010, 11:57 amJoe says:
The basic justification of the hold is that it provides a means for senators to protect their state’s interests in respect to who is being nominated. For instance, some district judge from NYC or whatnot. This can be debated and its use has been controversial over the years. Holds, of course, are a means for a senator to block some nomination they just don’t care for as a general matter. This is more questionable. Again, many cases of that. If it is just going to be used as a bribing tactic to get some for a state, especially at this level (mega-holds), it has much less justification.
February 5, 2010, 12:00 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
I agree with everything you say, except that you imply that there’s a non-abusive use of the hold privilege, and I don’t agree. I think the filibuster is great, but I can’t see any justification for the hold. A single senator should not be able to block nominations. If there’s not a good enough reason to block a nomination for a bunch of senators to get on board, then it should proceed.
February 5, 2010, 12:01 pmJoe says:
The only gesture more egregious would be to delay a major piece of legislation, like say, health care reform, until one could secure for his state some disproportionate windfall ($45M over 10 years) such as getting the fed to pick up the tab for all new medicaid beneficiaries. Now that would really be gaming the system.
Why, I’m shocked that borderline members of the necessary majority ask for “theirs” to support major legislation. This never happened before that instance, I’m sure! Likewise, other members asked for “theirs” too. This is how sausage making works. OTOH, this is a matter of holding a bunch of nominations, not one or one piece (however big) of legislation, and not limited even to those in his own state by the coverage shown.
Again, false relevance alert!
February 5, 2010, 12:03 pmOren says:
The best interest of the whatnow?
That would entirely defeat the point. Consider the example — a Senator holds up an EPA nomination to ask the administration to release its draft of some rule. If the admin knows that they can just wait it out, they have no incentive to actually release the info instead of just waiting out the clock.
I’m not saying I support the purpose, perhaps the Senate should not use its powers of advice as a bargaining chip for information. Just don’t propose “reforms” that are little more than repeals of the rule.
February 5, 2010, 12:09 pmyankee says:
Amen! In my dreams we would get rid of the Senate entirely (or make it into a mostly ceremonial body like the House of Lords to get around Article V), but we should at least get rid of these absurd procedural devices.
February 5, 2010, 12:19 pmzuch says:
Thank you for this post, Prof. Adler.
Also thanks to Sen. Shelby, for demonstrating that Republicans haven’t a leg to stand on when they Mau-Mau Democrats for supposed “pork” (or even actual “pork”), and that replacing Democrats with Republicans will do nothing to fix any problems in that area. FWIW, I think Obama handled it well and humourously when he pointed out that (not exact quote but essentially…) “Your Congressman puts through essential projects. Other congressmen lade the bills with “pork”….)
Cheers,
February 5, 2010, 12:20 pmrarango says:
Of course its a travesty–but in this case travesty is an equal opportunity employer–I suspect there are very few dems who would vote to change this senate rule, because those sorry b*stards want exactly the same prerogative when it comes to their pet projects and the sorry b*astard republicans.
This really isnt hard–it is simply about power and prerogative–and I submit very very few of members of “the greatest deliberative body in the world” will surrend this particular perk.
February 5, 2010, 12:25 pmzuch says:
He’s not insisting that tankers be bought. He’s insisting that Alabama-built tankers be bought. And using holds on all kinds of stuff totally unrelated to his demands to do so. This is the political equivalent of an armed stick-up.
Cheers,
February 5, 2010, 12:26 pmzuch says:
Do you know what Prof. Adler’s “side” is?!?!? I think he’s being quite fair and honest here in criticising the side that is usually closer to his own proclivities. He is showing some consistency in his criticism, rather than blind partisanship.
Cheers,
February 5, 2010, 12:31 pmOperationCounterstrike says:
Time to place a hold on all federal spending in Alabama–for the next hundred years.
Let them secede! We’ll be better off. What’s in Alabama, other than racists and rural degenerates?
February 5, 2010, 12:35 pmSteve says:
I’m not sure what wasteful spending has to do with any of this. These are projects that are going to be built somewhere, no matter how this episode concludes.
I have no idea about the merits of doing the project in Alabama versus the other place, but I know there is a regular bid process for determining that sort of thing. If there was corruption or an error in the bid process, I’m fairly certain that this stunt is not a helpful or appropriate way of trying to correct it.
February 5, 2010, 12:38 pmrarango says:
Operation Counterstrike: really–stereotype much? what a stupid thing to say.
February 5, 2010, 12:40 pmLe Messurier says:
Joe
Sorry, but I disagree. There is definitely a relevance. The “sausage making” excuse is an excuse for corruption. The mega-hold is also corrupt. The process is corrupt. Another revolution isn’t such a bad idea.
February 5, 2010, 12:41 pmMark Field says:
And what are you just sayin’ about 2001-6?
Agreed.
February 5, 2010, 12:44 pmrarango says:
Since the dems control the senate–well, did until today–let’s see them change the rules–any takers on the proposition that the senate dems will change this rule?
February 5, 2010, 12:46 pmSoronel Haetir says:
I disagree with the posters saying the Senate rules need to be changed to be more plainly majoritarian, or the Senate even pared back to a ceremonial body. Given that this guy’s obstinacy is the only thing currently in the way of a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that likely is not in the best interests of the country (I’m aware his plan isn’t either, set that aside for the moment) I am cheering him on.
The Senate rules have protected us from so many worse things over the years. Would you really like the cap&tax bill to already be law? How about the House health care bill? Don’t think just because you dump more responsibility on them that the House members would suddenly become responsible drafters of legislation. I would rather the House adopt the Senate’s supermajority requirements than see the Senate abolish theirs.
February 5, 2010, 12:50 pmbyomtov says:
That would entirely defeat the point. Consider the example — a Senator holds up an EPA nomination to ask the administration to release its draft of some rule. If the admin knows that they can just wait it out, they have no incentive to actually release the info instead of just waiting out the clock.
I don’t think it would defeat the point, or at least not a reasonable point. There has to be a stopping rule. Otherwise the individual Senator could keep asking for more information forever. Whatever the obligation of the admin or the nominee to provide information, it’s not unlimited. Should nominees have to provide their high school transcripts?
Of course if the request is reasonable the admin does have an incentive to release the information. Failure to do so may result in the nominee not being confirmed.
The point is that the issue is, or should be, not the release of information, but the confirmation or rejection of the nominee. The information requested should be relevant to that. (In your EPA example, BTW, I don’t see the relevance unless the nominee helped draft the rule) If relevant information is withheld then it is perfectly appropriate to vote against the nominee. It is even reasonable to assume, as a default, that the withheld information reflects badly on the nominee.
The problem with unlimited holds is that the admin always loses. There is no vote – no decision by the Senate as to how important the entire matter of the hold is.
February 5, 2010, 1:16 pmhattio says:
Oren says;
But, if a Senator asks for a piece of info, and the Presidential Admin (and let’s face it, they would be making the decisions) decides to not give them the info, that should be enough to get some Senators on your side to filibuster. If it’s not, maybe that’s because you’re seeking info on an unrelated topic, or just going on a fishing expedition, or maybe because you’re a bad politician. Regardless, limiting the amount of time a hold can be in effect does not repeal the rule. It just makes it less useful…which would probably be a good thing.
February 5, 2010, 1:23 pmOren says:
That has not been the historical practice of the Senate, for better or (as you’ve claimed) for worse.
It makes it useless because it is no longer a real bargaining tool — the Senator announced the hold and then the Senate Majority Leader schedules the vote for right after it expires. The administration wouldn’t even consider releasing the information or whatever — there would be no point. Even if they did capitulate, the Senator could just keep the hold on till the predetermined expiration date anyway — the WH would literally have nothing to gain by cooperating.
By the way, I think Reid has a very easy way out — he can force the Senate into recess and let Obama make the appointments that way. Extra hilarious because he kept the Senate intentionally open 06-08 to prevent such appointments.
February 5, 2010, 1:32 pmOren says:
[ I have to learn to stop using em-dashes to set off not-quite-independent clauses. ]
February 5, 2010, 1:36 pmThales says:
It is truly amazing that any Republican member of Congress from 2001 to 2008 is even allowed to speak with credibility on any issue involving restraint of spending.
Also truly amazing as an American cultural matter is that no one seems to appreciate the crucial distinction between borrowing and spending if and when you have to and saving and building a surplus when you don’t have to spend (politicians, corporations, American households . . . all guilty).
February 5, 2010, 1:42 pmPer Son says:
I say keep the filibuster, but eliminate the hold. It simply makes no sense. If a Senator is not satisfied with how much information has been put forward, convince a majority to vote the nominee down.
I have yet to see an honest hold, that is, a hold where the real purpose is to simply avoid a cloture vote.
I also would be a fan of eliminating the ability to do stupid tricks like keeping weird Congressional hours to avoid a president’s ability to pocket veto or recess appoint.
February 5, 2010, 1:46 pmShame on Shelby | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] the original post: Shame on Shelby [...]
February 5, 2010, 1:46 pmOren says:
I think Session’s hold on 2 Pentagon procurement nominees while the tanker thing gets resolved is quite reasonable. The nominees are directly related to his issue. Moreover, I feel he’s justified because the tanker project was only tabled because of political pressure from the WA delegation.
February 5, 2010, 1:49 pmAF says:
I agree that this “is precisely the sort of thing that leads voters to doubt GOP sincerity about controlling government spending.” In other words, it’s such a stark and crystallized example of the Republicans’ (1) obstructionism and (2) hypocrisy on spending that it could actually draw notice and have negative political consequences.
It is important to distinguish this from “the sort of thing that leads informed observers to doubt GOP sincerity about controlling government spending.” There is no such thing as that, because no informed observer believes that the GOP is sincere about controlling spending in the first place.
February 5, 2010, 1:54 pmMJN1957 says:
…from Alabamistan
February 5, 2010, 1:55 pmA.S. says:
It is not clear to me whether TPM’s calim that Shelby has put a hold on EVERY nominee is correct. Shelby’s office put out a statement that confirms “several” holds, but not a hold on all the nominees.
This report may very well be TPM’s left-wing hype.
February 5, 2010, 2:06 pmbck says:
Can you explain this line of thinking for me? If the ideal is to send back to a state the exact same amount of tax dollars that it puts in, why bother collecting the taxes in the first place?
February 5, 2010, 2:11 pmbyomtov says:
It makes it useless because it is no longer a real bargaining tool — the Senator announced the hold and then the Senate Majority Leader schedules the vote for right after it expires. The administration wouldn’t even consider releasing the information or whatever — there would be no point.
If the hold were a legitimate and relevant request for information there would be a point. Failure to release it would harm the nominee’s chances for confirmation.
But if the hold were basedon an irrelevant matter, you are right, there would be no point. But there shouldn’t be holds like that. Their existence gives individual Senators way too much power.
February 5, 2010, 2:24 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
That it’s revisionist history to call this a Republican congress? From May 2001 until January 2003, Democrats controlled the Senate. (That was the effect of the Jeffords switch.)
February 5, 2010, 2:32 pmAlan Polonsky says:
There is a basic political corruption paradigm.
A legislator puts a hold on a particular piece of legislation and quietly advises the business that would benefit from that legislation if they would simply do X. Sometimes X is what could be seen as a public good. Sometimes X is hiring a law firm that is connected to that politician. Sometimes X is a political contribution and sometimes X is an outright bribe.
This pattern has been repeated (Fumo in Pa, a Dem, Speaker of NY Assembly, a Rep) and other cases too numerous to mention.
The process is bi-partisan (Isn’t that nice) and present at the Federal, State, County, City, Township levels.
While there could be legitimate reasons to hold up a particular Bill, often there is not. What is more interesting to me, at least, is that in order for the plan to work, the other members of the legislature have to allow the one to hold up the bill. Politicians may be many things, but I have never heard them referred to as naive. It is impossible for these schemes to work without the tacit agreement of the other members of the legislature, of both parties.
I have no solution
February 5, 2010, 2:33 pmBob from Ohio says:
[For nearly 2 years in that time frame, the Dems controlled the Senate, remember.]
But your example exists only because there was a GOP majority.
Was Clinton in 1993-1994 a budget cutter?
When was the last Dem congress that cut spending?
February 5, 2010, 2:56 pmerp says:
Did y’all forget Obama said, he’s keeping score. Alabama’s electoral votes went to McCain; Washington’s to Obama.
‘Nuff said.
Shelby’s playing the cards he’s been dealt.
February 5, 2010, 2:56 pmFantasiaWHT says:
I think you explained it precisely yourself. Or to be a little clearer, “why bother collecting taxes if only to send the money straight back to a state anyway?
February 5, 2010, 3:02 pm1040 says:
awww.. jha is cho chweet… makes me feel so bad when his innocence is pricked. nobody tell him that santa claus isn’t real, mmkay?
February 5, 2010, 3:11 pmMark Field says:
Fair enough.
I’m not sure I follow this. Yes, there was a GOP majority. They were hardly known for cutting spending. Thus, it’s hard to argue that the GOP majority from 94-2000 was “the” cause of the budget surpluses.
I’m pressed for time right now. I’ll check this later, but I believe the answer is “yes”.
In absolute terms, it’s probably been quite a while, but relative to GDP it was (I believe) 93-4. It might have been 2006 too, but I don’t know.
February 5, 2010, 3:24 pmSeaDrive says:
Is the Senatorial Hold more or less evil than the Senatorial Courtesy? Or is it merely a different manifestation of the same phenomenon?
February 5, 2010, 3:26 pmalex says:
Really? That’s what you see when you look at this? Really?
There truly is no hope for fiscal conservatism. IT DOESN’T WORK IF YOU’RE NOT WILLING TO CALL OUT PEOPLE ON YOUR SIDE. Christ, I give up. I’ve gone from liberal to conservative to hopeless about human nature. It all devolves into people fighting over whose team wins (so that they can do the exact same thing as the other team who they despise more than anything else in the world because they’re on the other team).
February 5, 2010, 3:30 pmMichael Ejercito says:
Not so amazing when their successors double down on spending.
Also, should that not be 2001-2006?
February 5, 2010, 3:43 pmApperception says:
Existential quantifier, universal quantifier, what’s the difference, right?
February 5, 2010, 3:45 pmzuch says:
Are you counting Lieberman as a Democrat? ;-)
Cheers,
February 5, 2010, 3:48 pmDavid Welker says:
I don’t know where you get the idea that antimajoritarian holds are “bad” but that antimajoritarian filibuster are “good” but I am damn sure that you didn’t get that idea from the Constitution.
Good for Senator Shelby! He should use the rules to advance his beliefs and the interests of Alabama. Last time I checked, it was the duty of a Senator to advance the interests of the state that elected him. By all means, Senator Shelby should exercise all powers granted to him within the rules to do exactly that.
The problem isn’t Senator Shelby. The problem is the rules. The Senate as an institution is an embarrassment because it has decided to adopt unconstitutional rules of proceedings. That isn’t Senator Shelby’s fault. He has one vote. He couldn’t change the rules even if he wanted to. The true culprits are the cowardly and spineless Democratic Senate majority that won’t stand up against the filibuster and the rules that allow a single senator to obstruct.
Senator Shelby is just playing by the rules of the game as they currently exist. Good for him! Shame on Shelby for playing by the rules? That is just a bunch of BS.
Democrats may bitch about Republican obstructionism in the Senate. But at the end of the day, that obstructionism is their own fault because they allow it. No one likes a loser, and Democrats are making themselves into losers.
I personally am going to enjoy watching the Democrats go down in flames in November. They deserve it. They screwed up badly when they chose to pass a stimulus that was too small and they took too long to pass health care. You want to know a good way to ensure that you lose re-election? Don’t do enough to fix an unemployment rate that is too high. I can’t wait until we replace a dysfunctional Democratic “controlled” Senate with a dysfunctional Republican “controlled” Senate. My only regret is that it will realistically take until at least 2012 for Republicans to take back “control” of the Senate, whatever that means. I definitely don’t agree with Republicans, but I don’t see why anyone should care who “controls” the Senate. The institution is an embarrassment.
In the meantime, I support Senator Shelby 100% for playing by the rules and doing his best to advance the interests of Alabama. Good for him.
February 5, 2010, 3:57 pmOwen H. says:
How odd that a 51-seat majority (including Lieberman)is called “controlling”, yet 59 seats means the Dems aren’t in control anymore.
btw, that was only just over a year and a half.
February 5, 2010, 3:58 pmSarcastro says:
Oh, I’ll tu the crap out of this quoque! A pox on everyone makes my side onluy as poxy as yours! Or better yet I wash my hands of the whole thing, since refusing to play is almost like winning!
Also erp heard Obama bein all evil, so the Republicans have no choice but to be awful!
[My understanding (from another blog, so not authoritative) of a hold is that it is a threat that to refuse to grant unanimous consent to waiving the reading of bills, to agreement that a quorum is present, etc., until the required condition is met. Any rules change would have to be pretty drastic.
And this blanket hold is almost unprecedented. For the purpose of pork, it is definitely unprecedented.
I'm confident I'd not defend a Dem Senator if they did this crap.]
February 5, 2010, 3:59 pmOwen H. says:
David Welker- problem is, it is quite clear he isn’t doing this to advance the interests of his state.
February 5, 2010, 3:59 pmBobDoyle says:
Maybe the better question is: When will the first Dem congress cut spending?
February 5, 2010, 4:00 pmDavid Welker says:
If you think that Republicans are sincere about controlling deficits, then you are one of those people about whom Abraham Lincoln said: “You can fool some of the people all the time.” As Dick Cheney said to Paul O’Neill, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
Of course Senator Shelby wants a $40 billion contract to build air-to-air refueling tankers that will create in jobs in Mobile, Alabama to go through. Of course he wants a $45 million FBI lab, which will create jobs, to be built in Alabama. It is not as if Alabama doesn’t need jobs with a 10.6% seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate. It is not as if the output of these projects will not help advance the national interest.
It is called representing the people of Alabama. It is emphatically NOT outrageous for Senator Shelby to represent the interests of his state by all means possible under the rules.
February 5, 2010, 4:15 pmleo marvin says:
Why are you elevating factual accuracy over the greater, reductive truth? Only in the boring realm known as “reality” are you a Republican.
February 5, 2010, 4:19 pmDavid Welker says:
Of course a $45 billion dollar contract that will create jobs in Alabama when the state faces a 10.6% seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate and a 11% seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would advance the interests of Alabama. To top it off, it would also help improve our national military capabilities. The $45 million FBI laboratory will also provide jobs to people in Alabama and also improve our national investigative capabilities.
Sounds like it is in the interests of Alabama to me. Maybe you disagree, but that is irrelevant. As long as Senator Shelby thinks, like I do, that this is in the interests of Alabama, he should continue.
It is quite ridiculous, it seems to me, to say a Senator should not try to advance the interests of his state by exercising all the powers he has under the rules. If you have a problem with rules, then change the rules. Don’t blame the Senator for playing by the rules that are currently in place. That is just lame.
February 5, 2010, 4:27 pmDavid Welker says:
Sarcastro,
Well, I for one want my Democratic Senators from California to do whatever it takes within the rules to advance the interests of California. Senators absolutely should be aggressive, within the boundaries of the rules, when it comes to representing their constituents. Maybe you want a wimpy Senator, but I don’t. And maybe that is what is wrong with the Democratic Senators we have now.
February 5, 2010, 4:32 pmRPT says:
There you go again with the BIOB.
February 5, 2010, 4:35 pmditter says:
“is precisely the sort of thing that leads voters to doubt GOP sincerity about controlling government spending.”
Gee, you think that is what leads to those doubts?
Could it possibly, instead, be the enormous deficits racked up under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2.
If you look at a chart of the deficits, you’ll notice a nice dip during the Clinton years.
I mean, really Mr. Adler, are you even vaguely familiar with American history of the past 30 years?
February 5, 2010, 5:10 pmathEIst says:
Shelby–shameful
February 5, 2010, 5:12 pmHoodathunk it!
Michael Ejercito says:
There is a reason why eliminating the filibuster is considered the nuclear option.
So we are not spending enough?
If government spending is supposed to stimulate the economy, should not the economy have been continuously stimulated for the past decade or so?
February 5, 2010, 5:21 pmWayne says:
Oren:
Actually, the Airbus tanker contract was cancelled and and is to be rebid because the GAO upheld Boeing’s appeal about the way the contract bidding was handled.
February 5, 2010, 5:46 pmDavid Welker says:
What would that reason be? Because returning the Senate to the way it was originally designed is considered radical? By whom exactly? The radicals who decided they didn’t need to follow the Constitution in the United States Senate in the first place? I will tell you what the real “nuclear option” is. NOT eliminating the filibuster. Keeping the filibuster is exercising the “nuclear option” on the power of the American people to have significant influence on policy through elections.
Elections should matter. The filibuster shifts power from the people to the politicians, because it renders elections meaningless for all purposes except helping or hurting the careers of politicians. But, last time I checked, elections were not supposed to be primarily about the careers of politicians, but instead about giving the people a chance to have their say.
February 5, 2010, 6:28 pmjccamp says:
Although the tanker issue is disputed and murky I think this is close to correct:
The Air Force wanted the Boeing tankers. Originally, Boeing offered a lease-purchase deal for a Cadillac type tanker, very advanced. At least some in the Air Force thought the tankers were too expensive/too feature laden. The Boeing tankers were medium sized planes. Several of the Air Force procurement officers approved the deal, then retired and went to work for Boeing. They were indicted and went to prison, and the deal cancelled because of the irregularities.
In the second round of bidding, Northrop/EADS offered a much larger tanker at a low price, beating Boeing’s bid. The Air Force again would prefer the Boeing aircraft for reasons of parts supply and maintenance, plus they have done business with Boeing for years. It’s a good fit. I believe that the Boeing aircraft is technologically much more advanced. The issue of EADS/Airbus being subsidized by national (European) governments to the detriment of U S corporations was waived for the purpose of bidding.
Boeing complained about the bid specs and won. It’s really those specs that will determine which plane wins the bid, the smaller, advanced Boeing or the larger, stripped Northrop/Airbus. Within the Air Force, I don’t think there is much question that the Boeing airframe is preferred for professional reasons.
But, of course, this is a political decision. Although the present line is that no split contract will be awarded, the eventual construction of two different models may eventually happen, just to please both state legislative contingents.
Stupid, really. And it sounds like Sen. Shelby has outdone past use of the hold this time.
February 5, 2010, 6:40 pmMichael Ejercito says:
The Democrats, currently.
Eliminate the filibuster, and they will not be able to block or threaten to block legislation once they are relegated to minority status. That is why neither side used the opportunity to eliminate it.
February 5, 2010, 6:47 pmDavid Welker says:
Stimulating the economy outside the context of a liquidity trap (where interest rates are at zero percent) has no effect. Government spending in that context does not stimulate the economy; it just substitutes government programs and initiatives for private sector activities. In normal times, government should not run a deficit and you should only have government spending to the extent that it provides more value than the private sector activities that it displaces.
The reason stimulus makes sense now is because we have unemployed resources. So, government spending doesn’t replace private activity. Instead it puts resources to work that would otherwise be unemployed. It is quite clear when you have over 10% unemployment that the private sector is not working at its full potential.
So, yes, we need MORE government spending now. Unfortunately, Obama has chosen to do what seems politically smart instead of what is economically smart. My view is that what is a huge miscalculation, from both an economic and political perspective, because voters are sure to punish incumbent Democrats for high unemployment. Obama would have been much smarter to push for more stimulus to get people back to work. Instead, he has chosen to implement a gimmicky spending freeze. People may think the government should mirror their own behavior (if they are cutting spending in their households and businesses, government should cut spending as well). But that is just economic ignorance. When households and businesses cut spending, that causes unemployment, which leads to lower consumer confidence and spending. When government cuts spending, it has the same effect. What government should be doing is countering the negative effects of these actions by households and business, not reinforcing them. Government should do the exact opposite of what households and business do. In bad times, government should run deficits. In good times, government should run surpluses.
February 5, 2010, 6:54 pmDavid Welker says:
This is skewed logic. First, this might be good for politicians, but it isn’t good for voters. Second, I don’t think it is really good for politicians either. The remedy for the minority should not be to block legislation. The remedy for the minority should be to convince the people to make them a majority and then repeal it.
But I really do wish the Republicans luck in trying to get our fiscal house in order when Democrats filibuster everything they do. What goes around comes around.
All I know for sure is that if the current Democratic majority or a future Republican majority doesn’t do something about the filibuster, we are going to have a fiscal disaster in our future. Since Democrats are not going to do anything about the filibuster, you can count me as one Democrat who is going to vote Republican in the next election. The idea that Republicans will do anything about the filibuster is probably false, but with the current Democrats, they have proven that they are too weak to lead, so I don’t see much to lose.
February 5, 2010, 7:06 pmjccamp says:
For better or worse, it’s such as the ‘hold’ that the Senate has the reputation of being a much more co-operative (not necessarily friendly, just co-operative) atmosphere than the House. In the House, the majority can pretty much jam through any legislation it wishes. The Senate tends more to compromise, perhaps because neither side will surrender the power of the minority.
There is something to be said for procedures that encourage – even require – the majority to kiss a little minority butt to get things done. It does tend to slow down the express.
February 5, 2010, 7:22 pmfirst history says:
…..Boeing (and Washington’s Congressional delegation) pulled every underhanded trick they could to keep their design in the running….
Then they must have also bribed the General Accountability Office (GAO), which sustained Boeing’s protest. The GAO found that the Air Force violated its own procedures and the RFP requirements:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
February 5, 2010, 7:29 pmDavid Welker says:
As long as you are willing to disregard the Constitution and don’t mind living in a country in decline, that sounds great.
February 5, 2010, 7:34 pmOwen H. says:
Even better, when will Congress of any stripe do so? I don’t think any have ever done so.
The fact is, most people don’t actually want them to do so. They say it, but whatthey generally mean is, “except for the things I want them to spend money on”. Problem being, lots of people think we should be spending money on lots of things. In order for one group to get what they want, they have to go along with another group getting what they want. as well. And so on. Compromise. After all, I’m sure that the Republicans would object long and loud were the Democrats to propose cutting government spending by making deep cuts in military spending, and stop funding unpopular wars.
February 5, 2010, 7:47 pmSyd Henderson says:
Doesn’t the Senate have a way to remove a hold? Otherwise the hold is an American equivalent to the liberum veto, which didn’t work all that well for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
February 5, 2010, 8:15 pmjccamp says:
firsthistory -
My sense of the second bid proposal was that, after the first bid fiasco, many of the Air Force procurement people were loathe to get within range of the Boeing bid for fear of career damage, and they actually gave Northrop/Airbus favorable treatment out of an unwillingness to be seen as close to Boeing. At the time, elected officials from both left and right were taking potshots at Boeing, understandably so, after the first, apparently rigged bid.
The bid process has never been very clean. I seem to remember that both bidders were throwing about talk of sub-contractors in other geographic areas in an attempt to widen political support for their respective bids.
February 5, 2010, 8:31 pmJmaie says:
As long as you are willing to disregard the Constitution and don’t mind living in a country in decline, that sounds great.
I believe the filibuster has been in use since the mid 1800′s. Long time to be in decline.
February 5, 2010, 8:41 pmAnonsters says:
Why would I do that? This, sir, is the internet.
Incidentally, I don’t think it’s bigoted to point out the insanity of making the zealousness with which a person believes in a literal reading of the Bible a basis for choosing that person to be your candidate for state governor.
I don’t know how some people manage to survive existence on the internet, being so sensitive. Sheesh.
February 5, 2010, 8:47 pmfirst history says:
Doesn’t the Senate have a way to remove a hold?
Sixty votes.
February 5, 2010, 9:10 pmMark Field says:
As first history said, it requires a cloture vote, i.e., 60 votes. Senator McConnell told the Senate yesterday that the Republican Party, at least for now, is backing the holds. As long as all 41 Republicans do so, it’s impossible to remove the hold.
February 5, 2010, 9:26 pmMark Field says:
Ok, from this chart you can see that government spending declined as a percentage of GDP while the Dems controlled Congress in ’93-94.
Note that on the linked page you can set lots of date ranges, so you can answer most of the questions asked here.
February 5, 2010, 9:36 pmSyd Henderson says:
first history says:
Doesn’t the Senate have a way to remove a hold?
Sixty votes.
Quote
Thank you. Then Adler’s post is to the point. The only way he can maintain the holds is with the approval of his party.
February 5, 2010, 10:28 pmDavid Welker says:
The filibuster was rarely employed in the past compared to now. Further, we face a particular fiscal problem that is going to take action, one way or another. The cost of solving that problem is lower the earlier we do it, and much greater if we wait until it turns into a crisis.
February 5, 2010, 10:32 pmOren says:
What about Session’s holds on the Pentagon procurement folks regarding the tankers? They are not “based on an irrelevant matter” at all!
February 5, 2010, 10:58 pmArthurKirkland says:
The correlation between states whose federal legislators demonize government and states whose economies are propped up by balance of trade with the federal government causes me to hope that those legislators’ smaller-government wishes are granted in the form of less federal spending in those states.
Also, if these tankers are important to our nation, I would prefer that they be built by a workforce whose education is at least average.
Finally, Shelby’s bad form should be addressed in forceful terms — making him the publicized embodiment of the hypocrisy and dysfunction that has crippled the Senate.
February 5, 2010, 11:10 pmOren says:
Which sounds like a good reason to get 70-80 Senators and both parties firmly on board.
That is, you seriously believe we need a long-term solution, you’ve got to factor in that the current party will not be in power forever. There’s no sense in forging a long term solution that the opposition will repeal or gut at some point in the future.
The fact that our policy swerves like a drunk driver has done far more damage to this country than actual bad policy ever could. It’s bad for citizens and businesses that cannot make rational plans, it’s bad for the markets that don’t know what loopy policy to expect next and it’s a huge waste of money when you start/stop/start projects and move experienced personnel around like they can just instantly relearn entire new sections of the USC.
I’m not discounting the need for drastic action sometimes, it’s just that taking different and incompatible drastic actions every 4-8 years is not a recipe for long-term stability and prosperity.
February 5, 2010, 11:15 pmOren says:
Seconded.
February 5, 2010, 11:22 pmOwen H. says:
To hold up everything else in order to get money for his state on these few things is good? How is this different from a Rep. getting extra funds for their state as an in-kind “donation” for voting a particular way on something?
February 5, 2010, 11:44 pmDavid Welker says:
Owen,
You can blame Senator Shelby. Or you can blame those who refuse to give him what he wants. I am sure that if Shelby got his money, he would release his holds.
Don’t give Senators the power to use holds if you don’t want them to exercise it. If you are going to give them the power, don’t except them to avoid using that power in order to advance the interests of their constituents. Senator Shelby represents the people of Alabama. He is advancing their interests.
February 6, 2010, 12:25 amDavid Welker says:
You are definitely naive. This just isn’t going to happen. One party is going to have to get more of what they want than the other. The price of bipartisanship for Republicans is complete capitulation by Democrats.
You act like your poor innocent Republicans don’t play hardball. They play hardball, and they play it well. The fact is, that total Republican obstructionism is working brilliantly from a political perspective. That what they are doing is bad for the country is obviously of secondary importance or no importance to them. They sure are teaching the Democrats a lesson. Obstructionism pays.
It is pretty ridiculous that when the voters vote for a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House, there is no possibility of a Democratic agenda.
Elections SHOULD matter. Too bad in America, they don’t.
I am sure we will get 70-80 Senators to agree. When we finally reach a crisis point. This country always comes together when there is a genuine crisis. The problem is, by then it is going to be too late. There will be permanent damage done to this country by then.
February 6, 2010, 12:29 amDavid Welker says:
Don’t give Senators the power to use holds if you don’t want them to exercise it. If you are going to give them the power, don’t
February 6, 2010, 12:34 amexceptexpect them to avoid using that power in order to advance the interests of their constituents.Ricardo says:
This reads like a political-science-style account of what is going on here. However, I think it was the case until fairly recently that Senators did not use holds on nominations to push their own agendas that have nothing to do with the nominee. In other words, there was a tradition or unwritten rule in the past that is no longer being respected.
A way of putting it might be this: the Senate is like a gentlemen’s club (with apologies to the current 17 female Senators, I could say “gentlemen’s and ladies’ club” but that PC-phrasing is just too awkward). In a gentlemen’s club, there are certain written rules and then there are certain unwritten rules. For instance, you don’t flirt with the other guy’s wife when he steps out for a minute. You don’t pick up and move your golf ball on the green when no one is looking. You’re expected to behave in a certain civil manner. Etc.
I think this points to a key difference between the way lawyers and non-lawyers see the world. Non-lawyers expect others to obey the unwritten rules as well as the written rules. Failing to do this when around non-lawyers could result in you being socially ostracized, having your car tires flattened or receiving a broken nose. Lawyers on the other hand not only shrug and say “what did you expect?” when they see someone violating the unwritten rules but might even see it as a kind of virtue or obligation to violate those rules. If someone never bothered to write them down and codify them, maybe they weren’t really “rules” after all.
Maybe the rough-and-tumble model of the current Senate is better in someway then the old gentlemen’s club model. But it is worth noting the difference.
February 6, 2010, 1:29 amDavid Nieporent says:
You’ll have to share more about this “original design.” I don’t quite see what you’re reading in the Constitution. As Sandy Levinson can tell you ad nauseam, the Senate wasn’t designed to be democratic in the first place, so it’s sort of odd to complain that its internal rules aren’t democratic, either.
Elections shouldn’t matter. In a healthy country, the government should be so small and unimportant that it doesn’t matter who’s in office; the politicians should be spending most of their time naming post offices and playing Texas Hold ‘Em with each other. People should “have their say” in their own lives and with their own wallets, and not through passing laws to run other people’s lives and spend other people’s money.
February 6, 2010, 6:02 amDavid Nieporent says:
Right; I got it by independent thinking about the difference between them. They may both be “antimajoritarian,” but they are very different; one says that at least 40 people agree with a position, while the other says that 1 person does. I can see a distinction here, even if you can’t.
Check again.
I don’t know where you got the idea that the Senate adopting rules for when they will hold a vote is “unconstitutional.” I am damn sure that you didn’t get that idea from the Constitution.
No, but he could decide not to exercise the hold if he wanted to. The fact that rules allow something does not obligate people to do that thing.
February 6, 2010, 6:08 amOren says:
This is why our policy has the consistency of snot — because both parties think it’s about getting more of what they want instead of forging a long term solution that everyone can live by.
First, my Republicans — I’ve never voted GOP once. I’m only responding to this because your incessant partisan hackery offends even your would-be compatriots.
Second, what the GOP is doing for the country is not objectively bad — roughly 50% of Americans think that what they are doing for the country is quite swell, in fact. The fact that someone thinks does not just settle the issue. Try, just for a second, to take off the partisan/ideology hat and read how absurd what you just said is. Republicans opposed policies with which they disagreed — Democrats pushed policies they supported.
The same rules were in place during the 109th Congress when the GOP controlled all those branches.
February 6, 2010, 7:26 amMark Field says:
This is wrong. Because the US has a representative system, democracy works at two levels: the system of selecting representatives; and the actions of the representatives within Congress. You’re right that the Senate was not originally intended to be democratic in the first sense, but it was in the second sense.
February 6, 2010, 11:03 am1040 says:
Very well observed. It is this kind of collusion across the entire GOP that is precisely the sort of thing that leads voters, even the idealistic party loyalists like JHA, to doubt GOP sincerity about controlling government spending.
February 6, 2010, 2:09 pmleo marvin says:
We may all do this to the extent duty to clients trumps social sensibilities, but many (most?) of us draw a line between our professional and personal lives. It’s the lawyers who don’t/won’t/can’t stop litigating at the end of the business day who give the rest of us a bad name.
February 6, 2010, 3:52 pmyankee says:
The Constitution contemplates majority voting in the Senate; this is why the Vice President is given the ability to break ties. Where a supermajority is required, the Constitution specifies the circumstances (impeachments, treaties, constitutional amendments) and the majority required. The Senate does not have the power to impose a rule that says legislation may only be passed through supermajority vote; the fact that such a requirement is imposed by pretending it’s a rule of procedure rather than a change in the required majority for passage of legislation is immaterial.
February 6, 2010, 4:23 pmDavid Welker says:
Oren,
First, the entire strategy of the GOP has been to obstruct. If you don’t recognize that, I have a hard time believing your a Democrat.
If the GOP wanted to compromise, they could have. They were reached out to. Democrats tried to work with them for months and months on healthcare and months and months on financial reform.
It isn’t merely a matter of Republicans not voting on a bill they don’t agree with. First of all, no one gets everything they want in politics. That applies to both Democrats and Republicans. Should Democrats take into consideration Republican ideas and preferences? If they are willing to play ball, then yes. Should Democrats allow Republican ideas and preferences to totally dominate when Democrats have a 59-41 majority? Do you think that is reasonable for Republicans to be running the game when they are in the minority? If you do think that, your not a Democrat.
The Republicans are not interested in making progress on these issues. They are interested in obstructing so that they have something to campaign on in the next election. If you don’t recognize that, your blind.
As John Boehner put it, from a Republican perspective: “Listen, there aren’t that many places where we can come together.” Clearly, the GOP has made a political calculation to obstruct in order to position themselves for the next election. They are thinking more about the next election than solving problems right now.
Yet you think that it is feasible to reach 70-80 vote super majorities in the Senate? That is an extremely foolish and naive belief.
Would it be nice if it were possible? Sure. It would have been nice if the unanimous votes required in under the Article of Confederation were forthcoming too.
Moving away from majority rule simply does not work very well. The farther you move away from majority rule, the worse things work. The founders recognized that. You should too.
February 6, 2010, 4:34 pmyankee says:
I don’t know about “voters,” who suffer from all kinds of ignorance, but my (and probably JHA’s) doubts about GOP sincerity about controlling spending come from the fact that the GOP rarely (if ever) demonstrates any interest in controlling spending. The Congressional GOP of the ’94 Republican Revolution acted as a slight brake on spending during the Clinton administration, but the GOP demonstrated no interest in controlling spending when it controlled the White House during the Reagan or GWB administrations, even (or especially) when it controlled both houses of Congress.
The GOP is (arguably) a bit less unrestrained about spending than the Democrats are, but that’s not exactly the same thing as supporting fiscal restraint.
February 6, 2010, 4:45 pmDavid Welker says:
I thought you were smarter than that. You need to distinguish between how a body is selected (in the case of the Senate, on the basis of equal representation for each state regardless of population and originally indirectly by the people rather than directly by the people) and how that body makes decisions internally. When talking about the Senate, Alexander Hamilton put it thus: “[A]ll provisions which require more than the majority of any body to its resolutions, have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government.” The purpose of majority rule in the Senate is NOT simply to make it more democratic. It is to enable the institution to act effectively.
I know you are a libertarian, and therefore might be tempted to think that embarrassing the operations of government is a good thing. But Alexander Hamilton and the rest of the founders were not libertarians, and the Constitution is intended to provide for effective government. The country had already experimented with an utopian alternative in the Article of Confederation and the Constitution was designed to replace that failed experiment with an effective government that would not be embarrassed in its operations.
I hate to tell you this. But we wouldn’t exist as a nation of people did not fight and die for this country. They make the ultimate sacrifice for your freedom and their sacrifices bind us together as a society. You have a duty to them and you have a duty to this country. A government which sends people to war can never be unimportant.
Further, your vision contradicts the vision of our Founders, who thought it was the purpose of government to provide for the happiness of the people. For example, Benjamin Franklin said this in his speech at the end of the constitutional convention:
Now, maybe the people would be happiest under a government that implemented libertarian preferences. But, how the people will be happiest is up to them to decide. When you say elections shouldn’t matter, you are saying it is not for the people to decide, but that libertarianism should be imposed on them for their own good whether they like it or not. Despotism, whether it imposes libertarianism, communism, monarchy, or something else, is something that the Constitution seeks to avoid. To quote again from Benjamin Franklin:
You are free to advocate for libertarianism. But to implement it requires persuasion. What you are not free to do is impose it. Elections should matter, because it is up to the People to decide how they are to be governed.
Even if the country were to move towards libertarianism, then elections should matter because that is how people would signal their continued consent. If libertarians really believe in liberty, then you must accept the liberty of the people to choose how they should be governed.
February 6, 2010, 5:06 pmDavid Welker says:
Sorry, if THIS is the basis for your distinction, it doesn’t make any sense. It only takes one Senator to start a filibuster, but it takes 40 people to maintain it. It is the same with a hold.
Just to make it clear what a hold entails, check out this definition from http://www.senate.gov:
Basically, a hold is a threat to filibuster. So, let me get this straight. You are in favor of filibusters, but against threats to filibuster?? You are only in favor of stealth filibusters?
Maybe there is some logic here, but I am not seeing it.
February 6, 2010, 5:25 pmDavid Nieporent says:
No, it’s quite material. They’re not “pretending” it’s a rule of procedure; it is a rule of procedure.
February 6, 2010, 5:32 pmArthurKirkland says:
I hope Democrats use this opportunity to demonstrate that Shelby isn’t advancing their interests, by making Alabama pay a steep price.
The Democrats could use a political kickstart. I hope they arrange a series of precision-targeted, humiliating votes that would put every Senator on record concerning a series of Alabama-related earmarks. The Republicans could leave Shelby hanging, or they could place themselves on record voting for pork in the context of one senator holding up a series of government appointments because he wanted a bigger serving of pork.
I see no downside.
February 6, 2010, 5:42 pmDavid Welker says:
I am sure that the Senate could make such rules regulating when votes are held. But not if those rules were reasonable and did not act to prevent majority rule. But if the only time that a majority can vote is “never,” that clearly is an unconstitutional rule.
You wouldn’t argue that, if the Constitution were interpreted to prevent takings for the sole use of a private party, that the government could evade the Constitution by merely taking title of the property and renting it out to the private party for a nominal sum, would you?
In general, you are not in favor of making the substantive provisions of the Constitution so easily evadable by empty formalities when you are in favor of the Constitutional provision in question, are you? So stop with that B.S. argument about how the filibuster is merely something that regulates WHEN a vote is held. In reality, if a filibuster regulates WHEN a vote is held, it does so by ensuring that it is NEVER held. In other words, it prevents a majority from ever voting and therefore frustrates majority rule.
Is is a dialogue in two scenarios that illustrates your argument:
Scenario 1
———-
A: I have 51 votes, I want a vote on the legislation I sponsored.
B: Fine, but nothing stop us from adopting rules that affect when you have a vote.
A: Okay, when can we have a vote.
B: Never. But, rest assured, we are not preventing majority rule in the Senate. We are merely regulating WHEN you have a vote.
A: But what is the difference between preventing majority rule, and never scheduling a vote?
B: Nothing! Oh, but it is all an empty formality. Don’t you see that the Constitution can be ignored if you are clever enough? Mwahahahaha!
Scenario 2
———-
A: Hey, wait, you cannot take my property and transfer it to a private party. Takings must be for public use!
B: Oh, but don’t worry, the government has title to your property and is merely renting it out for $1 a year.
A: But the government isn’t using the property, that private person is.
B: But surely, one use that the government can get out of a property is the collection of revenue.
A: Yes, but….
B: And we are collecting 1 dollar a year in revenue from renting it out to a private party, so the government is using the property.
A: But what is the difference between transferring the property to the private property altogether, and renting it out for $1 a year where government merely maintains formal title?
B: Nothing! Oh, but it is all an empty formality. Don’t you see that the Constitution can be ignored if you are clever enough? Mwahahahaha!
The bottom-line is that you would never accept the argument of B in scenario 2. Therefore, you shouldn’t accept the argument of B in scenario 1 either. It is a BS argument that proceeds by saying that the Constitution can be easily evaded by empty formalities and meaningless distinctions, except for when I really LIKE the provision in question. That is the exact opposite of principled constitutional interpretation.
Thanks for playing that card though. It is very revealing. When it comes to Constitutional interpretation, you obviously start with the result you want and work backward.
February 6, 2010, 5:51 pmSwan Trumpet says:
Senator Shelby -along with many who have knowledge of our national defense -see it as a major national security concern. Outsourcing our Fuel Tankers to France – who makes an inferior product – also poses problems obtaining maintenance parts.
The second reason for Shelby’s hold is that President Obama has placed a hold on the funding of an already approved Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center to be built in Alabama.
Obama’s policies are damaging to our military’s technological superiority and readiness capabilities. Mr. Obama has already demonstrated an alarming distaste for national security by announcing he was abandoning the Bush procedures then failing to put together a High -Value Interrogation Group until after the Christmas Day attack. According to Charles Krauthammer, Obama now has a team but they aren’t operational as they still haven’t located any office space.
Mr. Obama’s reneging on the pledge to supply Poland and Czechoslovakia with land-based MD is another example, as is his announcement of a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. He doesn’t have American support behind him. Unless he rapidly reverses course (dismissing many of his current cabinet and advisors,) he may be looking at a Republican-controlled House of Representatives next year. And if Americans suffer an attack that could have been prevented with the right policies in place – a Republican House will probably pass articles of impeachment.
Lastly, Senator Shelby’s hold is simply a procedural maneuver that requires the Senate to get a 60 vote majority to approve a nominee. Clearly, nominees who aren’t problematic will easily get through. Republicans, including Shelby, are just as eager to confirm well-qualified and capable nominees.
February 6, 2010, 5:57 pmDavid Welker says:
Yes, this distinction is quite material! Just like the distinction between the government owning formal title and renting out the property for practically nothing. The Constitution can be selectively evaded with meaningless err… I meant “material” distinctions. Mwahahahaha!
Oh, by the way. The Constitution says that it takes a two-thirds vote to ratify a treaty. But the Senate Rules can just change it to a 1/5th vote. After all, it is a rule of procedure. And when it is a rule of procedure, you don’t have to follow the Constitution anymore! Mwahahahaha!
Also, if the Senate wanted, it could make a rule that says that votes are only scheduled if 100% of Senators agree. Because this would be only a rule of procedure and it only regulates WHEN votes are taken. And it can also make a rule that says that 100% of Senators are required to change the rules. It is no problem changing the Constitution back into the vision adopted by the Articles of Confederation. Mwahahahaha! After all, those Founders were awfully stupid and the Constitution is a joke.
It is not like the main purpose of our Constitution was to establish procedural checks and balances and procedures for political competition. So we can manufacture the most far-fetched distinctions to evade it. Mwahahahaha!
Look, the Founders may have intended to establish a republic, but what they really established was a libertarian despotism. Mwahahahaha!
February 6, 2010, 6:05 pm1040 says:
Arguably. That’s a nice word. The evidence of the past 3 decades shows 1 president who was actually willing to balance the budget during a time of prosperity. I don’t think he was Republican. And then a stimulus package that was critical to jumpstart the economy is held up as wasteful govt spending. While a healthcare proposal that the non partisan OMB says will reduce the deficit is shut down, while things like Medicare part D approved during the time of Bush further increase the risk of driving the govt into bankruptcy.
It is a truly, DEEPLY, laughable notion that the GOP cares a whit about fiscal responsibility.
February 6, 2010, 6:12 pmDavid Welker says:
1040:
As Dick Cheney said to a then rather innocent and naive Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
But boy, can the GOP preach!
February 6, 2010, 6:23 pmjccamp says:
Swan Trumpet -
I’m not disagreeing with the totality of your last post, but I think that the Northrop/Airbus tanker proposal – the one to be based in Alabama – includes making many or most of the parts in the U S. One of the main reasons that the Air Force does not want this plane is that it’s (large) size is not compatible with a great deal of the Air Force structures, the actual buildings and hangars, the parking space on ramps, etc.
As for the Terrorist Explosive Device Center (whatever it’s called), although I can’t find anything on-line to confirm this, it seems as though the FBI doesn’t want this center located at Redstone Arsenal, where they are a guest of (and subject to some control of) the military. They probably want the same money for an exclusive FBI reservation. I’m guessing that the location in Alabama was a political decision, made during Bush’s administration without input from the FBI, and now they are balking (probably for re-location in a Democratic senator’s home state. Let’s not get misty-eyed about what’s happening.)
I think Shelby’s interest in rushing both of these issues – tanker and bomb center – are more politically motivated, as financial benefits to the hosting state, than as a genuine national security motivation. If Shelby was really more concerned with the lack of an up-to-date air-to-air tanker, would he be insisting on a re-write of the RFP crafted to fit the Airbus design? Or would he be saying “Get the tanker the Air Force wants”?
However, I think your point about the present administration is well taken, Sen. Shelby and Alabama aside. They’re both playing politics.
February 6, 2010, 7:23 pmOren_ says:
You are correct, I’m not registered to the party. It just so happens that every time I’ve voted, I’ve voted for the Democrat (save for one abstention).
Second, whether or not this is an “entire strategy” is kind of a trick question, since we do not know how the GOP would have reacted to various other policy proposals that were not aired.
For months and months the GOP asked for some reform of medical tort law as part of a health care package. Amendments to that end would get 70 votes in the Senate.
In order to find out if they are willing to play ball, you have to offer something. Why don’t we turn this around, what concessions (above and beyond those required to get all 59 Dems on board) are you willing to offer the GOP on health care? Can they get anything at all?
Easily, if we would consider centrist reforms. Clinton got HIPAA, AEDPA, PWORA, Lautenberg amendment. All of them passed by huge margins.
HIPAA — 98:0
AEDPA — 91:1
Lautenberg — unanimous iirc
So not only is it feasible to reach 70-80, Clinton proved you could get better than 90 if you are willing to compromise and move to the center. You only have to ram the bills through when they have no bipartisan support at all.
February 6, 2010, 7:39 pm1040 says:
Not to mention that even before Shelby, whose actions let it be noted would not be possible without 40 other GOP senators supporting exactly this kind of action, Kit Bond did the same, except less drastic, for exactly the same reasons: a snit about inadequate pork for his peeps.
As the sweet and innocent JHA might say, “this is precisely the sort of thing that leads voters to doubt GOP sincerity about controlling government spending.” For example, when they prevented the government from spending money on an essential stimulus package for ostensibly this reason :)
February 6, 2010, 7:43 pm1040 says:
Really? We are still playing this game of pretending that the health care bill has no Republican ideas? There’s a few below, in the Baucus bill. And let’s not even forget the lies and fear mongering about death panels – an idea that apparently became nuclear when it was added to the bill even though it was initially proposed by a Republican. When tort reform, an idea that has miniscule cost benefits, is added, the goalposts will be moved again to add the next pet idea, or the proclamations of “No republican ideas” will ring loud again. What a joke. And for that reason, real and substantial savings were shut down in a snit.
# Cross-state sales of insurance to individuals and small businesses: The Baucus bill would allow two or more states to form “compacts” that would allow individuals to buy policies from insurers in the other states. The insurers would be subject only to the laws and regulations of the states in which the policies were written. In a separate measure, insurers could create national policies with uniform, federally set benefits that could be sold in any states in which the companies are licensed. The policies would be exempt from state benefit rules.
# Medical malpractice: The legislation says Congress should consider creating state demonstration programs to evaluate alternatives to the current litigation system. Republicans had called for creating special malpractice courts and limits on damage awards.
# High-risk pool for people with pre-existing medical conditions: Within a year of the enactment of the legislation, a high-risk pool would be set up for people with pre-existing conditions. The pool would continue until 2015, when the new state insurance exchanges would be up and running and insurers would be required to sell policies to all who apply, regardless of their medical conditions.
# Prevention and wellness incentives: Medicare beneficiaries would become eligible for annual “wellness visits” with their doctors, paid for by the government program. They no longer would have to pay out of their pockets for certain tests and treatments, such as flu vaccinations or diabetes screening. Financial incentives also would be offered to beneficiaries who completed certain “healthy lifestyle” programs targeting risk factors such as high cholesterol, diabetes or smoking. This isn’t just from the Republicans; Democrats embrace the idea as well.
February 6, 2010, 7:51 pmMark Field says:
I believe you have the substantive issue exactly backward. Shelby is supporting the “French” company (actually, Northrop/EADS). The bid process favored the American company (Boeing). Northrop/EADS has a plant in Alabama which would benefit if Shelby were successful.
That’s misleading. As I understand it, the Republicans did agree to vote for such individual amendments, but they would not agree to vote yes on the final bill even if it included their favored amendments. That’s not actual cooperation.
February 6, 2010, 7:59 pmleo marvin says:
Considering that left to their own devices Democrats might pass single payer, and failing that would certainly prefer a strong government option, I don’t see how the concessions made to avoid a filibuster aren’t concessions to Republicans. And before you say they were made to Blue Dogs, not Republicans, those aren’t mutually exclusive.
February 6, 2010, 9:43 pmSwan Trumpet says:
I haven’t seen anything about the French Airbus being incompatible with many Air Force structures like hangars and ramps, but if so, that only adds to my point that Mr. Obama’s decision-making capacity is seriously impaired and harmful to our national defense.
The Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC) was first discussed in 2003. Its objective is to provide the DoD with high tech tools to deal with IEDs. The primary use is to assist in military force protection. A variety of government agencies including the FBI will be involved, but the FBI’s role is limited to providing the intelligence they gather. Ideas already being worked on are robotic devices to detonate IEDs before the military accesses an area as well as testing to develop more resistant tanks. The Alabama site – being the home of our rocket development program – is ideal for this purpose and already has the specialized personnel to take the positions that will be available.
Once again, Mr. Obama’s refusal to fund the already approved site is playing roulette with our national security.
February 7, 2010, 12:51 amArthurKirkland says:
If you thought that was going to cause even a pause for reconsideration . . . please read the immediately preceding message.
February 7, 2010, 1:04 amSwan Trumpet says:
I’m a conservative and I agree that deficits don’t matter in the normal context of a growing economy where the deficit is lower than 20%. Unfortunately, we now have a shrinking economy and Mr. Obama’s spending binges have quadrupled the deficit. Unless Obama changes course, our deficit is projected to reach 99% of the GDP. We won’t even be able to pay the interest on the loans.
February 7, 2010, 1:06 amSwan Trumpet says:
Not that it’s any of your business, but I don’t read all posts and those that don’t use my name easily escape notice. As far as which company Senator Shelby supports, here’s a letter from his website on the issue. Either way, Shelby knows what’s going to be the best fit for our Air Force needs.
http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Articles&ContentRecord_id=3aaa3334-802a-23ad-4728-890db8b09de9&Region_id=&Issue_id=&County_id=
February 7, 2010, 1:28 amyankee says:
As much as I’m annoyed by hypocritical Republican blather about “spending,” let’s not give Clinton excessive credit here. The balanced budgets of the late ’90′s were mostly the result of skyrocketing tax revenues caused by a strong economy. Budget stalemates between the White House and Congress got resolved by news like “tax revenues several hundred billion dollars higher than previously estimated.” It’s easy to balance the budget on news like that.
February 7, 2010, 1:34 amDavid Welker says:
Oren,
I can only conclude that you are ignorant. The idea that Republican ideas have not shaped the health care bill is simply false. This is true even though they have refused to vote for it.
Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented number of filibusters and other obstructionism. That is another fact.
Finally, I don’t really care for your lack of substance. You aren’t asking for a specific policy. You are asking for 70-80 votes. There is no substance there. You apparently don’t care what passes, as long as it gets a lot of votes.
You aren’t a member of either party because you don’t know what you believe. So, instead of a particular substantive results (which you wouldn’t know whether you liked or not anyway), you want bipartisan agreement (which seems like a great substitute for substance when you can’t make up your mind).
I hate to break this to you, but… (1) if one party is determined to not play ball, you can’t have bipartisanship no matter how hard you try and (2) just because something is bipartisan, that does not mean it is good policy.
You probably would benefit from figuring out exactly what it is that you believe in. In the meantime, don’t say you are my “would-be compatriot” before you even know what you believe in. Maybe you are better suited to be the “would-be compatriot” of a Republican. Try to make up your mind. And you know what. If you decide to be a Republican at the end of the day, I don’t have a problem with that.
In the meantime, I will concern myself with substance. Such as the following: According to a recent Harvard Medical School study, nearly 45,000 excess deaths per year are linked to lack of health insurance.
And what YOU care about is whether there are 70-80 votes in the Senate? What I care about is adopting policies that will save some of these lives and prevent unnecessary suffering. It is too bad when cancer, or heart disease, or other diseases are diagnosed too late because of lack of health insurance. It is too bad for the individuals who suffer unnecessary pain and premature death and it is too bad for their family members who they leave behind. I don’t have a problem with bipartisanship, but it isn’t what primarily matters to me. What I primarily want to see is for progress to occur on solving this problem. If you knew what you believed in, you would care more about policy too.
And make no mistake about it. There are very real costs to delay. These are real people, not just numbers.
I absolutely WILL vote Republican in the next election unless Democrats make serious and substantive progress on health care in 2010. That is a promise. Democrats should have done something in 2009 rather than waste three months trying to negotiate with Republicans to satisfy people like you who, as you have shown, can’t be satisfied anyway. You really believe that Democrats haven’t reached out to Republicans enough? That is just crazy.
February 7, 2010, 8:16 amMark Field says:
The essence of internet commenting: regardless of the facts, my side knows best.
February 7, 2010, 10:56 amOren_ says:
Yup, and the bill will have inched towards the political center. Keep doing that and eventually we might have a bill with bipartisan support.
Sorry, ‘Congress should consider’ is boilerplate language for ‘nothing at all’. Congress is already empowered to consider whatever it wants without an enabling statute.
They would certainly not. Lieberman forbade it, Nelson probably would too if Joe didn’t cover for him. Landrieu wasn’t fond of the idea either.
The concession to the Blue Dogs form the fundamental definition of “what the Democrats want” — your notion of compromise is that we have to start from a position of what left wing Democrats and then make enough concessions for the moderate wing of the party and that should be good enough fro the GOP?
The starting point for compromise with the GOP is a bill that 59 Dems support. Otherwise, you are just playing word games.
Which is why the bill includes tort reform and mandatory federal jurisdiction for claims against insurers from another state, right?
Agreed.
The number of votes is a good proxy for the content of the bill! Given the makeup of the Senate, a bill with 70-80 votes would be about where I stand.
I know exactly what I believe. It just so happens that it doesn’t happen to be congruent with the beliefs of either party. There are beliefs of both parties with which I agree and there ones with which I disagree. Forcing me to chose a particular “package” of beliefs together is absurd.
It boggles the mind that you think the entire universe of American political thought is captured by a simple binary party divide.
I’ve made up my mind, I could write a health care bill right now (more or less). I don’t know if it would get any votes but I can evaluate proposals against it.
“Good policy” is a relative judgment — one that the citizens of this country are very divided on. You cannot pretend like we all want “good policy” and it just remains to write that down and vote on it. That’s the essence of what politics is — disagreement about what constitutes good policy.
In the absence of a fanciful situation in which that fundamental disagreement gets resoled somehow, the next best thing is to find a compromise that people with policy disagreements can get to.
First, there are a few planks of the GOP platform that more or less preclude me from ever voting for their candidates on a Federal level (and here in MA, elections are decided at the Dem primary).
Second, I’ve voted Dem consistently because they were the closest to what I’ve believed on the ticket (compromise, right?) so, like it or not, that makes the two of us at least coalition-members.
What exactly is an ‘excess’ death, for the purposes of this study? Everyone dies, the number of deaths is determined in advance.
Listen, I understand your policy. What you need to understand is that:
(1) Your preferred policy is not a universal truth. It’s your personal judgment. You think you are right and others are wrong, others think they are right, you are wrong.
(2) Given (1), I appreciate and applaud your opinion on the matter but we are not in a position to end the debate there and then. A little ideological humility goes a long way — recognizing as legitimate (if perhaps disagreeable) the policy preferences of others is the first step.
Again, show me a bill with mandatory federal jurisdiction for certain medical tort.
February 7, 2010, 12:17 pm1040 says:
this assumes that people did not drop tax rates out of proportion with the growth and govt spending, as some other presidents who shall not be named did.
what clinton did made perfect sense from a keynesian pov, as is obama’s stimulus spending in a recession, where govt does need to step in in the absence of private spending. sadly obama’s spending is severely curtailed by the fact that the previous govts managed to run up a sizable deficit even in a growth period. that is an impressive feat though, so kudos to them.
February 7, 2010, 2:08 pm1040 says:
huh? bunch of ideas have been added as i pointed out, and every *new* republican pet idea that hasn’t been added will be the “only thing that the republicans want”? that’s not negotiation, where i come from. this kind of goalpost moving is absolute bad faith. (and the death panel thing i pointed out is a great example of the level of lack of seriousness among the republicans about the consensus, not to mention limiting the deficit). just because the dems stopped at some point at constant redefinition of the “new normal” doesn’t mean the bill was a unilateral imposition. now, a lot of this is the democrats’ failure to disseminate a clear message of cost control and their tendency to get lost in the weeds, so they justifiably deserve blame for that, but to claim that tort reform is the one thing standing between this country and healthcare is tremendously silly given the track record and evidence i have pointed out (and to respond to that with, “but the only way to know that is to add tort reform to the bill” is also really quite silly again given the track record and evidence i have pointed out).
February 7, 2010, 2:14 pmOren_ says:
The goalposts will move until you can get the votes to pass the bill — that’s how it works. If public support for the bill was overwhelming, maybe you could rationalize not compromising to something that a handful of GOP Senators could vote for.
Like I tried to say before, if you want to ram this through by a party-line, be prepared to have it repealed as soon as the GOP takes Congress (unless you seriously believe that will be ‘never’), then reinstated in the next Democratic Congress after that. I can just imagine how much worse healthcare can become with a new and different set of regulations coming into effect every 8-12 years — that will be a real money-saver too!
Part of the virtue of something that 70-80 Senators can support (again, HIPAA was written by Ted Kennedy and supported by 98) is that it more likely to survive to become relevant.
February 7, 2010, 2:56 pmDavid Welker says:
Oren,
An excess death is someone dying sooner than they otherwise would. My mother died when I was 10. I believe that this is linked to the health care she did not receive and the fact her heart condition went undiagnosed.
It is true that my mother would have died eventually anyway. But, there is a profound difference between her dying at the ate of 42 and 80. At least I perceive there to be a profound difference. She also experienced a lot of unnecessary pain due to her misdiagnosis. Her “excess death” had a profound impact on me and my entire family.
You really think that Republicans would have compromised if Democrats had agreed to partially federalized medical malpractice? That is BS. The importance of medical malpractice reform is definitely overstated. Most states already cap non-economic damages. For example, California caps non-economic damages at $250,000. This has not prevented rampant medical inflation in California. This may be some sort of pet issue for you, but it isn’t going to do much to control medical inflation nor would it be possible to get Republican votes in exchange for malpractice reform. You tell me, what Republican has said they would vote for the bill in exchange for medical malpractice reform? The answer is zero.
You sir, are living in a total fantasy land.
I am supposed to be impressed by HIPAA? I could practically care less about HIPAA to the extent that it is mere tinkering around the edges. To me, HIPAA represents a failure to achieve real reform. Under HIPAA, we still have tens of thousands of excess deaths linked to a lack of health insurance.
I think your right about getting 70-80 votes being a proxy for whether we have gotten good substance. Except it is the exact opposite of what you assert in the health care context. If 70-80 votes are gotten for a health insurance bill, that bill, like HIPAA, probably does not do much.
You have obviously been reading too much postmodernist literature. Here are some objective measure for you. (1) Does the bill reduce excess deaths linked to lack of health insurance? (2) Reduce the number of uninsured. (3) Help control medical inflation. Maybe in your warped postmodernist mind, you think these criteria are my subjective personal preferences. After all, what is an “excess death” really, since we all die anyway? I mean, if we sent someone to war in Afghanistan and they die, well, wouldn’t they have died anyway? If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it fall, did it really make a sound? Blah blah blah. I don’t buy this ridiculous nihilism. I think these are objective measures that people should agree on, not my idiosyncratic personal preferences.
“My Mr. Welker, that you don’t want people to die at a young age or experience unnecessary pain and suffering is awfully idiosyncratic of you. You know, some people strongly disagree and we have no way of knowing who is really right.” Whatever. Go away.
Really? You mean like the election of Mitt Romney for Governor and Scott Brown for Senator. I didn’t realize that those elections were decided in the Democratic primary.
The bottom-line is this. Your views are extremely unhelpful. I disagree with you as much as I disagree with Republicans. Both you and Republicans are determined to prevent real health care reform that will save lives (a concept you apparently mock) and prevent unnecessary pain and suffering from earlier diagnoses.
I will tell you what though. If you really want to know what the Harvard Medical School study means by “excess deaths” why don’t you read it here.
February 7, 2010, 7:42 pmDavid Nieporent says:
And according to another study, there were no such excess deaths.
In the meantime, given all your posts on the VC, I will leave you with the words of Cromwell: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
February 7, 2010, 9:46 pmDavid Welker says:
David Nieporent,
But of course, your always right?
February 8, 2010, 2:28 amDavid Welker says:
I should mention a point. Intuitively, the idea that not having health insurance never leads to death assumes either.
(1) The laws of supply and demand have no effect on the willingness of people to go to the doctor.
OR
(2) Not going to the doctor never leads to diseases not being diagnosed until it is too late.
The idea that lack of health insurance does not kill some people because their diseases go undiagnosed is so absurd as to not be worth debating. You may quibble about the number of people who die or about the precise methodology of a study that attempts to measure that effect, but not with the definite fact that there exists some number of people for whom not having health insurance is going to be fatal because their diseases will go undiagnosed.
Any statistical study will create legitimate debate. Because any statistical study will have judgment calls that one can argue about. That is just the nature of that beast. But to deny that if you increase the price of going to the doctor, less people will go or that going to the doctor sometimes results in diagnoses of a disease early while it is still treatable is just plain ridiculous.
I know your smarter than this Nieporent. So quit with the BS. Advocacy of your philosophy is fine. But disregarding basic facts when you know better is not cool.
February 8, 2010, 2:45 amMichael Ejercito says:
So why mention the study at all ?
February 8, 2010, 10:05 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
But so what? My point is that given that 51 senators very well might not represent a majority of the population, it’s odd to get worked up on “democracy” grounds about the fact that 51 senators can’t run roughshod over the other 49. There may be practical arguments against the filibuster, but the appeals to democracy do’t work.
February 8, 2010, 2:08 pmDavid Welker says:
Of course appeals to democracy work, in addition to practical arguments against the filibuster.
Remember the Senate is part of a carefully calibrated compromise between the more democratic Virginia plan and less democratic New Jersey plan. Now, while the Senate does reflect the less democratic New Jersey plan, it would have been objectionable for the Senate to move too far away from the more democratic Virginia plan. That disrupts the original deal. The United States is not meant to be a pure democracy, but it is not meant to move too far away from one either.
It is like the the 3/5ths plan in terms of counting slaves. It isn’t very democratic to count slaves for purposes of representation, because it is the slaves oppressors and not the slaves who are being represented. So, in order, it is most democratic to free the slaves and count them fully. But if they are going to be slaves, then it is more democratic that they not count at all and least democratic for them to be counted fully. You cannot say that just because counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of representation is not fully democratic, that you cannot make a democratic argument against full representation.
Look, not even the House of Representatives was fully democratic at the founding due to slavery. So, are you going to say I can’t argue on democracy grounds when talking about the House? Of course I can.
It is the same with Senate. The Senate may not be fully democratic. But that does not mean that extreme shifts that make it even less so cannot be objected to on democracy grounds. You seem to have this idea that you can only argue for something on democracy grounds if the institution is “purely” democratic. But that can’t be right. Not one institution of the federal government was purely democratic at the founding (nor is even the House fully democratic now, given the existence of intentional gerrymandering where representatives choose their voters nearly as much as voters choose their representatives). That doesn’t mean that arguing on democracy grounds doesn’t make sense. These were supposed to be carefully calibrated compromises with checks and balances. If you tilt too far away from democracy, you are upsetting those compromises and those checks and balances. That is not good.
Look, if we were to take your argument seriously, then there would not be a serious argument against making the Senate a hereditary aristocracy. After all, the Senate isn’t fully democratic now, so why should we object if elections are done away with altogether. That the Senate isn’t meant to be fully democratic does not imply that democracy in the Senate is unimportant.
In the case of the Senate, I think that the practical argument against the filibuster is in fact more powerful. But I think the argument on democracy grounds is also weighty. (And I also think an argument that the Senate should be apportioned equally between the states is also quite powerful, on the same grounds that it upsets a carefully calibrated system of checks and balances.)
February 8, 2010, 6:34 pmDavid Welker says:
Why not? It is not as if the criticisms of the Institute of Medicine study that exist in the study that Nieporent linked to are applicable to the Harvard Medical School study. Unlike the Institute of Medicine study, the Harvard Medical School study does control for important differences between the insured and uninsured population. The study that Nieporent links to does not even address the Harvard Medical School study. Not only that, the Harvard Medical School study has corrected the flaws observed in the previous Institute of Medicine study.
Furthermore, it is true that there are typically judgment calls when it comes to any statistical study. I am assuming that this is true of the Harvard Medical School study as well. That does not mean that such studies are useless. You seem to be fluctuating to extremes, in perhaps implying that studies that measure quantitative problems should not be mentioned unless they are perfect. But if that were the standard, then we should never speak of the unemployment rate or the rate of inflation.
Why mention the study? Because it is relevant. Just like the unemployment and inflation rates are relevant to discussions of economic policy.
Finally, just because the idea that lack of insurance never results in death is implausible, that does not mean that the numbers are not also very important.
February 8, 2010, 6:44 pmOren___ says:
You are supposed to be impressed that Ted Kennedy wrapped up 90 votes and that the GOP Congress of 2000 didn’t repeal it immediately.
I understand it’s not to your liking but part of not being Emperor is occasionally accepting the contrary judgment of your fellow citizens.
That you are so wrapped up in your ideology you cannot see its subjective nature is truly terrifying.
I grant you that you have an objective measure as to particular goals but you pretend like “reduce excess deaths” is something that everyone must automatically agree is worth any price. I happen to believe that the optimal number of excess deaths is not zero (although it’s pretty low). I also happen to believe that while insuring every working American is a worthy goal (I really do), it’s not a goal that’s worth any price whatsoever.
This is policy, not ethics — you cannot simply appeal to some universal truth as an excuse not to engage with critics (well, you can — it’s just not that convincing).
And I think everyone should agree with my policy preferences as well (gun rights, sexual freedom, gay marriage, …) because they are so obviously correct — but I at least have the common decency to acknowledge disagreement as legitimate. Politics is famously supposed to be the domain where reasonable people disagree.
February 9, 2010, 11:18 amJohn Thacker says:
He’s a former Alabama Democrat, which explains his love of pork.
February 9, 2010, 4:57 pmkb973709 says:
iam having fedora 10 core so can u help me how to build toolchain for arm processor or systametic steps for building toolchain of arm processor on…
August 18, 2010, 4:11 am