Senate rules

[Anonymous]

There is talk of trying to change the rules so that 41 senators will not be able to block legislation. But I think back to the days of Bush and the Republican majority and fear that their discipline is such that the leadership would become virtual dictators when we swing Republican again. What do others think?

[Anonymous]

Agree

[Anonymous]

What specific change are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What specific change are you talking about?

Tom Harkin and Joe Lieberman introduced an idea a few years ago that would set up a decreasing number of votes over time, eventually reducing to a majority vote: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021431.php. Maybe someone else has other suggestions.

[Anonymous]

I just read a discussion at http://www.politico.com/arena/ that includes some other possibilities. One that seemed interesting is to have a standard limit on debate (50 hours was suggested), but to allow unlimited 10 hour extensions if 40 senators so vote. This at least puts the burden of proof on the obstructing minority; in the present case it would at least save Byrd from being carted in for every vote. But to be equivalent to the present system in terms of balance of power, it should be 41 votes -- 40 could kill HCR.

[Anonymous]

I find the entire Senate deal-making process nauseating - literally buying votes with the public's money.

So, Medicaid rules which require cost sharing between the state and fed govts now don't apply to Nebraska. And Louisiana got a $100M boost to their Medicaid program.

And the bill says no future house/senate may repeal it. What? Since when did Harry Reid become infallible?

I assure you I will be voting next year, and I will vote against any one (Senator, Congressperson) who votes for this legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find the entire Senate deal-making process nauseating - literally buying votes with the public's money.

So, Medicaid rules which require cost sharing between the state and fed govts now don't apply to Nebraska. And Louisiana got a $100M boost to their Medicaid program.

And the bill says no future house/senate may repeal it. What? Since when did Harry Reid become infallible?

I assure you I will be voting next year, and I will vote against any one (Senator, Congressperson) who votes for this legislation.

I went to the doctor and actually had to give her money to get her advice. Isn't it shameful that you have to pay people to do the right thing? Would you suggest we all quit going to doctors?

Too bad we are not in the good old days when things like this didn't happen -- or at least we didn't find out until much later, so it didn't bother us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find the entire Senate deal-making process nauseating - literally buying votes with the public's money.

So, Medicaid rules which require cost sharing between the state and fed govts now don't apply to Nebraska. And Louisiana got a $100M boost to their Medicaid program.

And the bill says no future house/senate may repeal it. What? Since when did Harry Reid become infallible?

I assure you I will be voting next year, and I will vote against any one (Senator, Congressperson) who votes for this legislation.

I went to the doctor and actually had to give her money to get her advice. Isn't it shameful that you have to pay people to do the right thing? Would you suggest we all quit going to doctors?

Too bad we are not in the good old days when things like this didn't happen -- or at least we didn't find out until much later, so it didn't bother us.

Are you suggesting, PP, that the doctor shouldn't be compensated for his/her services? And that to charge for services, the doctor was somehow doing the wrong thing? Otherwise, I don't understand your comparison. The Senate bribes are not pay for services - our Senators are already compensated for their jobs by the taxpayer.

Harry Reid took money out of your pocket, my pocket, and all the pockets of the people working in the cubes around you and used it (our money) to buy votes. So now Nebraska gets a free ride on Medicaid courtesy of you, I, your friends, colleagues, enemies, the works. Louisana gets a $100M infusion into their Medicaid system in return for their Senator's vote. Minority medical school applicants will get preferential treatment on medical school admissions - test results and grades be damned. This entire process stinks. When even the NYTimes is joining the chorus of criticism, this is not some fringe issue. Shame on you if you are not appalled about the way the Senate is doing business today - our business, the people's business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...
I went to the doctor and actually had to give her money to get her advice. Isn't it shameful that you have to pay people to do the right thing? Would you suggest we all quit going to doctors?

Too bad we are not in the good old days when things like this didn't happen -- or at least we didn't find out until much later, so it didn't bother us.

Are you suggesting, PP, that the doctor shouldn't be compensated for his/her services? And that to charge for services, the doctor was somehow doing the wrong thing? Otherwise, I don't understand your comparison. The Senate bribes are not pay for services - our Senators are already compensated for their jobs by the taxpayer. ...

I was not suggesting the doctor should not be paid. I admit that my analogy was not perfect (like most analogies), but my point was that when you get something, you usually have to pay for it. I think it's important to note that the payoffs were not to Landrieu and Nelson, but to their constituents; the two senators did exactly what their constituents paid them to do. Since you say "our Senators" perhaps you have a couple who deserve your ire for not getting you a similar deal; I live in DC, so I don't even have that.

My last comment was there to point out (with an attempt at irony) that this is standard practice, except that it may be a bit more open in these days of transparency.

[Anonymous]

These are days of transparency? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These are days of transparency? Really?

Compared to Bush/Cheney. But I did mention irony, didn't I?