‘National’

The Filibuster: a parliamentary tactic through which a minority prevents the majority from passing legislation. Wait, what? Essentially, a filibuster stops congress from passing a bill. The minority party, or even a single Senator, can block legislation. The Senate allows for unlimited debate on a bill unless a cloture vote, literally a vote to end debate, is called for. If a senator so chooses he can force 3/5ths of the Senate to vote for cloture, 3/5ths currently equals 60 Senators.

Two types of filibusters are recognized. These are often referred to as the painless filibuster, and the painful filibuster. The painful filibuster is the stuff of Hollywood legend: a single admirable Senator fighting for what he knows to be right. This tactic is rarely seen, and aptly named. A Senator must talk – endlessly. The Senator cannot sit down, eat, drink, go to the bathroom, lean on anything, or really do anything other than talk. So, why do this at all? Because in the circumstance where a single Senator feels obligated to block legislation, he can do so until he can no longer talk.

The sheer endurance necessary for the painful filibuster has relegated it mainly to the history books. It has been replaced by the “invisible” filibuster. Essentially the invisible, painless, filibuster allows for 41 Senators, the number necessary to block cloture, to declare their intention to filibuster. This means that the filibuster can be used extensively and without much struggle. Recently the “invisible” filibuster, introduced as a rule by Robert Byrd in the 1970s has been used to block financial regulation, federal judge nominations, and healthcare reform.

The filibuster has been used to block major portions of the Obama administration’s agenda. In 2009, the minority Republicans forced a record 139 votes for cloture; and as of the end of February 2010, the Republicans had forced 40 votes for cloture. The filibuster has become a tool for minority obstruction, and a successful one at that.

Perhaps one of the most profound ethical dilemmas that has gained prominence in contemporary American political discourse is torture. Brought to us by the War on Terror, this issue has been contentious for years, but it recently resurfaced with the decision of the Obama administration to release previously classified memos regarding the controversial “enhanced interrogation techniques” of the Bush administration. These techniques include water boarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation and interrogations lasting up to 20 hours, among other methods.

Continue Reading

In one episode of the popular political drama “The West Wing”, fictional President Josiah Bartlet managed to address one of the most difficult issues that this country faces on a regular basis- the separation between Church and State.  The episode, Take This Sabbath Day, addresses the morality of the death penalty.  President Bartlet needed to make one of the most difficult decisions, to spare the life of a man who committed murder, or to execute him.  The question that members of the executive branch face is whether to execute someone, which is legal, or to put their own morals and religious beliefs ahead of a court ruling.

President Bartlet had been looking for a reason to commute the sentence that people would accept that was not related to religion.  He spoke to a Quaker, a Jew (who had spoken with his Rabbi), and the Pope, but understood that he must respect the decision of the courts unless there is reasonable doubt. He also understood that people would not accept a Catholic president commuting a sentence because of his personal religion.  The rules of Catholicism, Judaism, and Quakerism gave President Bartlet reasons to want to commute the sentence. However, when it came down to it, the ruling by the judges ruled over the moral and religious conscience of President Bartlet.

With a country full of diversity, it is important for the courts to be able to fulfill their roles rather than a president take his religion and apply it to a situation.  If presidents use their religion to support their political beliefs they would be allowing religion to take over the country and would ultimately lead to the creation of a national religion, which would go against the First Amendment.  Simon Cruz, the character in question, was found guilty of murder, and the president chose to stand firm on his belief on separation of powers. In the end, he recognized the importance of keeping his own personal religion out of politics, an important precedent for future presidents

Healthcare has rated high among internet searches over the past year.  The Patient Protection & Affordable Healthcare Act, signed yesterday by President Obama, has elicited both celebration and vocal animosity. Inevitably, many against healthcare reform (to quote political analyst John Oliver) “would rather die of a curable disease while homeless than be forced to live healthily in the post-freedom hellscape envisioned by this bill.” Rather than worry about what partisans on either side are saying, I encourage everyone to take a look at the bill for themselves and decide how they, as an American, voter, and tax-payer, feel about it.

A few of the biggest criticisms of the bill puzzle me. First, it’s too long and too complicated. I’m at a loss to find any piece of congressional legislation that isn’t extremely long or complicated, let alone the most sweeping bill passed in half a century. So if you’ve only read the summary of the 1018-page bill, that doesn’t make you uneducated, nor does it mean Congress made it too wordy.

Second, it’s too expensive. Naturally the fact that the bill costs nearly $1 trillion over the next decade is somewhat concerning, but comprehensive healthcare is expensive by its very nature. We have similar health statistics to other industrialized nations with universal healthcare systems, yet we pay twice as much on average. Cost should not be neglected as a factor, but with all the billions of dollars Congress spends on an extremely colorful budget, the health and well being of the nation should not be relegated to a financial backseat.

Read the bill. Like me, you may not be a health insurance expert fluent in legal terms, and you may find some of the language less than succinct, but the single biggest difference I can cite between the future and the status quo is that we know what the status quo looks like. It’s a painful reality for most Americans, as nearly one-sixth of the nation isn’t even covered to wait in a doctor’s office. It’s a system so expensive, even for those who have coverage, that most conservatives I’ve spoken to are willing to admit that some kind of reform is needed.

So now we have something. Our generation, finding it increasingly difficult to find jobs, can remain on our parents’ healthcare until we’re 26. Insurance companies now must report their budgets to the government, and can no longer drop policy-holders who get sick – something I thought was the very point of having insurance in the first place. Consumer Insurance Information is now required to be online should we choose to look at it. Restaurant chains must display caloric information on their menus. Oh yeah, and you’ll be fined if you don’t have healthcare (unless for religious or financial reasons) by 2014. If you’re having financial difficulty affording it, the federal government will assist you (the main provision of the bill, and the general gist of a bunch of other points within it). Although I admit I’m a Democrat, I’d like to believe I’d be in favor of most of these points regardless.

Had President Obama’s predecessor received half as much vehement protest on any such issue (foreign or domestic), he would have accused his opponents of providing comfort and aid to our enemies. I believe it speaks to President Obama’s character that he has displayed almost no public animosity to those who compare him to every despicable leader who has ever existed, and instead try to work with them despite his larger congressional majority and electoral mandate.

In nearly every mid-term Congressional election, the President’s party is set to lose seats, sometimes even their majority. Since January 20, 2009, tax cuts have been granted to the less wealthy 95% of Americans, the stock market has rallied, and economic growth is up; still, Republican leaders whine and holler enough that they may well spark an electoral reversal for the Administration come November. However, while majorities are temporary and fleeting, major legislation stands. For better or for worse, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is the most important legislation passed in nearly fifty years. All patriotic Americans, no matter what their affiliation, should hope that at least some good will come of it rather than plotting its demise for their petty partisan purposes. All Americans should recognize that however they feel regarding the legislation, history has been made. Perhaps it’s time to take a while to reflect on that.

The much-worshipped cornerstone of Republican economic policy is the ‘trickledown theory’, religiously followed ever since the advent of Ronald Reagan. Put simply, the idea is that if the rich and the corporations are given tax cuts and various benefits they will stimulate the economy by investing their money, and hiring people so their wealth will trickle down to everyone else and ultimately increase employment and income.

Anyone who’s taken Econ 101 can debunk this so-called ‘theory’. The rich don’t actually behave this way; they have a very low Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC) and much higher Marginal Propensity to Save (MPS). What that means is, when the rich get their tax cuts they put the money in the bank and never look at it again. That is because they have so much money that a tax cut does not really make much difference to them or their spending habits. They’re already spending on what they want. The same goes for corporations. This flawed theory drove Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts with disastrous results.

The GOP claimed that the tax cuts would boost economic growth. Simple facts prove otherwise. The average annual GDP growth was 2.5% under the Bush administration, significantly lower than the 4.0% it was under the Clinton administration. Unemployment worsened from 4.2% to 6.3% between 2001 and 2003. The poverty rate increased from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. All of this happened following the tax cuts. In the longer term during 2001-2007 the job market had its weakest growth since 1945, household income growth was negative for the first time since 1967, African-Americans faced increased poverty levels, and women lost ground in the job market. We feel these consequences today.

Upward economic mobility in the US is the lowest of all the developed nations in the world, while income inequality is the highest. This also includes the dreaded “socialist” states of France, Sweden, Germany, Canada, Norway, with Denmark having the greatest upward economic mobility and lowest income inequality. Yes, the same Denmark that is a welfare state with socialized medicine. The same Denmark that has the highest income tax in the world with a minimum at 42% and a max of over 62% a 25% VAT and the highest minimum worldwide. Denmark incidentally also has one of the freest markets making it more capitalist than the US. “People like to think of America as the land of opportunities,” says Dr. Kathryn Wilson, associate professor of economics at Kent State University. “The irony is that our country actually has less social mobility and more inequality than most developed countries.”

Now the real question is why the Republican Party has stuck by such a flawed economic theory for so long and why have so many Americans have continually been taken in by it? Well on one hand, the corpse of zombie Reagan is trotted out every time this theory is mentioned so I’m sure that contributes to the cult that’s been built around it. However, the real factor is The American Dream©. The ubiquitous nice suburban house with two kids and a car in the driveway is quite an appealing image to many Americans. Everyone likes to believe that at some point in their lives they will be wealthy, that with some hard work and elbow grease anyone can rise to the top. In reality, they will never even reach upper middle class. Children from low-income families only have a 1% chance of reaching the top 5%. It turns out that the majority of the people who are born poor end up staying poor, living poor and dying poor. Shocking isn’t it?

It’s about time the ‘trickledown theory’ was killed and buried. It’s about time America as a whole took a good, long, hard look at our country and what’s happening to it. It’s about time we stopped ignoring the fact that we are increasingly falling behind in every standard of living indicator compared to the rest of the developed world from healthcare to education and even economic competitiveness. It’s about time that we take action; health reform; educational reform, economic reform, and political reform aren’t just nice buzzwords but absolute necessities for the survival of America and the American Dream. President Obama’s healthcare plan is just one small step in a long road to revive the American Dream. If he succeeds then perhaps the American Dream can be resuscitated and live on even greater than ever before. If he fails….well, I hear Denmark is nice this time of year.


© Copyright Rutgers Democrats - Libertas Magazine. All Rights Reserved.