Health care.
I feel like this must be the single-most confusing issue in politics today. First of all, what does “universal health care” actually mean? It sounds like everyone has to be covered since it’s universal. Secondly, what would this universal health care system actually cover? As someone in the process of applying for independent health insurance (which is no walk in the park let me tell you), I can barely figure out what’s going to be covered under the plan I just applied for! With terms like “high-deductible”, “coinsurance percentage”, “copay”, “professional fees”, “lifetime maximum”, and “outpatient lab fees” is it any surprise that a well-educated, fairly smart (okay, maybe I’m flattering myself with that one) person can’t even figure out how much she’ll have to pay when she goes to the doctor?
To shed a very small amount of light on the issue, here are some Wikipedia definitions for you:
Universal health care: Health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, most costs are met via a single-payer health care system or national health insurance, or else by compulsory regulated pluralist insurance (public, private or mutual) meeting certain regulated standards. Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the one exception being the United States. It is also provided in many developing countries and is the trend worldwide.
Single-payer health care system: Is a term used in the United States to describe the payment of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers from a single fund. It differs from typical private health insurance where, through pricing and other measures taken by the insurer, the level of risks carried by multiple insurance pools as well as the coverage can vary and the pricing has to be varied according to the contribution of risk added to the pool.
Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but I don’t think anyone would argue that having a public option would be a bad thing. It’s just another option in the big pool of competition out there. Last time I checked, most Americans were down with the free market economy. If the government wants to play too, let them. Heck, if they could make as much money off of us as most insurance companies do (during their last fiscal year United Health Group showed Net Income of $3 billion, Aetna Inc. had Net Income of $1.4 billion, eHealth Inc. showed Net Income of $14.2 million, and Humana Inc. with Net Income of $647.2 million) we definitely wouldn’t be quite so in debt to China. At the very least, you have to admit that those net income numbers really don’t make it look like we’re in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
But I digress. There’s competition and plenty of money to be made in the health insurance industry which is something that it seems all Americans can get behind, since we’re already behind it, in the system we have.
The real problem is that the government wants to provide an affordable option (heaven forbid), and nobody can agree on how to pay for it. One solution is to tax the highest wage earners. Don’t quote me on this, but I believe this is people/couples who make over $350,000 a year. Frankly, and I know a few of you will have a heart attack at me for saying so, but I certainly feel like they can afford it. Another proposed solution is to tax health benefits that Americans receive from their employers. This one made me cringe at first too, but I’m not sure it’s actually as bad as it sounds.
In theory, because health care isn’t taxed, it’s effectively on sale and because of that people will tend to buy more than what they need. Because of the excess of money spent on health insurance, no effort is made on the part of the insurance companies to control costs or root out inefficiencies or waste. Oddly enough, it seems that liberals and conservatives all agree that this option would be the most effective to pay for a government health care option. But, you better believe that it’ll be a whole lot harder to be re-elected with a tax hike on health care on their record.
John Kerry (we all remember him, right?), the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts has proposed a health care tax that puts the burden directly on the insurance companies. While it’s questionable that the proposal would actual cover the cost of the plan, I kind of like the idea of sticking it to the insurers. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/business/economy/29leonhardt.html
Of course, let’s not forget that although many ideas, proposals and even bills are floating around both the House and the Senate, nothing has formally passed either part of Congress, and saying that you are either for or against the universal health care plan is a little premature since there technically isn't one quite yet.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
California Has a Budget! But Only For Now...
On Friday, July 24, pigs learned to fly. Not really, but the California state legislature finally passed a budget, which seems like pretty much the same thing.
The winners:
* People who were being paid in IOUs. As you might’ve read in my previous blog, this was mainly small business owners with large state contracts. Although they may still have to wait to redeem their IOUs, they will be receiving cash from now on.
* The California state legislators. After almost 20 hours worth of hearings on the 30 (maybe 31 depending on the source) bills in the budget package, the budget is approved, has Schwarzenegger’s approval (but not signature), and they can go home. Way to work about as hard as an auditor from the Big 4 on a deadline (although the state legislature clearly missed theirs)! At least they haven’t been getting paid in IOUs.
* The Santa Barbara coast. One idea to raise additional funds for California: open up a small area for oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coastline. Legislators rejected this proposal in the budget package, and the California coast is safe once again.
* The Governor. After the budget passed he said, “I know that college students will pay now higher tuitions, I know that teachers will be laid off, and I know state workers will get less money. But we have to do that. It's the only way to solve the problem and to save our great state.” (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/24/california.budget/index.html?section=cnn_latest) I guess you got what you wanted, even if almost nobody else did.
The losers:
* College students. Students who attend California universities, including UC Berkeley, UCLA, and SJSU, to name a few of my favorites, have seen a 30% tuition increase since May. They will also likely see an increase in class sizes, due to a never before seen drop in state funding to California State Universities. Cuts to higher education totaled approximately $3 billion.
* Teachers and public schools. Teachers will be laid off and class sizes will increase. The teachers laid off won’t be those who have the lowest ratings or that are the least effective. Because of union rules, the teachers who lose their jobs will be the ones with the least experience. The ones who will have the hardest time finding a new job. Good luck in a state where unemployment has reached about 11.6%. As for increasing class sizes, districts will no longer be able to maintain a 20:1 ratio, and all I can say is I challenge anyone to manage a class of more than 20 screaming 6 year olds. Seriously, Mr. Schwarzenegger, most elementary school classrooms do not equal the set of Kindergarten Cop. Cuts to public schools totaled approximately $6 billion.
*Health and welfare programs. This includes cuts for in-home care of the state’s Medicare recipients, which will force many of those people who still manage to live at home, into nursing homes. Not that they’ll be able to sell those homes to pay for the nursing home care. Oh, and don’t forget that there will also be a huge loss in health care for children. Cuts to health and social services programs totaled approximately $3 billion.
* The prison system. “Lawmakers passed $1.2 billion in cuts to the state prison system. But they put off deciding how to make the reductions because the issue was too heated.” (http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=22292) Wow. Leave it to the state legislature to pass a budget without an actual solution.
* Your friendly, local city council. About $3.1 billion in state “revenue” will come from money that is supposed to go to city governments for parks, law enforcement, and transportation systems. Is this legal? I seriously doubt it. Will they sue? More than likely.
* State government workers. Workers employed by the state will still be forced to take three furlough days a month, equating to about a 15% cut in pay. Representatives of state workers say they may strike, and unions of state workers have said they will certainly challenge the budget package in court.
* The state legislators. I know, I know, they were winners a minute ago. Unfortunately, the budget, which passed on Friday, is based on estimated state revenues. Since the year is hardly over, and the economy may continue to decline, the estimated revenues may be grossly overstated. If that is the case, we have another budget deficit, and another budget crisis before the year is out. Of course, there is also the fact that part of the budget crisis was solved by certain accounting maneuvers, including pushing some payroll expenses into the next accounting period. Will that be a problem in the next fiscal year? Duh.
* Everyone else. Okay, I admit, that is probably a bit of an exaggeration. But, in all fairness to me, the budget passed with a $1.1 billion shortfall which really is everyone’s problem. Especially when the governor’s solution is to make up for it with cuts that his office has the authority to make on its own. I can’t help but wonder what exactly those are.
The winners:
* People who were being paid in IOUs. As you might’ve read in my previous blog, this was mainly small business owners with large state contracts. Although they may still have to wait to redeem their IOUs, they will be receiving cash from now on.
* The California state legislators. After almost 20 hours worth of hearings on the 30 (maybe 31 depending on the source) bills in the budget package, the budget is approved, has Schwarzenegger’s approval (but not signature), and they can go home. Way to work about as hard as an auditor from the Big 4 on a deadline (although the state legislature clearly missed theirs)! At least they haven’t been getting paid in IOUs.
* The Santa Barbara coast. One idea to raise additional funds for California: open up a small area for oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coastline. Legislators rejected this proposal in the budget package, and the California coast is safe once again.
* The Governor. After the budget passed he said, “I know that college students will pay now higher tuitions, I know that teachers will be laid off, and I know state workers will get less money. But we have to do that. It's the only way to solve the problem and to save our great state.” (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/24/california.budget/index.html?section=cnn_latest) I guess you got what you wanted, even if almost nobody else did.
The losers:
* College students. Students who attend California universities, including UC Berkeley, UCLA, and SJSU, to name a few of my favorites, have seen a 30% tuition increase since May. They will also likely see an increase in class sizes, due to a never before seen drop in state funding to California State Universities. Cuts to higher education totaled approximately $3 billion.
* Teachers and public schools. Teachers will be laid off and class sizes will increase. The teachers laid off won’t be those who have the lowest ratings or that are the least effective. Because of union rules, the teachers who lose their jobs will be the ones with the least experience. The ones who will have the hardest time finding a new job. Good luck in a state where unemployment has reached about 11.6%. As for increasing class sizes, districts will no longer be able to maintain a 20:1 ratio, and all I can say is I challenge anyone to manage a class of more than 20 screaming 6 year olds. Seriously, Mr. Schwarzenegger, most elementary school classrooms do not equal the set of Kindergarten Cop. Cuts to public schools totaled approximately $6 billion.
*Health and welfare programs. This includes cuts for in-home care of the state’s Medicare recipients, which will force many of those people who still manage to live at home, into nursing homes. Not that they’ll be able to sell those homes to pay for the nursing home care. Oh, and don’t forget that there will also be a huge loss in health care for children. Cuts to health and social services programs totaled approximately $3 billion.
* The prison system. “Lawmakers passed $1.2 billion in cuts to the state prison system. But they put off deciding how to make the reductions because the issue was too heated.” (http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=22292) Wow. Leave it to the state legislature to pass a budget without an actual solution.
* Your friendly, local city council. About $3.1 billion in state “revenue” will come from money that is supposed to go to city governments for parks, law enforcement, and transportation systems. Is this legal? I seriously doubt it. Will they sue? More than likely.
* State government workers. Workers employed by the state will still be forced to take three furlough days a month, equating to about a 15% cut in pay. Representatives of state workers say they may strike, and unions of state workers have said they will certainly challenge the budget package in court.
* The state legislators. I know, I know, they were winners a minute ago. Unfortunately, the budget, which passed on Friday, is based on estimated state revenues. Since the year is hardly over, and the economy may continue to decline, the estimated revenues may be grossly overstated. If that is the case, we have another budget deficit, and another budget crisis before the year is out. Of course, there is also the fact that part of the budget crisis was solved by certain accounting maneuvers, including pushing some payroll expenses into the next accounting period. Will that be a problem in the next fiscal year? Duh.
* Everyone else. Okay, I admit, that is probably a bit of an exaggeration. But, in all fairness to me, the budget passed with a $1.1 billion shortfall which really is everyone’s problem. Especially when the governor’s solution is to make up for it with cuts that his office has the authority to make on its own. I can’t help but wonder what exactly those are.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Energy: Who Got It & Who Wants It!
Up until now, I’ve been avoiding the big issues that are currently being tackled by Congress: Health Care, Energy, and the Economy. I prefer to work with issues that are funny by nature, and of course, none of those issues are particularly humorous. In fact, they’re just darn right big, ugly, and complicated. However, since Congress will be taking a month long recess in August, but I’m not planning on recessing from blogging, I’m saving the really funny (disturbing) stuff for when congress goes on vacation.
So, this week, let’s talk about H.R. 2454, popularly known as the Cap and Trade Energy Bill. The bill already passed the House of Representatives in a 219-212 vote (yikes, that was a close one!), and is now under consideration by the Senate. If the bill does pass the Senate, you better believe that it won’t be the same Cap and Trade Bill passed by the House. The Senate will add its own amendments and take out language included in the House bill that they don’t like. If that version of the bill passes, a group of congressional staffers (I’ve never been really clear on who these people are) get together and reconcile the two versions of the bill.
As it stands now, the bill would impose a nationwide cap on greenhouse gases and require public utilities to produce at least 12% (according to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_governors), although it’s 20% according to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdo5ad:@@@L&summ2=m&/bss/111search.html, by 2020. The bill also sets up a trading market for business to buy and sell permits to pollute. Companies that need fewer permits can sell them to companies that need more.
Wow, that sounds like not such a bad idea, Congress! It almost sounds like, by treating pollution as a tangible good, Congress is going to let the free market solve the problem. So why so many votes against it?
The U.S. agriculture industry will go down in flames! Just kidding! Actually, according to the USDA, although the projected loss to farmers overall is between 1 and 7.2 percent, the money that they’ll earn under the program doing things like capturing methane gas from manure ponds, planting trees, or practicing no-till farming will earn them $75-$100 million per year starting in 2012 to $15-$20 billion per year in 2040.
It’ll be terrible for the economy! Unless you live in Washington, New Jersey or Colorado where measures already adopted to reduce greenhouse gases and standards requiring a certain amount of energy from renewable resources have already created new industries and more jobs in those states. In Washington, almost 50,000 new jobs have been created in the last two years as a result (including architects who design energy-efficient buildings, venture capitalists investing in new technology, and farmers growing the next generation of biofuels).
At the same Senate hearing where the Governors from Washington, New Jersey, and Colorado praised the bill, the Governor from North Dakota, a Representative from Arkansas, and a Senator from Oklahoma disagreed. Why? Oil. Duh. Now, I’m not going to argue, the bill could conceivably cause job losses in the oil industry, but I don’t see any reason why those job losses couldn’t turn into new, green jobs. It’s not like people can’t learn to do new things. Also, I must point out that our friend, the Rep from Arkansas, John Lowery (D-AR) owns his own oil company, Lowery Oil Co. Seriously? Can we say, conflict of interest? (Am I the only one who has a problem with the fact that the owner of an oil company, or any company, is allowed to be a representative in Congress?)
Of course, let’s not let the rest of Congress off the hook quite so easily either. Heaven forbid, the House pass a bill without shooting themselves in the foot. A last minute addition to the Cap and Trade Bill included a tariff provision which will levy a tax on all goods imported from countries that do not limit greenhouse gases (which includes almost every country on the planet, and you better believe they’ll more than likely tax our exports right back).
Yeesh.
If you want to learn more about this crazy legislative process and the big, bad filibuster, come out to Campbell’s Sundown Cinema this Friday, July 24th for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington! http://www.downtowncampbell.com/sundowncinema
Totally unrelated, check out the best, and most random, mash-up of two songs I’ve ever seen at http://acollectionofwords.blogspot.com!
So, this week, let’s talk about H.R. 2454, popularly known as the Cap and Trade Energy Bill. The bill already passed the House of Representatives in a 219-212 vote (yikes, that was a close one!), and is now under consideration by the Senate. If the bill does pass the Senate, you better believe that it won’t be the same Cap and Trade Bill passed by the House. The Senate will add its own amendments and take out language included in the House bill that they don’t like. If that version of the bill passes, a group of congressional staffers (I’ve never been really clear on who these people are) get together and reconcile the two versions of the bill.
As it stands now, the bill would impose a nationwide cap on greenhouse gases and require public utilities to produce at least 12% (according to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_governors), although it’s 20% according to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdo5ad:@@@L&summ2=m&/bss/111search.html, by 2020. The bill also sets up a trading market for business to buy and sell permits to pollute. Companies that need fewer permits can sell them to companies that need more.
Wow, that sounds like not such a bad idea, Congress! It almost sounds like, by treating pollution as a tangible good, Congress is going to let the free market solve the problem. So why so many votes against it?
The U.S. agriculture industry will go down in flames! Just kidding! Actually, according to the USDA, although the projected loss to farmers overall is between 1 and 7.2 percent, the money that they’ll earn under the program doing things like capturing methane gas from manure ponds, planting trees, or practicing no-till farming will earn them $75-$100 million per year starting in 2012 to $15-$20 billion per year in 2040.
It’ll be terrible for the economy! Unless you live in Washington, New Jersey or Colorado where measures already adopted to reduce greenhouse gases and standards requiring a certain amount of energy from renewable resources have already created new industries and more jobs in those states. In Washington, almost 50,000 new jobs have been created in the last two years as a result (including architects who design energy-efficient buildings, venture capitalists investing in new technology, and farmers growing the next generation of biofuels).
At the same Senate hearing where the Governors from Washington, New Jersey, and Colorado praised the bill, the Governor from North Dakota, a Representative from Arkansas, and a Senator from Oklahoma disagreed. Why? Oil. Duh. Now, I’m not going to argue, the bill could conceivably cause job losses in the oil industry, but I don’t see any reason why those job losses couldn’t turn into new, green jobs. It’s not like people can’t learn to do new things. Also, I must point out that our friend, the Rep from Arkansas, John Lowery (D-AR) owns his own oil company, Lowery Oil Co. Seriously? Can we say, conflict of interest? (Am I the only one who has a problem with the fact that the owner of an oil company, or any company, is allowed to be a representative in Congress?)
Of course, let’s not let the rest of Congress off the hook quite so easily either. Heaven forbid, the House pass a bill without shooting themselves in the foot. A last minute addition to the Cap and Trade Bill included a tariff provision which will levy a tax on all goods imported from countries that do not limit greenhouse gases (which includes almost every country on the planet, and you better believe they’ll more than likely tax our exports right back).
Yeesh.
If you want to learn more about this crazy legislative process and the big, bad filibuster, come out to Campbell’s Sundown Cinema this Friday, July 24th for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington! http://www.downtowncampbell.com/sundowncinema
Totally unrelated, check out the best, and most random, mash-up of two songs I’ve ever seen at http://acollectionofwords.blogspot.com!
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Solving the California Budget Crisis
Breaking news! Tonight, four top legislative officials will meet with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to finishing closing the $26.3 billion budget deficit. Lawmakers hope to bring the budget to a vote next week.
Woah, I just had a crazy case of déjà vu right there. Hopefully, they actually will pass the budget and I will be forced to eat my words. Mmmm, that sentence looks awfully tasty.
At this point, if you don’t know what the problem is with the California state budget, or why it’s a crisis, please refer to previous blog posts. Frankly, the whole thing, especially the way we treat education, just makes me mad, so this week I’ve decided to, instead, focus on some of the more bizarre and occasionally hilarious solutions that have been offered.
1. Back in May 2009, Gov. Schwarzenegger suggested that the state sell the Orange County fairgrounds. Not a bad idea. If the county would buy it and continue to use the grounds for the fair, I say go for it. Random, but not a bad idea.
2. Legalize pot and tax it! With the potential to bring in $1.4 billion in revenue to the state, marijuana would be taxed similar to alcohol. Potential problems: a) are we going to tax medical marijuana too? I don’t think taxing medication is a good path to start down. b) people suing the state and turning it into a federal issue where we’re at the mercy of the Supreme Court. I definitely wouldn’t count on that $1.4 billion then. In the meantime though, I’m betting that California would pretty much be the happiest place on earth.
3. The closure of 220 state parks. I won’t list them all here, but believe me, some of these are really great parks. I’m curious to know how exactly one goes about closing a state park? Will it just not be attended by a park ranger? But we can still go there right?
4. Drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara. See my previous blog for more discussion on this and the oil spill of 1969. This one is still part of the budget debate.
5. A gigantic used car sale! The state plans to sell off 15% of its approximately 40,000 used cars in an auction. If you’re in the market, the sale will be held on August 28th and August 29th in Sacramento. Officials estimate this will generate $24.1 million in revenue for the state.
Of course, I’d like to offer a suggestion of my own, if you’ll humor me…
It recently came to my attention that the beautiful town I live in, Campbell, has had a balanced budget for the last 20 years. For the last few weeks I’ve been wondering why, if Campbell can do it, why can’t California, just on a larger scale?
Yesterday, the city of Campbell held its second annual Big Bands & BBQ event (a completely watered down version of the more-popular Oktoberfest), and as my sister and I went to pay two tickets ($2) for a bottle of water she mentioned that even if it’s a little pricey, she’s happy to support Campbell.
Then it hit me. California needs to have a crazy, state-wide, gigantic Oktoberfest! If street fair activities plus overpriced booze equals lots of money in Campbell, I’m guessing it would work pretty much everywhere else in the state too. Or, if you prefer, the state could throw a gigantic rave and charge $5 for water. Either way, budget problem solved!
Woah, I just had a crazy case of déjà vu right there. Hopefully, they actually will pass the budget and I will be forced to eat my words. Mmmm, that sentence looks awfully tasty.
At this point, if you don’t know what the problem is with the California state budget, or why it’s a crisis, please refer to previous blog posts. Frankly, the whole thing, especially the way we treat education, just makes me mad, so this week I’ve decided to, instead, focus on some of the more bizarre and occasionally hilarious solutions that have been offered.
1. Back in May 2009, Gov. Schwarzenegger suggested that the state sell the Orange County fairgrounds. Not a bad idea. If the county would buy it and continue to use the grounds for the fair, I say go for it. Random, but not a bad idea.
2. Legalize pot and tax it! With the potential to bring in $1.4 billion in revenue to the state, marijuana would be taxed similar to alcohol. Potential problems: a) are we going to tax medical marijuana too? I don’t think taxing medication is a good path to start down. b) people suing the state and turning it into a federal issue where we’re at the mercy of the Supreme Court. I definitely wouldn’t count on that $1.4 billion then. In the meantime though, I’m betting that California would pretty much be the happiest place on earth.
3. The closure of 220 state parks. I won’t list them all here, but believe me, some of these are really great parks. I’m curious to know how exactly one goes about closing a state park? Will it just not be attended by a park ranger? But we can still go there right?
4. Drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara. See my previous blog for more discussion on this and the oil spill of 1969. This one is still part of the budget debate.
5. A gigantic used car sale! The state plans to sell off 15% of its approximately 40,000 used cars in an auction. If you’re in the market, the sale will be held on August 28th and August 29th in Sacramento. Officials estimate this will generate $24.1 million in revenue for the state.
Of course, I’d like to offer a suggestion of my own, if you’ll humor me…
It recently came to my attention that the beautiful town I live in, Campbell, has had a balanced budget for the last 20 years. For the last few weeks I’ve been wondering why, if Campbell can do it, why can’t California, just on a larger scale?
Yesterday, the city of Campbell held its second annual Big Bands & BBQ event (a completely watered down version of the more-popular Oktoberfest), and as my sister and I went to pay two tickets ($2) for a bottle of water she mentioned that even if it’s a little pricey, she’s happy to support Campbell.
Then it hit me. California needs to have a crazy, state-wide, gigantic Oktoberfest! If street fair activities plus overpriced booze equals lots of money in Campbell, I’m guessing it would work pretty much everywhere else in the state too. Or, if you prefer, the state could throw a gigantic rave and charge $5 for water. Either way, budget problem solved!
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Norma McCorvey, You So Crazy
Every time a U.S. Supreme Court judge retires, the question is always the same: will the new appointee uphold Roe v. Wade? The same is true today as the Senate Judiciary Committee questions nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who, if confirmed, will replace Justice David Souter.
On, Monday, July 13th, the first day of the Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Sotomayor, four protestors were arrested during the hearings for unlawful conduct – disruption of congress. One protestor, Norma McCorvey began yelling during Senator Al Franken’s (D-MN) opening remarks that Sotomayor was “wrong” about abortion. (Check it out on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJj0OMdZT4w about two minutes in.)
McCorvey, as it turns out, is better known as Jane Roe, the plaintiff in possibly the most famous and well-known Supreme Court case ever. Now, if you’ll hearken back to the days when you had time to watch Law & Order, the plaintiff is the person doing the suing. They are the person who is unhappy and wants something changed. In the case of Roe v. Wade, Roe was unhappy that her state, Texas, didn’t allow its citizens the freedom of abortion. The decision in Roe v. Wade, overturned that law, taking the decision away from the states, and legalizing abortion on a federal level. She wins, yay her.
So why is she screaming at Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor that abortion is wrong?
In the 1980s McCorvey revealed herself to be Roe, and in 1994 wrote an autobiography I Am Roe (what a creative title). At a book signing that same year, she was befriended by a pro-life activist and within a year converted to Christianity. McCorvey was baptized in 1995 in a backyard, swimming pool event that was filmed for national TV and announced shortly after (two days to be exact) that she had become an advocate for the pro-life movement.
Two years before the book was published, McCorvey split from her longtime partner. Partner, as in, yes, she’s a lesbian. I’m sorry, she was a lesbian until 1998 when she joined the Catholic Church. Not that those two things have anything to do with each other (Ha!).
In the case she claimed that her pregnancy was the result of rape, which she now says is not true.
Since all the ruckus, McCorvey has been a busy girl. So far this year, McCorvey has been arrested twice, once for disrupting Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings and once during the protest of President Obama’s commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame.
Check this out for more info on Norma McCorvey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey
And check this out for a picture of McCorvey and her painted on eyebrows: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid98017.asp
On, Monday, July 13th, the first day of the Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Sotomayor, four protestors were arrested during the hearings for unlawful conduct – disruption of congress. One protestor, Norma McCorvey began yelling during Senator Al Franken’s (D-MN) opening remarks that Sotomayor was “wrong” about abortion. (Check it out on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJj0OMdZT4w about two minutes in.)
McCorvey, as it turns out, is better known as Jane Roe, the plaintiff in possibly the most famous and well-known Supreme Court case ever. Now, if you’ll hearken back to the days when you had time to watch Law & Order, the plaintiff is the person doing the suing. They are the person who is unhappy and wants something changed. In the case of Roe v. Wade, Roe was unhappy that her state, Texas, didn’t allow its citizens the freedom of abortion. The decision in Roe v. Wade, overturned that law, taking the decision away from the states, and legalizing abortion on a federal level. She wins, yay her.
So why is she screaming at Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor that abortion is wrong?
In the 1980s McCorvey revealed herself to be Roe, and in 1994 wrote an autobiography I Am Roe (what a creative title). At a book signing that same year, she was befriended by a pro-life activist and within a year converted to Christianity. McCorvey was baptized in 1995 in a backyard, swimming pool event that was filmed for national TV and announced shortly after (two days to be exact) that she had become an advocate for the pro-life movement.
Two years before the book was published, McCorvey split from her longtime partner. Partner, as in, yes, she’s a lesbian. I’m sorry, she was a lesbian until 1998 when she joined the Catholic Church. Not that those two things have anything to do with each other (Ha!).
In the case she claimed that her pregnancy was the result of rape, which she now says is not true.
Since all the ruckus, McCorvey has been a busy girl. So far this year, McCorvey has been arrested twice, once for disrupting Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings and once during the protest of President Obama’s commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame.
Check this out for more info on Norma McCorvey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey
And check this out for a picture of McCorvey and her painted on eyebrows: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid98017.asp
Sunday, July 12, 2009
I'll Bring the Tar, You Bring the Feathers.
The California budget crisis continues.
When last we looked at the California budget, legislators were trying to make the tough choices. Cut prison funding, or schools? In-home care for the elderly and disabled, or raise taxes? Oh wait, Governor Schwarzenegger and the California GOP refuse to pass a budget that raises taxes, so let’s wipe that last option off the table. Yes, let’s limit our choices, how free market of us.
You probably haven’t been personally affected by the budget crisis, so let’s see who is shall we? They keep calling it a crisis, so someone must be getting screwed somewhere. The state government has been sending out IOUs since they (almost) ran out of cash at the beginning of the month. Specifically, 101,930 IOUs have been sent out, as of Friday morning, equaling more than $389 million in payments. (http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/07/california-iou-update_11.html) The state plans to mail out more than $3 billion in IOUs by the end of the month.
Granted, the IOUs have a 3.75% annual interest rate, which is way better than anything I’m getting in my regular savings account at the moment, but most major banks stopped accepting the IOUs on Friday, maybe Saturday depending on which newspaper you read. On October 2nd the state plans to redeem the IOUs for the small percentage of people and businesses who can afford to hang on to them that long. Woah, woah, woah, back up for a second. October 2nd? Oh, even better, the October 2nd deadline is “Assuming there is adequate cash in the Treasury” according to http://www.sco.ca.gov/5935.html. You’re saying this really might not be resolved before October 2nd?
Who’s getting these IOUs anyway? People who are just now receiving their personal income tax refunds, local governments, and small business vendors top the IOU list (along with the disabled, no joke, California is officially picking on the small groups of people who can barely defend themselves). Who isn’t getting an IOU? Legislative employees, appointees, and legislators are getting paid in cash. For an incomplete but interesting list of “Haves and Have-Nots” check this out: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/07/01/california-the-haves-and-have-nots/.
The true tragedy of the whole budget crisis really lies with the small business owner. According to the state’s department of general services, California has annual contracts with at least 14,000 small companies (most based in California) for $2.7 billion. About $140 million of the $3 billion in IOUs expected to be issued in July will likely be issued to those small businesses. Given the current state of the economy, this is exactly the group that can’t afford to wait until October 2nd to cash in their IOUs. For more specifics, and a couple really sad stories that will really make you want to run out and start your own business, read this article: http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/12/smallbusiness/california_small_vendors_ious.smb/index.htm?section=money_latest.
In yet another effort to float some more cash for the month, the state controller delayed $4 billion in payments, which were scheduled to go out on Friday, July 10th, to California public schools. I’ve asked before, and I’ll ask it again: Why do we hate education so much in this state??
Even more disturbing, as of Sunday afternoon the apparent elephant in the room in the California legislature debate (according to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/12/BA4L18NC36.DTL) is whether or not to suspend Prop 98, a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a minimum level of funding for schools. The proposition, passed in 1988, commits the state to spending at least 40% of the general fund on schools. Although it’s a favorite target for legislators looking to blame the budget crisis on something other than themselves, I’d like to know how they feel about the tax cuts that have cost the general fund $100 billion since 1993. Who thought it would be a good idea to need 2/3 legislative approval to raise taxes, but only 1/2 to approve a tax cut? Of course we have no money!
And, of course our legislators don’t have the cajones to pick on someone their own size, instead going after those with no time (small business owners), no capacity (the mentally and physically handicapped), and no idea (kids). I’m so proud.
When last we looked at the California budget, legislators were trying to make the tough choices. Cut prison funding, or schools? In-home care for the elderly and disabled, or raise taxes? Oh wait, Governor Schwarzenegger and the California GOP refuse to pass a budget that raises taxes, so let’s wipe that last option off the table. Yes, let’s limit our choices, how free market of us.
You probably haven’t been personally affected by the budget crisis, so let’s see who is shall we? They keep calling it a crisis, so someone must be getting screwed somewhere. The state government has been sending out IOUs since they (almost) ran out of cash at the beginning of the month. Specifically, 101,930 IOUs have been sent out, as of Friday morning, equaling more than $389 million in payments. (http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/07/california-iou-update_11.html) The state plans to mail out more than $3 billion in IOUs by the end of the month.
Granted, the IOUs have a 3.75% annual interest rate, which is way better than anything I’m getting in my regular savings account at the moment, but most major banks stopped accepting the IOUs on Friday, maybe Saturday depending on which newspaper you read. On October 2nd the state plans to redeem the IOUs for the small percentage of people and businesses who can afford to hang on to them that long. Woah, woah, woah, back up for a second. October 2nd? Oh, even better, the October 2nd deadline is “Assuming there is adequate cash in the Treasury” according to http://www.sco.ca.gov/5935.html. You’re saying this really might not be resolved before October 2nd?
Who’s getting these IOUs anyway? People who are just now receiving their personal income tax refunds, local governments, and small business vendors top the IOU list (along with the disabled, no joke, California is officially picking on the small groups of people who can barely defend themselves). Who isn’t getting an IOU? Legislative employees, appointees, and legislators are getting paid in cash. For an incomplete but interesting list of “Haves and Have-Nots” check this out: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/07/01/california-the-haves-and-have-nots/.
The true tragedy of the whole budget crisis really lies with the small business owner. According to the state’s department of general services, California has annual contracts with at least 14,000 small companies (most based in California) for $2.7 billion. About $140 million of the $3 billion in IOUs expected to be issued in July will likely be issued to those small businesses. Given the current state of the economy, this is exactly the group that can’t afford to wait until October 2nd to cash in their IOUs. For more specifics, and a couple really sad stories that will really make you want to run out and start your own business, read this article: http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/12/smallbusiness/california_small_vendors_ious.smb/index.htm?section=money_latest.
In yet another effort to float some more cash for the month, the state controller delayed $4 billion in payments, which were scheduled to go out on Friday, July 10th, to California public schools. I’ve asked before, and I’ll ask it again: Why do we hate education so much in this state??
Even more disturbing, as of Sunday afternoon the apparent elephant in the room in the California legislature debate (according to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/12/BA4L18NC36.DTL) is whether or not to suspend Prop 98, a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a minimum level of funding for schools. The proposition, passed in 1988, commits the state to spending at least 40% of the general fund on schools. Although it’s a favorite target for legislators looking to blame the budget crisis on something other than themselves, I’d like to know how they feel about the tax cuts that have cost the general fund $100 billion since 1993. Who thought it would be a good idea to need 2/3 legislative approval to raise taxes, but only 1/2 to approve a tax cut? Of course we have no money!
And, of course our legislators don’t have the cajones to pick on someone their own size, instead going after those with no time (small business owners), no capacity (the mentally and physically handicapped), and no idea (kids). I’m so proud.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Habeas Corpus? Psht, don't you know this is America!?
On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed an executive order suspending Guantanamo Military Commission activities for 120 days and to shut down the detention center within a year. Of course, does Congress agree? Heavens no! The first regular spending bill for 2010 passed by Congress in June (almost six months after the initial order was signed) contained a stipulation that $0 of the $100 billion war spending bill can be used to close Guantanamo. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/48560027.html)
Not so easily deterred, the Obama administration has already transferred one suspect to be tried in New York and another nine to other countries, probably not to stand trial (let’s hear it for habeas corpus and due process).
Now, everyone is still arguing about what to do with the 229 remaining detainees. Not surprisingly, we’re having a hard time getting other countries to take our prisoners. As the rest of the world is taking a if-you-don’t-want-them-neither-do-we approach to detainees held at Guantanamo, I find it strange that while we can’t find a place for four Muslim men to be held and stand trial in the U.S., Bermuda is willing to take them!? (That can’t possibly be good for tourism.)
As Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution put it, “The United States imprisons a larger share of its population than any other country in the world, but we can’t imprison the remaining dangerous detainees in maximum-security facilities on continental soil?” (http://www.yobserver.com/opinions/10016807.html)
That could actually be the best solution for everyone, given that there is at least one detainee who doesn’t even want to go home (not that he really wants to stay here either). (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/guantanamo/story/1131895.html)
Not to mention, we have the facilities in place already. The Mayor of Marion, IL is now backing the idea to move several detainees to the local federal penitentiary. The prison, built in 1963 was the new Alcatraz at the time and held some of America’s most infamous criminals, including John Gotti. Granted, the neighbors aren’t thrilled, but if you’re moving to an area for its “security” are you really going to move within 10 miles of a prison? I’m not saying terrorists aren’t scary, I’m just saying that our prisoners can be pretty damned scary too. If you don’t know who John Gotti is, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gotti
So will Guantanamo really be closed by the end of the year? Will this, rather embarrassing, chapter of our country’s history finally be over? Doubtful. The Justice Department is currently conducting a review of its options on what to do with the rest of the detainees, which was supposed to be completed by July 21. More than likely the deadline will be extended (until who knows when) since the review probably won’t be finished. (Surprise, surprise.) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_go_co/us_guantanamo_detainees)
SIDENOTE: In my 7/1 blog on Al Franken and the Scary Supermajority I recommended the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. I am re-recommending the movie now and also giving you the chance to watch it free in downtown Campbell.
Where: The parking lot behind Orchard Valley Coffee (across from Katie Bloom’s)
When: 7/24/09 at sundown (approximately 8:30pm)
http://www.artsopolis.com/event/detail/51837
Not so easily deterred, the Obama administration has already transferred one suspect to be tried in New York and another nine to other countries, probably not to stand trial (let’s hear it for habeas corpus and due process).
Now, everyone is still arguing about what to do with the 229 remaining detainees. Not surprisingly, we’re having a hard time getting other countries to take our prisoners. As the rest of the world is taking a if-you-don’t-want-them-neither-do-we approach to detainees held at Guantanamo, I find it strange that while we can’t find a place for four Muslim men to be held and stand trial in the U.S., Bermuda is willing to take them!? (That can’t possibly be good for tourism.)
As Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution put it, “The United States imprisons a larger share of its population than any other country in the world, but we can’t imprison the remaining dangerous detainees in maximum-security facilities on continental soil?” (http://www.yobserver.com/opinions/10016807.html)
That could actually be the best solution for everyone, given that there is at least one detainee who doesn’t even want to go home (not that he really wants to stay here either). (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/guantanamo/story/1131895.html)
Not to mention, we have the facilities in place already. The Mayor of Marion, IL is now backing the idea to move several detainees to the local federal penitentiary. The prison, built in 1963 was the new Alcatraz at the time and held some of America’s most infamous criminals, including John Gotti. Granted, the neighbors aren’t thrilled, but if you’re moving to an area for its “security” are you really going to move within 10 miles of a prison? I’m not saying terrorists aren’t scary, I’m just saying that our prisoners can be pretty damned scary too. If you don’t know who John Gotti is, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gotti
So will Guantanamo really be closed by the end of the year? Will this, rather embarrassing, chapter of our country’s history finally be over? Doubtful. The Justice Department is currently conducting a review of its options on what to do with the rest of the detainees, which was supposed to be completed by July 21. More than likely the deadline will be extended (until who knows when) since the review probably won’t be finished. (Surprise, surprise.) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_go_co/us_guantanamo_detainees)
SIDENOTE: In my 7/1 blog on Al Franken and the Scary Supermajority I recommended the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. I am re-recommending the movie now and also giving you the chance to watch it free in downtown Campbell.
Where: The parking lot behind Orchard Valley Coffee (across from Katie Bloom’s)
When: 7/24/09 at sundown (approximately 8:30pm)
http://www.artsopolis.com/event/detail/51837
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Drill, Baby, Drill?
We all remember the infamous chant, “Drill, Baby, Drill”, the McCain-Palin solution to the energy crisis. Now, California is considering that same motto to solve another problem: the budget crisis (Yes, we’re still in it. I know, nobody’s really surprised.). One source of income that has been suggested as a way to close the California budget gap, is to start drilling for oil off the California coast.
Why aren’t we doing that already, you ask? I’m not going to lie, this gets complicated and downright fishy in some areas, so here’s the gist:
· July 14, 2008: President Bush lifts a presidential ban on offshore drilling originally implemented by (any guesses?) President Bush Sr.
· Originally, offshore drilling was opposed by our dear Gov. Schwarzenegger. Originally as in, last year after the ban was lifted. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a362RHmsy71s&refer=worldwide
· Federal drilling, which begins 3 miles offshore, (3 miles within the shoreline belongs to California) could be opened up for exploration as early as 2010, if Congress doesn’t vote to renew its own ban, and oil drilling platforms could be constructed by 2012.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/28/MN4G14QMVE.DTL
· California law, however, still blocks new oil drilling in that area controlled by the state (that 3 miles I mentioned above).
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/07/MN251808DH.DTL&type=printable
In a nutshell: 3 miles within the coast drilling is not allowed, beyond that check back in 2012 for great views of those oil rigs that you can see off in the distance from your beachfront property.
Obviously, with a $24.3 billion budget deficit, anyone could have a change of heart, even dear old Gov. Schwarzenegger and as luck would have it, there’s a cute little loophole in the law. It’s called Tranquillon Ridge. Just off the coast of Santa Barbara County, the oil from a field in state waters is seeping into a federally controlled field, allowing the state to drill in that one spot.
Hooray! The budget is saved!
Hardly. The project, which would yield about $100 million a year in state revenues barely puts a dent in the deficit. Not to mention that the drilling would occur off the Santa Barbara coast, where an oil rig platform accident in 1969 spilled 3 million gallons of crude oil along the beaches. Needless to say, dead wildlife and black sand are not so good for tourism.
Why aren’t we doing that already, you ask? I’m not going to lie, this gets complicated and downright fishy in some areas, so here’s the gist:
· July 14, 2008: President Bush lifts a presidential ban on offshore drilling originally implemented by (any guesses?) President Bush Sr.
· Originally, offshore drilling was opposed by our dear Gov. Schwarzenegger. Originally as in, last year after the ban was lifted. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a362RHmsy71s&refer=worldwide
· Federal drilling, which begins 3 miles offshore, (3 miles within the shoreline belongs to California) could be opened up for exploration as early as 2010, if Congress doesn’t vote to renew its own ban, and oil drilling platforms could be constructed by 2012.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/28/MN4G14QMVE.DTL
· California law, however, still blocks new oil drilling in that area controlled by the state (that 3 miles I mentioned above).
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/07/MN251808DH.DTL&type=printable
In a nutshell: 3 miles within the coast drilling is not allowed, beyond that check back in 2012 for great views of those oil rigs that you can see off in the distance from your beachfront property.
Obviously, with a $24.3 billion budget deficit, anyone could have a change of heart, even dear old Gov. Schwarzenegger and as luck would have it, there’s a cute little loophole in the law. It’s called Tranquillon Ridge. Just off the coast of Santa Barbara County, the oil from a field in state waters is seeping into a federally controlled field, allowing the state to drill in that one spot.
Hooray! The budget is saved!
Hardly. The project, which would yield about $100 million a year in state revenues barely puts a dent in the deficit. Not to mention that the drilling would occur off the Santa Barbara coast, where an oil rig platform accident in 1969 spilled 3 million gallons of crude oil along the beaches. Needless to say, dead wildlife and black sand are not so good for tourism.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Senator Al Franken and the Scary Supermajority
Does anyone else find it a wee bit disturbing how many of our elected officials end up in office because a court somewhere says that they won? Clearly, as we all discovered in the post 2000 election madness where finally the Supreme Court intervened to declare a winner, not every vote really does get counted. If your chad is hanging the wrong way or has a bad attitude, he definitely won’t be included in the final tally.
In another show of not every vote was counted so let’s take it to the courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided yesterday (6/30/09) that Democrat Al Franken won the Senate Election in Minnesota which actually took place eight months ago. Not exactly a quick turn-around in terms of election results. Not to mention that the Senate convened the 2009 session on January 6, meaning that Senator Franken has now missed out on six months of fun with the Senate.
So what’s with all the hubbub? Why do all the other 49 states give a hoot about what’s happening in Minnesota? Now, with the election of Franken, the Democrats have a supermajority in the Senate! (Does that mean all the Senate Democrats have to wear capes now?) The so-called “supermajority” gives the Democrats the power (60 votes) to block a filibuster as Senate rules call for 60 votes to end debate and move for a vote (otherwise known as cloture). (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/924E6F5D066C9BBE862575E600114957?OpenDocument)
On paper, yes, that sounds very scary. Should any party really have that much power? Until you consider the fact that there’s not really 60 Democrats in the Senate. Only 58 Senators are actually members of the Democratic Party. The other two, Sen. Barry Sanders (Ind-VT) and Sen. Joe Lieberman, (Ind-CT) are both independents who caucus (“meeting of members of a political party or subgroup to coordinate members’ actions, choose group policy, or nominate candidates for various offices.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucus.) with the Democrats. Of course, we also can’t forget Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Sen. Ed Kennedy (D-MA) who have both been in and out of the hospital and generally haven’t been able to spend much time in the Senate. Getting the 60 votes, or just getting all 60 Senators to be present could still be quite the challenge.
On the other hand, are filibusters even really that useful? A filibuster allows a senator to speak for however long he or she wants (or can in some cases if you don’t have a friend to hand off your filibuster to) on whatever topic he or she chooses. It’s not like it has to be related to the topic at hand. (If you haven’t seen “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” I recommend you drop whatever you’re doing right now and watch it.)
Filibusters have always been part of the process and through the 1960s every Senate term averaged less than seven, the most famous filibuster of the 1960s was when the Southern Democrats filibustered for 75 hours to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since then, you could say that the Senate has become filibuster-happy, with the record for most votes to end a filibuster hitting 112 votes by the 110th congress at the end of 2008. Call me crazy, but 112 filibusters seems like overkill, and like maybe the Senate could do something more productive with its time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(legislative_tactic))
In another show of not every vote was counted so let’s take it to the courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided yesterday (6/30/09) that Democrat Al Franken won the Senate Election in Minnesota which actually took place eight months ago. Not exactly a quick turn-around in terms of election results. Not to mention that the Senate convened the 2009 session on January 6, meaning that Senator Franken has now missed out on six months of fun with the Senate.
So what’s with all the hubbub? Why do all the other 49 states give a hoot about what’s happening in Minnesota? Now, with the election of Franken, the Democrats have a supermajority in the Senate! (Does that mean all the Senate Democrats have to wear capes now?) The so-called “supermajority” gives the Democrats the power (60 votes) to block a filibuster as Senate rules call for 60 votes to end debate and move for a vote (otherwise known as cloture). (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/924E6F5D066C9BBE862575E600114957?OpenDocument)
On paper, yes, that sounds very scary. Should any party really have that much power? Until you consider the fact that there’s not really 60 Democrats in the Senate. Only 58 Senators are actually members of the Democratic Party. The other two, Sen. Barry Sanders (Ind-VT) and Sen. Joe Lieberman, (Ind-CT) are both independents who caucus (“meeting of members of a political party or subgroup to coordinate members’ actions, choose group policy, or nominate candidates for various offices.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucus.) with the Democrats. Of course, we also can’t forget Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Sen. Ed Kennedy (D-MA) who have both been in and out of the hospital and generally haven’t been able to spend much time in the Senate. Getting the 60 votes, or just getting all 60 Senators to be present could still be quite the challenge.
On the other hand, are filibusters even really that useful? A filibuster allows a senator to speak for however long he or she wants (or can in some cases if you don’t have a friend to hand off your filibuster to) on whatever topic he or she chooses. It’s not like it has to be related to the topic at hand. (If you haven’t seen “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” I recommend you drop whatever you’re doing right now and watch it.)
Filibusters have always been part of the process and through the 1960s every Senate term averaged less than seven, the most famous filibuster of the 1960s was when the Southern Democrats filibustered for 75 hours to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since then, you could say that the Senate has become filibuster-happy, with the record for most votes to end a filibuster hitting 112 votes by the 110th congress at the end of 2008. Call me crazy, but 112 filibusters seems like overkill, and like maybe the Senate could do something more productive with its time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(legislative_tactic))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
