Most Support A Formal Ethics Code For The Supreme Court

The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between June 16th and 18th of a nationwide sample of 1,600 adults (including 1,396 registered voters). The margin of error is 3.2 points for adults, and 3.1 points for registered voters.

 

New House Rules Show GOP Only Cares About The Rich

The GOP has approved some new rules for the House of Representatives. The new rules show that the Republicans only care about the rich.

Here's what Catherine Rampell has to say about this in The Washington Post:

At long last, Republicans have admitted the obvious: Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. Also: Republicans don’t actually care whether tax cuts pay for themselves.

The House rules package recently passed by the newly GOP-controlled House included some notable, occasionally troubling things. For example, one set of measures would kneecap congressional ethics probes. Another provision would make it harder to swiftly raise the debt ceiling.

But also tucked into the rules package, and attracting somewhat less attention, was a change to how lawmakers treat changes to tax law.

Specifically, they’ve rigged the system so that tax cuts will be much easier to pass, and tax rate increases harder to pass. On the other hand, investments in the poor and various other kinds of spending increases — on so-called mandatory programs, such as Medicare or food stamps — would be more challenging to get through.

Congress sets rules for what kinds of budgetary changes it can pass under what circumstances, including what kinds of programs must be “paid for” by nipping and tucking elsewhere in the budget. Often, lawmakers want to change the law in a way that would cost money (i.e., increase deficits), either by reducing tax revenue or increasing spending. In recent Congresses, when lawmakers made that kind of change, they were generally supposed to find something to offset the cost so that long-term deficits didn’t grow.

For example, if Congress wanted to cut Tax A, it was supposed to cut Spending Program B or else raise Tax C by at least as much (with some exceptions, of course).

This GOP-led House has done something a bit different.

Under the new rules package, the budgetary requirements are more one-sided — in favor of tax cuts. Going forward, tax cuts do not need to be offset with any sort of savings elsewhere in the budget. They can add trillions to the debt. No problem.

But this is not true of spending programs. Spending program increases still have to be paid for.

Not only that, but the savings to offset expansions of mandatory programs have to come from cuts to other spending programs. They cannot be offset by tax revenue increases. In practical terms: An expansion of food stamps can’t be paid for by raising taxes on the rich — only by cutting, say, Medicaid or disability benefits. So basically any attempt to provide more support for poor or middle-income people is likely to come from other programs that help those same groups.

House Republicans can theoretically choose to waive their own rule, though getting the votes to do so might be a bit rocky since they passed this big new rules package so recently and after much haggling.

Republicans have found other ways to stack the deck against raising taxes. A separate portion of the House’s rules package says that any increase in tax rates would require a three-fifths vote (rather than a simple majority, as in years past).

Additionally, in a side deal that Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made as part of his concessions to get the speaker’s job, the House will also substantially cut spending for so-called discretionary spending programs, too. (Mandatory programs, such as Social Security, are generally set by formula, automatically expanding or shrinking based on how many people qualify; a specific dollar amount is appropriated for discretionary programs.)

There are a couple of big takeaways from these technicalities.

First is that, if you read between the lines, you’ll learn that even Republicans don’t believe their own long-standing promise that tax cuts will pay for themselves. After all, if the GOP genuinely believed this, they wouldn’t need to make it easier to pass tax cuts that don’t pay for themselves. Because such tax cuts … would not exist.

Second is who and what they care about.

“This is fundamentally about who pays for what, what are we investing in, and who’s left behind,” said Joel Friedman, a researcher for the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities. “It puts up barriers to the type of investments and public services that will help people through health care, education, supporting kids.”

As a result, we can expect more kids and poor families to face hardship, particularly if there is a downturn this year; and perhaps (even more) tax cuts for the rich.

Already, House Republicans have voted to effectively decrease the tax burden on the wealthy in all but name. They did so not by cutting tax rates, per se, but by voting to defund the Internal Revenue Service. Last year, Democrats gave an extra $80 billion to the IRS, largely to go after wealthy tax cheats whom the agency has struggled to audit because of insufficient resources; Republicans are now trying to undo this investment.

Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what your priorities are, President Biden often says. Well, Republicans have shown us: a lower tax burden on the rich, less help for the poor and the middle class.

The Senate Keeps The Filibuster - But That Could Change

Minority Leader McConnell has withdrawn his objection to the proposed Senate rules. That means the new rules (which are the same as in 2001 - the last time the Senate was equally divided) allow the Democrats to take chairmanships over Senate committees.

It also means the Senate retains the right of members to filibuster legislation, and 60 votes are still required to end a filibuster.

McConnell had been holding out for a Democratic promise to retain the filibuster regardless of what happens. Majority Leader Schumer rejected that. He said the filibuster will remain for now, but Democrats reserve the right to eliminate it if it is misused -- if the Republicans use it to block all or most Democratic legislation instead of negotiating a compromise on legislation.

Currently, three Democratic senators are against eliminating the filibuster -- Sen. Manchin (West Virginia), Sen. Sinema (Arizona), and Sen. Tester (Wyoming). One of those senators (Tester) has already said he could change his mind if it is used to create gridlock in the Senate, and if that happens, the other two might change also. 

If all 48 Democrats and the 2 Independents (who caucus with Democrats) vote to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster, it will happen -- even if all 50 Republicans vote against that. The 51st and deciding vote would come from Vice-President Harris.
 

Democrats Announce Changes To House Rules

(This photo, by PoliticsJunkie123 at Wikipedia, is of Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts. He is the new chairman of the House Rules Committee.)

Today the Democrats take over in the House of Representatives. After installing Nancy Pelosi as the new Speaker of the House, they will also approve new rules for how the House will operate.

Here (from NPR) are some of the changes they will make to House rules:

Top Democrats announced late Sunday a series of changes to House rules that could eliminate causes of major instability during the previous eight years of Republican rule in Congress.

"We are proposing historic changes that will modernize Congress, restore regular order and bring integrity back to this institution," said incoming House Rules Chairman James McGovern, D-Mass., in a statement explaining the changes.

When a new Congress convenes every two years, the majority party must approve a resolution outlining House rules, the intricate parliamentary procedures that govern the chamber. Two notable changes in the Democrats' package are aimed at avoiding certain confrontations that became commonplace during the Republican majority from 2011 through the GOP's 2018 midterm rout.

Democrats will revive the "Gephardt Rule," introduced in the late 1970s by Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., that automatically raises the debt ceiling — the nation's borrowing limit — once the House passes a budget. 

House Republicans preferred to force votes to approve debt ceiling increases in an effort to bring more accountability and political pressure to reduce the nation's deficit and debt. However, that decision never resulted in reducing spending and only added to a culture of brinksmanship in recent years that often threatened the U.S. into default on its debts and increased economic uncertainty around the globe.

The rules change — coupled with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's longstanding promise that the U.S. will not default on its debts — greatly diminishes the odds of a default threat in the new, divided Congress.

Additionally, Democrats are changing the rules regarding motions "to vacate the chair," a procedural tool that could be used to force out a sitting House speaker. It is the procedural weapon that conservatives led by Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., were planning to use to try to oust Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in 2015 before he made the decision to step down.

Democrats plan to tweak the rules so that a motion to vacate can only be offered on the House floor if a majority of either the House Republican Conference or the House Democratic Caucus agrees to do so. The change limits the ability of any one member to wreak havoc on the floor and ultimately bolsters incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., against potential agitators in either party.

Other notable House rules changes include:

1. Creating a committee to address climate change. The panel will not have subpoena power or the ability to introduce legislation so it will not be as powerful as a similar committee created by Pelosi during the previous Democratic majority from 2007 to 2011, but the issue is expected to be a major priority for the party's progressive wing.

2. Creating a bipartisan select committee tasked with coming up with proposals to "modernize and improve" the way Congress operates.

3. Setting new ethics rules that prohibit lawmakers and aides from sitting on corporate boards and a new requirement for annual ethics training for all lawmakers.

4. Reviving a rule that requires 72 hours before major legislation can get a vote in the House to ensure all lawmakers have time to review the bill. 

5. Amending rules to extend bans on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and to allow religious headwear to be worn in the House chamber — an accommodation for Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., a Muslim woman who wears a headscarf.

With Dems Taking House, GOP Will Regret Rules Change

It wasn't the huge blue wave I was hoping for, but Democrats have gained control of the House of Representatives. As I write this post, MSNBC has projected Democrats to win about 230 House seats to 205 seats for the Republicans. That will be enough to make sure that the Trump administration is actually investigated for its wrongdoing (instead of the whitewash Republicans have given them for the last couple of years.

Helping in these investigations is a rule instigated by Republicans which gives committee chairs subpoena power without consulting the minority party. That means the new Democratic chairs will have this power now, and there's nothing Republicans can do to prevent it.

Here's how Anthony Adragna describes it at Politico.com:

Democrats eager to investigate the Trump administration if they seize the House would have the GOP to thank for one of their most potent tools — a sweeping subpoena authority that Democratic lawmakers denounced as an abusive power grab three years ago.

House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.

Now the weapon that the GOP wielded dozens of times against President Barack Obama’s agencies could allow Democrats to bombard President Donald Trump’s most controversial appointees with demands for information. And many Democrats are itching to use it. . . .

Oversight would be one of the few concrete goals that Democrats could accomplish with control of only one chamber of Congress and Trump still in the White House. They have a long list of potential targets, including likely demands for Trump’s tax returns and probes into Cabinet members such as Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.

Before the 2015 rule change, most House subpoenas needed at least some bipartisan cover, requiring a majority vote of committee members and consultation with a panel’s ranking member. The change erased those requirements and allowed the chairmen to proceed unilaterally, although the exact rules vary by committee.

Of the 21 standing committees in the House, 14 allow their chairmen to issue subpoenas on their own initiative, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Democrats Change Party Rules To Please The Berniecrats

(This caricature of the Democratic donkey is by DonkeyHotey.)

Many of Bernie Sanders supporters claimed that their candidate lost in 2016 because the Democratic Party rules were not fair. It wasn't true, but I guess it made them feel better. The truth was that most Democrats simply preferred Hillary Clinton as their nominee rather than a candidate ashamed to wear the Democratic Party label.

The biggest gripe the Berniecrats had was the SuperDelegates. They were upset that most SuperDelegates supported and voted for Clinton. They claimed that allowing SuperDelegates to support the candidate of their choice was unfair, and they wanted the party to do away with the SuperDelegates.

Last Saturday, the Democratic Party gave in to those Bernie supporters and changed the party's primary rules. They hoped the rule changes would satisfy those voters and keep them in the party. The two biggest changes are:

1. The party keeps SuperDelegates, but they will not have a vote in the first round of convention voting. SuperDelegates will vote only if no candidate gets a majority of pledged delegate votes in the first round (an event that is very unlikely).

2. The party is urging states to abandon the caucus system and go to a primary system -- or to count the absentee ballots at the caucus of those unable to attend. And it looks like several states will follow the party's wishes and moved to a primary vote system.

The crazy part of all this is that if these rules had been in effect in 2016, Bernie Sanders would still have lost and Hillary Clinton would still have been the nominee. With SuperDelegates, Clinton had 2,842 delegate votes, while Sanders had 1,865 delegate votes. But if you take away all the SuperDelegate votes, Clinton would still have won the nomination -- with 2,205 pledged delegate votes to 1,846 pledged delegate votes for Sanders.

The Berniecrats are celebrating the party changes, and I guess that's OK if it keeps them as Democratic voters. But actually the rules may hurt Sanders more than it helps (if he were to run again). That's because he did much better in caucus states than in primary states -- and several states are in the process of changing from a caucus state to a primary state.

This 2016 Poll Should Scare The Hell Out Of You

The Public Religion Research Institute recently went over their 2016 polls to determine if any of them contained information that could be relevant to 2017 politics. One that they found was the chart above from an April 2016 survey they did.

It showed that 65% of the supporters of Donald Trump said they thought this country needed a president who was willing to break the rules. And in case you wondered, those rules are the laws derived from our Constitution. These fools don't care about the Constitution as long as they can get what they want. They don't seem to realize that allowing a leader to break the rules (i.e., violate the Constitution) is a big step toward tyranny (rule by a leader that makes his own rules).

Even scarier is that the chart showed that 45% of the general population agrees with the trumpistas -- also thinking the country needs a leader willing to break the rules. Only 51% thought a president should always follow the rules, and 4% said they were unsure. That's almost half of the population willing to toss the Constitution out the window to get what they want.

That scares the hell out of me, and it should scare all Americans. These nuts got the president they want, and seem to be willing to ignore his breaking of the rules. That's frightening, since Trump is known for flouting the rules to get what he wants.

Our Founding Fathers sacrificed to give us a representative democracy. Is the current generation too stupid and selfish to keep it?

Congressional Black Caucus Opposes Changes To Party Rules

Bernie Sanders wants to change the rules of the Democratic Party regarding how their presidential candidate is chosen -- even though he's only been a Democrat for a few months, and lost his presidential bid fair and square (by winning fewer states, fewer votes, and fewer delegates). He wants to make it easier for an outsider to claim the nomination, and for Republicans to cross-over and disrupt our primary system.

The Congressional Black Caucus is unanimously against the changes proposed by Sanders, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. Here is the letter they sent to the Clinton and Sanders campaigns, the DNC, and Democratic congressional leaders. They wrote:

To Whom It May Concern:

The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states.

The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process.

The origin of the unpledged delegate selection process authored by Congressman James E. Clyburn, DSC is attached to this letter. It accurately chronicles the use of the unpledged delegate system and sets out with particularity the reasons why this system was enacted many years ago. The system of allowing members of Congress to serve as unpledged delegates has worked quite well. There is no need to succumb to the pressure of a few individuals to make this change. We oppose any change to the current delegate selection process for members of Congress.

The CBC is opposed to any state nominating system that would allow independent or Republican voters to participate in a Democratic Primary. The Democratic Party primary is the process used by the party to allow political aspirants to compete for their party’s nomination. Allowing independent or Republican voters to participate in the Democratic primary would dilute minority voting strength in many districts across the country.

Finally, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus respectfully request that we be included in any discussion that will change the system of unpledged delegates. In addition, we should be included in any discussion that would seek to change the nominating rules to open primaries. These are significant issues that directly affects our ability to effectively participate in the political process. Thank you.

Sincerely,

G.K. Butterfield

Chairman Democratic Caucus of the Congressional Black Caucus

You can access Rep. Cleburne's writing referenced above right here.

Sanders Should Stop Whining About Nominating Process

I'm getting a bit tired of Bernie Sanders complaining about the nominating process of the Democratic Party -- trying to convince voters that he would be winning if only the process was fair. Frankly, I don't remember any other candidate of either party complaining as much about the process (except for Donald Trump, and that's not very good company to be keeping).

First, he was complaining that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was not being fair -- that they had stacked the deck against him, and in favor of Hillary Clinton. That's patently ridiculous. The DNC has been scrupulously fair in how they have acted. There is no benefit for them to take sides in this campaign, and they haven't done so. They are in the business of supporting Democratic candidates, and it defeats their purpose to alienate supporters of any candidate (possibly hurting down-ballot Democrats).

When that failed to bring Democrats to support him, he changed the message. Now it was the so-called "super delegates" that were making the process unfair. This argument was even more disingenuous. I have no doubt that if the super delegates were supporting him instead of Hillary Clinton, he would be fine with having them as part of the process. He is only whining about super delegates because most of them think Hillary Clinton would be a better candidate for the Democratic Party.

He has recently backed off criticizing the super delegates. That's because he realizes that the only faint hope he has lies in convincing those super delegates to change their minds. That is unlikely to happen though, because those delegates will do exactly what Bernie wanted them to do -- support the candidate that rank-and-file Democrats want. That would be Hillary Clinton, who leads by a significant margin in primary/caucus delegates and in the popular vote of Democrats (by 2.4 million votes).

Bernie hasn't stopped whining about the "unfair process" though. He has just switched messages again. He is now complaining about having to run in Southern states early in the primary process, calling that a "conservative" part of the country. That's ludicrous for several reasons.

First, the first two states to vote (Iowa and New Hampshire) were states where Bernie was favored. The Southern states (with the exception of South Carolina) didn't vote until a month later (on Super Tuesday).

Second, the Democrats in those Southern states are no more conservative than Democrats in other states. The real conservatives in those states fled the Democratic Party long ago, and currently vote Republican. This happened right after a Democratic president and Congress pushed through the civil rights laws in the 1960's. The Democratic Party in the South may actually be more progressive than in some other states, because of this flight of conservatives from the party.

Third, the reason that Sanders didn't do well in the Southern states is because those states have a diverse Democratic base (with significant percentages of Blacks and Hispanics -- two groups that Sanders has failed to convince he would make a good presidential candidate). Does Sanders really support denying these groups a voice early in the campaign? Does he really think they should vote only after whites have made their choice known? Isn't that the same as making them sit in the back of the bus?

Fourth, the national party doesn't determine the order of state primaries and caucuses. That decision is made by each individual state.

The truth is that all the candidates, including Sanders, knew what the rules were before they chose to run -- and the process has been equally fair to all candidates. Bernie Sanders is not losing because of an unfair process. He is losing because most Democrats prefer Hillary Clinton to be their nominee.

(NOTE -- The caricature above of Bernie Sanders is by DonkeyHotey.)

Outsiders Don't Get To Make The Democratic Party Rules

The latest complaint from Bernie Sanders supporters is that the rules of the Democratic Party are unfair to their candidate. The unfairness they speak of is the party rule that gives some party officials (like elected officials) an automatic delegate vote at the nominating convention -- the so-called "super delegates".

In 2016, there will be 4,764 convention delegates. Of that number, about 713 are super delegates. The rest will be chosen in the primaries and caucuses.

This same system was in place for the 2008 nominating process -- and no one complained about it. Barack Obama won the majority of primary/caucus delegates and the majority of super delegates, and won the nomination. The system worked just as it was supposed to work.

So, what is different about 2016? Well, after Bernie tied Hillary in Iowa, and beat her in New Hampshire, the delegate total stands at 394 for Clinton and 44 for Sanders. That's because about 362 super delegates have pledged their support for the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. That leaves about 351 unplugged super delegates. Sanders could prove he deserves a big share of those by winning a majority of primary/caucus delegates. But his supporters know they are not likely to do that, so whining about the rules is the path chosen.

Why have more than half of the super delegates decided to support Hillary Clinton? It's not secret, and it's not a "conspiracy" either. They support the candidate who has been a good Democrat for 47 years -- working hard to support the party and its elected officials. Clinton has earned their support.

Why wouldn't they support Bernie, who is as progressive as Hillary? It could well be because Sanders is NOT a Democrat. For 73 years, he avoided the Democratic label like the plague. He has turned down Democratic Party nominations, and made it clear that he is not a Democrat (even though he caucuses with Democrats in the Senate). And while he is now using the Democratic Party apparatus to run for president, he still refuses to simply say "I am a Democrat". Why should long-time Democrats (as almost all super delegates are) support any candidate too ashamed to wear the Democratic Party label?

The Democratic Party's rules are fair. They were created by Democrats to help them nominate the best Democratic candidate to carry their banner into the general election. They were created to be fair to Democrats -- not Independents, Socialists, Libertarians, Greens, Republicans, or anyone else who is not a Democrat. And it is not up to Independents, who find themselves supporting someone running in the Democratic primaries/caucuses, to change the party rules -- no matter how unfair they perceive them to be.

If you want to help make Democratic Party rules, then you should be a Democrat. Join the party, work for its candidates (even in off-year elections), become a delegate to state and national conventions or a party official (it's not hard and it's a democratic process), and then campaign within the party for the changes you want. Staying outside the party, and sometimes voting Democratic, doesn't give you the right to help make party rules -- or to whine about them.

We have a big-tent party, and we welcome all those willing to work for the party (regardless of race, age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or political orientation). We welcome your ideas and hard work. But we will not bend (or break) our rules to placate whiners who don't really want to proudly call themselves Democrats.

Warren Says Financial Markets Work Better With Rules

The Republican idea to improve the economy is to deregulate Wall Street, and let the giant banks do what they want. But that is exactly what led to the financial meltdown during the Bush administration. Senator Elizabeth Warren tells us that rules are necessary in the financial industry -- to protect consumers and to make competition fair in the industry. She says (and I agree with her) that the financial markets simply work better when they have rules. Here is her latest article on this subject:

For too long, the opponents of financial reform have cast the debate as an argument between the pro-regulation camp and the pro-market camp. They generally put Democrats in the first camp and Republicans in the second.

But that so-called “choice” gets it all wrong.

Rules are not the enemy of markets. Without some basic rules and accountability, financial markets don’t work. People get ripped off, risk-taking skyrockets, and markets fall apart. Rolling back the rules or firing the cops can be profoundly anti-market.

Republicans claim – loudly and repeatedly – that they support competitive markets, but their approach to financial regulation is pure crony capitalism. It helps the rich and the powerful protect and expand their wealth and their power – and leaves everyone else behind.

This week, I gave a big policy speech where I presented ways we can promote competition, innovation, and safety in financial markets. The speech was long and wonky, but it really boils down to two principles:

• First, financial institutions shouldn’t be allowed to cheat people. Markets work only if people can see and understand the products they are buying, only if people can reasonably compare one product to another, only if people can’t get fooled into taking on far more risk than they realize just so that some fly-by-night company can turn a quick profit and move on. That’s true for families buying mortgages and for pension plans buying complex financial instruments.

• Second, financial institutions shouldn’t be allowed to get the taxpayers to pick up their risks. That’s true for using insured deposits for high-risk trading, and it’s true for letting Too-Big-to-Fail banks get a wink-and-a-nod guarantee of a government bailout.

We know what changes we need to make financial markets work better. Strengthen the rules to prevent cheating. Make the cops do their jobs. Cut the banks down to size.  Change the tax code to promote more long-term investment. Tackle shadow-banking done by non-bank firms and subsidiaries.

Changes like these can make a real difference. They can help protect hard-working families from cheats and liars. They can help rein in the lawless practices that are still too common on Wall Street. They can end Too Big to Fail.

The secret to better markets isn’t turning loose the biggest banks to do whatever they want. The secret is smarter, more structural regulation that forces everyone to play by the same rules and doesn’t let anyone put the entire economy at risk.

The key steps aren’t hard. It just takes political courage – and a strong demand from people like you – to complete the unfinished business of financial reform.

A Good Party Rule Change For Texas Democrats

In the past, Texas Democrats have held precinct conventions at the voting places immediately after the primary election polls closed. The purpose of these precinct conventions were to elect delegates to the county/senatorial distract convention (where delegates to the state convention are then selected).

This worked, but it had the effect of preventing some who wanted to attend their party convention at the county/ senatorial district level from being able to do so. Back in 2008, in my own precinct in Amarillo, there were more people wanting to attend the county convention than the precinct had slots to fill. That meant several people went home disappointed that night, and very possibly gave up trying to participate in party affairs. As the precinct chair that year, there was nothing I could do about that, but knowing the party rules didn't make me feel any better about the situation.

Last December the state party rectified that situation. The State Democratic Executive Committee voted to do away with the precinct conventions (which is no great loss in my opinion). Now anyone who votes in the Democratic Primary (which is the way you identify yourself with a party in Texas) can attend the county/ senatorial district convention. Senatorial district conventions are held in counties that have more than one senatorial district, while county conventions are held in counties that are wholly in one senatorial district.

I like this change -- a lot! It will allow more party members to participate in the party's affairs, at least on the county level -- and that's a good thing. Members who are allowed to participate in party decisions are much more likely to work for and/or donate their time and money to the party. And that's very valuable for a party trying to rebuild itself.

The party has also made it easier for party members to register for convention attendance. They have created a website where party members can pre-register for the county/senatorial district convention. Those who pre-register on the website will only have to sign their name when they show up at the convention (and will avoid the normal paperwork required for the convention). But even those who do not pre-register can still attend the convention (as long as they voted in the Democratic Primary) -- they will just have to fill out some paperwork when they arrive.

I hope all of my fellow Potter County Democrats (and Democrats throughout the state) will take advantage of this rule change, and join in the activities at the county (or senatorial district) convention. You will be welcomed with open arms.

Public Attitudes On The Senate Filibuster

The filibuster is a tradition in the Senate. But until recently, it is a tradition that was rarely used. That was because senators knew that the Senate was supposed to be a majority-rule institution, and the filibuster (which requires 60 votes to stop) was only to be used in extreme cases. That is no longer the case.

After the election of President Obama, the Republicans met and decided to use every tool at their disposal to obstruct anything the president tried to do -- including the filibuster. And they have done that. They have used the filibuster more than any Senate in the past -- much more. They have abused the filibuster tradition. They have used it simply to obstruct -- blocking all the president's nominees for executive and judicial positions, and blocking efforts to fix the economy and create jobs. They just didn't want the president to get credit for any positive accomplishment.

Recently the Senate Democrats finally had their fill of this obstruction of presidential nominees, and they used the so-called "nuclear option" to change Senate rules. This allows judicial and executive nominees to get an up or down vote by requiring only 51 votes to invoke cloture and stop a filibuster (but kept in place the 60 vote requirement for filibusters against Supreme Court nominees and legislation) -- a reasonable move that preserves the filibuster for important items (which it traditionally was intended for), but allows the government to fill jobs that are badly needed.

The Republicans are angry though. They don't like this tool of obstruction removed, and they have been trying to paint the Democratic move as a "grab for power" -- a power play designed to deny the GOP a voice in government. This is ridiculous, but it does bring up the following question -- what does the public think about the filibuster and the "nuclear option"?

A new Economist/YouGov Poll tried to answer that question. Their survey was done between November 23rd and 25th of 1,000 nationwide adults, and has a margin of error of 3.8 points.

It turns out that the American public is not nearly as enamored with the filibuster as the senators are. Equal amounts (34%) believe the filibuster is a good thing and a bad thing, and 32% either don't care or don't know what to think about it. And the same is true of the invoking of the "nuclear option". While 35% disapprove of that, another 65% are not that upset by it -- with 30% approving of it, 16% neither approving nor disapproving, and 19% unsure what to think.

There is one thing about the filibuster that a significant majority of Americans do agree on. About 75% (or three out of every four) say if a senator does filibuster, it should be a "talking filibuster" (with that senator being required to be present and participate until the filibuster is over). Only 17% think a senator should be able to filibuster without being physically present.

Warren Defends Use Of "Nuclear Option"

Last week the Democrats in the U.S. Senate reached their breaking point. They decided something must be done to stop the GOP obstruction of the president's nominees for judicial and executive positions, so they invoked the so-called "nuclear option". While that nickname implies this is some terrible and earth-shattering move, all it really does is allow a filibuster of those nominees to be ended with only 51 votes (so the Senate can give those nominees an up or down vote, as intended by the Constitution).

Of course the Republicans are howling and whining as though the world is coming to an end. They will no longer be able to block these presidential nominees just because they don't like the president. To defeat a nominee, they will now have to come up with a valid reason why the person is not qualified for the position he/she has been nominated to fill.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) has sent a message to her supporters defending the new Senate rule. Here is what she has to say:

Last Thursday was a historic day in the Senate.

Not because we reached yet another historic low in our dysfunction and inability to get anything done. But because we drew a line in the sand and said enough is enough.


The Democrats voted to change the Senate's filibuster rules to make sure that the Senate can function and complete its constitutionally required duty to advise on – and consent to – Presidential nominations.


Tens of thousands of people in our online community signed our petition to give the DC Circuit Court of Appeals nominees an up-or-down vote. By speaking out and helping us spotlight this problem, we helped make change possible.


And I also want to give a big thanks to two senators: Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Tom Udall of New Mexico. They've been the ones leading the fight for filibuster reform from the very beginning, and they made this big victory possible.


I know some people are concerned about what filibuster reform means if Democrats lose control of the White House or the Senate. I'm concerned too. But I believe that the result of yesterday's vote will be a government and a democracy that functions better for all of us – no matter who is President. Our courts and government agencies simply can't stop working just because we don't like the political party in charge.  


It may be ok with the Anarchy Gang in the House if the government doesn't work, but it's not ok with me. Government matters, and we need it fully staffed.


Last year, Republicans tried to win the Presidency. They lost by 5 million votes. We have a Democratic President who, under the US Constitution, is responsible for nominating people to head executive agencies and to fill judicial vacancies. Under the Constitution, the Senate is responsible for voting on those nominations.   


What the Republicans cannot do – what they have no right to do – is to systematically prevent the President's nominees from ever seeing up-or-down votes in an attempt to run out the clock until 2016, or 2020, or 2024, or whenever they think they can win the Presidency and the Senate again.

Last week's filibuster reform vote was an important turning point for the United States Senate. But in order to keep making progress on the nominees and issues we care about, it's more important than ever that we keep control of the Senate in 2014.

We elect leaders and expect them to be able to run our government. Today, we're better able to do our jobs – and get back to work to level the playing field for working families.

Deny Defense Department Funds To Texas

The state of Texas has a recent history of shooting itself in the foot so they can play politics -- by refusing to abide by federal guidelines. They refused to accept the new education standards, and lost hundreds of millions of dollars in federal education funds. They banned Planned Parenthood from receiving government funding, and lost 90% of the funding for women's clinics (resulting in the closing of dozens of clinics that provided the only medical care many poor women could get). And they passed up many billions of federal dollars by refusing to expand Medicaid (even though the state has the highest percentage of uninsured citizens).

None of this has resulted in any tax savings for the state's citizens. They pay just as much in taxes as they would if the state got those billions of dollars it has lost -- they just don't get the benefit of those federal dollars. But for the Republicans running the state, scoring political points with their teabagger base is more important than providing needed services for citizens.

Now the state is doing it again -- snubbing the federal government by refusing to follow the rules. This time it is Defense Department guidelines they are refusing to follow. When the Supreme Court overturned the DOMA, ruling it an unconstitutional denial of equal rights for those in same-sex marriages, the Defense Department announced they would now provide the same benefits to all married couples -- whether in a same-sex or opposite-sex marriage (as long as the couples had a valid marriage license).

But Texas officials have decided they will not comply with the new guidelines for members of the Texas National Guard (even though they get most of their funding from the Defense Department, and are supposed to comply with Defense Department rules and regulations). Major General John F. Nichols (pictured above), the Adjutant General of all Texas military forces (including the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard) says the Texas National Guard will refuse to register same-sex couples for military benefits -- because state law forbids the marriage of same-sex couples. And he has the backing of Texas Governor Rick Perry.

This is ridiculous. No one is asking the state of Texas to allow same-sex marriages to be conducted in the state (although it is something they should be doing). They are simply asking the state to comply with Defense Department guidelines for couples who have been legally married -- and the state doesn't have the authority to "un-marry" those who have been legally married in other states (regardless of where they now live).

Making the matter even more ludicrous is the fact that other states with right-wing Republican governments (like Oklahoma, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, etc.) are complying with the new Defense Department guidelines -- and don't see it as an abrogation of their own state laws banning same-sex marriages.

It is time for the federal government to once again remind the state that accepting federal dollars means they must follow federal rules -- and no state, not even Texas, can ignore those rules (or the Constitution). If Texas continues to ignore the constitutional guidelines of the Defense Department by discriminating against some soldiers in the Texas National Guard, then I believe the federal dollars going to that organization should be withheld until they agree to comply with the new guidelines. Defense Department funds (or any other federal dollars) should not be sent to an organization that won't follow the rules.

If Texas wants to discriminate against its own soldiers, it should not be able to do so with U.S. government dollars. Let the Republican government in Austin pay for their own bigotry.

Dems Surrender To GOP On Filibuster

(The cartoon above is by Gary Varvel in the Indianapolis Star.)

As we all know, the United States Senate has been in a state of gridlock for the last few years. Although the Democrats had a majority in that legislative body, they have been unable to even get their bills to the Senate floor, let alone to a vote. This is because of the Republicans abuse of the filibuster. They have chosen to filibuster nearly every single bill, making it impossible to pass any bill without a super-majority of 60 votes (the number required to end a filibuster).

This was never the intention of the Founding Fathers, who never included a filibuster option in the Constitution. They wanted Senate bills to be decided by a majority vote -- not a super-majority. The filibuster is a rule passed by the senators themselves, and could have been changed by senators when considering rules at the beginning of the 113th Congress. And for a while, it looked like real change might come -- a change that would prevent the Republicans from obstructing anything the Democrats tried to do.

We even heard tough talk from Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). He said there would be significant change in the filibuster in this new Congress, and even threatened to use the so-called "nuclear option" (changing the rules with a simple majority of 51 votes) to get the needed change. But the Majority Leader was lying. There were good proposals for changing the filibuster rule from Senators Harkin (D-Iowa) and Merkley (D-Oregon), but Reid did not push for the adoption of either of these excellent proposals -- instead opting to accept a "compromise" (surrender) proposal.

That "compromise" made very little change to the rules. It does allow some minor appointments to be dealt with more quickly, and guarantees the Republicans have an opportunity to submit at least two amendments to any bill brought to the floor (which they should have already had the right to do) -- but it doesn't go much farther. It still allows the Republicans to filibuster (without actually having to keep the floor and do a talking filibuster) any bill they want (and you can bet they'll do that after their amendments are defeated). This "compromise" means it will still require 60 votes to pass any bill in the Senate.

That means there will still be gridlock in the Senate -- and the chance of getting important legislation on job creation, gun restrictions, immigration reform, and other issues is now almost nonexistent. If these bills could pass the Senate, they would go to a conference committee where a compromise might be worked out with the House. But if they are filibustered in the Senate (and required to get 60 votes), then the chance of any compromise resulting in a new law grows much dimmer.

Besides Majority Leader Reid, the other Democratic architects of this surrender to the Republicans are Senators Levin (Michigan), Schumer (New York), Pryor (Arkansas), and Cardin (Maryland). In my opinion, these cowards deserve the scorn of progressives everywhere.

GOP Senator Admonished By Ethics Comm.

The Senate Ethics Committee has publicly admonished ultra-right-wing Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma). It seems that Coburn didn't think the senate rules applied to him. Three years ago, the Senate banned the aide of former-Senator Ensign (Doug Hampton) from doing any lobbying. In spite of the ban, Ensign held a meeting and discussed business with Hampton.

The Oklahoman's website said Coburn's action was not a violation of federal law or of senate rules. But while it probably isn't a violation of law, I have to think it was a violation of senate rules. After all, if it's not a violation of senate rules to meet with a banned lobbyist and discuss business, then what's the point of banning lobbyists in the first place.

The Ethics Committee considered it a violation of something, saying the meeting was "improper conduct" and didn't meet the "higher standards expected of a U.S. senator". The public admonishment was the least serious penalty the committee could have leveled against Coburn.

Personally, I think Coburn got off light. He knew the Senate had banned Hampton from doing any lobbying, and showed a disregard for the Senate action by openly violating the ban. He knew better and just didn't care.

It's Time To Change Senate Filibuster Rule

The right of the minority party in the United States to filibuster is an old and honored tradition, and until the last 20 years or so, it was one that was seldom used. For most of our nation's history the senators of both parties have believed it was a move that should only be rarely used, and then only in the most important cases. That is no longer the case.

Since losing the White House in 2008, the right-wing Republicans have turned the filibuster into a tool of obstruction -- to be used to block anything the president and the majority party tried to do, from bills to appointments (even those passed out of committee with Republican support). The idea was that if they could block everything the Democrats and the president tried to do, then they could accuse them of incompetence and voters would return the GOP to power.

By filibustering everything, the Republicans have made the Senate an institution that requires 60 votes to pass anything (instead of a simple majority as in the past). This means nothing can be accomplished, and that is the primary reason why the filibuster rules must be changed. It is simply wrong for a minority party to be able to gridlock the government.

When the last Congress was sworn in, the Democrats had the chance to change this (since Senate rules at the start of a session require only a majority vote and cannot be filibustered). And change was proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon). They proposed that a series of cloture votes could be held, with the number of votes required to invoke cloture (the ending of a filibuster) going down each time until finally only a simple majority would be needed.

But they could not persuade enough of their Democratic colleagues to go along with the proposal, especially Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). Reid  made a "deal" with the Minority Leader that the Republicans would stop abusing the filibuster rule if it was kept in place without changes. So the Democrats voted to keep it as it was -- and it took the Republicans about a nanosecond to break their promise. And the Republicans continue to misuse and abuse the filibuster to obstruct everything.

It looks like the Majority Leader has finally realized that he was conned by the Republicans, and is now ready to change the rules. After another cloture vote (which failed to get the needed 60 votes) the other day, he said:

“If there were ever a time when Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley were prophetic, it’s tonight. These two young, fine senators said it was time to change the rules of the Senate, and we didn’t. They were right. The rest of us were wrong — or most of us, anyway. What a shame.”

“If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it’s the filibuster rules, because it’s been abused, abused, abused.”


Majority Leader Reid is right. The Republican abuse of the filibuster rule is way out of hand, and the point has been reached where it must be changed. Hopefully, the Democrats can return a majority to the Senate after this next election -- and then change Senate rules to take care of this problem. There is simply too much that needs to be done to allow the Republicans to continue their obstructionism.

U.S. Violates Iraqi Airspace With Drones

It seems like the United States still thinks it can do anything it wants in Iraq -- in spite of the fact that troops have been withdrawn and the occupation of that country has ended. Now the U.S. is flying surveillance drones over Iraq. Instead of the military or the CIA, the normal drone operators, these new drones over Iraq are being operated by the U.S. State Department.

The drones are supposedly being used "as a protective measure", but they are clearly a violation of Iraqi airspace and is being done without permission from Iraqi officials. The State Department says it is in the process of negotiating an agreement with Iraq to allow the flights, but Iraqi officials deny this. They say they have not been contacted at all about the drones being flown over their territory, and they don't like it at all. Adnan al-Asadi, the minister of the interior, says, "Our sky is our sky, not the U.S.A.'s sky."

Of course, that official is absolutely right. The United States should not be flying drones (or any other aircraft) over another country without permission from that country. Does anyone think the United States would allow another country to fly surveillance drones over the U.S.? Of course not!. The FBI would put a stop to it in a heartbeat, and the violators would either go to jail or be deported -- and might even be sent to Guantanamo as terrorists. And whatever we wouldn't allow a country to do over here, we should not be doing in another country.

The U.S. likes to brag about treating other countries with respect, but all too often our government acts like there are two sets of rules -- one for us and another for everyone else. It is this kind of lack of regard for the rights of others that makes us look like "ugly Americans" to the rest of the world. We need to stop this kind of behavior, and cease the drone flights immediately. We should exhibit the same kind of behavior we expect from other countries.

Why Does Perry Get To break The Rules ?

You may have heard by now that Texas Governor Rick Perry has become a "double-dipper" -- someone who collects both a salary and a retirement pension from the state. Last January, the governor "retired" and began receiving about $7500.00 a month in a retirement annuity -- in addition to his $150,000 a year salary as governor.

When this became known publicly (thanks to a financial disclosure form that presidential candidates must submit), Perry's aides were quick to point out that he had done nothing illegal. A quirk of Texas law allows any person who's age and years of state service add up to 80 to retire and begin collecting their pension. They may then be rehired by the state if their boss considers it to be in the best interests of the state. Perry is not the first "double-dipper" and certainly won't be the last.

But that does not mean he didn't break the rules that are in place for retirees. Unless the governor doesn't have to obey the same rules that all other state employees must abide by, there are a couple of regulations that he seems to have ignored.

1. No employee can access his retirement pension until he has been out of government service for a minimum of 90 days. Anyone who returns to working for the state before 90 days will not receive his pension annuity. I know this is the law because I worked for the state of Texas for over 25 years, and when I retired my pension annuity did not start for 90 days.

2. There is no special right to return to government service, even after waiting the 90 days. It is up to the returnee's boss as to whether he/she will be rehired or not.

This naturally brings up a couple of questions. When did the governor retire serve the 90 day waiting period before returning to work for the state? Frankly, I don't remember him doing this at all. And when after his retirement did his bosses (the people of Texas) rehire him? Wouldn't that have required an election? I don't remember any election to restore a retired governor to power.

It seems quite obvious that Perry doesn't think he needs to abide by the rules the legislature and retirement system have put in place for state employees. Why not? Do we really want our governor to have special privileges to avoid obeying the rules and laws that everyone else must obey?