Failure by Filibuster

It’s the end of the year and a good time to take stock of what we’ve accomplished over the last year. What were you hoping the Democratically-controlled Senate would have accomplished in 2007?

• Addressing global warming and energy independence?
  
• Universal healthcare?
  
• Closing the income gap?

If you had your heart set on any of these priorities, you must feel mightily disappointed. You might wonder why Congress didn’t do more. Well, the answer can be found in a simple set of numbers - 49, 51, 60, 62, 110, 134, 1973, and 2008.

There are currently 49 Republicans and 51 Democrats in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to override a filibuster (technically, vote for cloture), which the Republicans used an unprecedented 62 times to block all business in the Senate. In fact the 110th Congress is on a record-setting trajectory to force a cloture vote 134 times, the most since the cloture option was implemented in 1973. Well, there’s a cure for that – vote your priorities in 2008.

The graph below, from an article published by the Campaign for America’s Future, puts the blame squarely where it belongs on the shoulders of the Republicans and their strategy of Block and Blame.




According to Block and Blame: The Conservative Strategy of Obstruction in the 110th Congress, “So far in just the first session of the 110th Congress, Republicans have required cloture votes against filibusters 62 times. The Republicans are on pace to force 134 cloture votes, more than double the recent historical average…”

Did you get that? The Republicans are using the power of the filibuster to choke the legislative process. Republicans promised to end gridlock and instead they delivered roadblocks. They promised bipartisan cooperation. Instead they gave us partisan obstructionism

Call it what you will – Roadblock Republicans, The Grand Obstruction Party, Failure by Filibuster – but in the end it’s the American people who pay the price for party politics.

We might have been let down by the Senate’s performance in 2007, but in 2008, it’s payback time. Vote for a president who represents your priorities and give him or her a Senate who will represent you, not party politics.

Score: Republicans 1, People negative 59.1 billion

It's interesting to watch the debate on the Alternative Minimum Tax…and by “interesting” I mean the same kind of detached dread that one must feel if one is awake in an operating room as one’s right hand is amputated.

In 2006 the freshly minted Congress, in an act of sanity restored the "pay-go." That’s the simple premise that if we are going to authorize spending money, we’ve got to figure out what we’re not going to spend somewhere else.

Spending money is about choices. This is a simple fact of life that you and I have to live by every day. If I buy the new iPod 16Gig Touch (at nearly $400), I am not going to go buy a new laptop this month…or groceries either, but that’s another story. In economics it’s known as opportunity cost. There are only so many resources to go around, and if we spend those resources in one place, we’ve got to figure out where we are not going to spend money.

Here are the sad facts that no one seems to be willing to say out loud. As I write these words, the US federal deficit is $9,176,331,074,081.58 ($9.2 trillion), and it continues to rise by over $1.5 billion per day. Oh, I forgot to add, if you include unfunded Social Security, Medicaid and other empty government promises, the actual debt is more like $59.1 trillion. Since there are 303,818,150 US citizens, that means that every man, woman, boy and girl you know owes $194,524.26. For a family of four, that means you owe $778,097.03 over and above the taxes you’re already paying.

Go find someone you love, look them in the eye and explain how you’re going to repay the $194,524.26 you owe. With all of the talk by the Republicans about “tax and spend” Democrats, it’s interesting that they are perfectly willing to be “deficit and spend” Republicans. And by “interesting,” I mean…well you know.

OK, so now we understand the situation. Perhaps that explains why the House of Representative insists that, to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), the money has to come from somewhere. No more deficit and spend.

But in the Senate, where the Republicans have used the power of the filibuster to block all business, a compromise was reached that fixes the AMT, but further runs up the debt. The House is stuck between their promise of fiscal responsibility and a hand grenade with the pin pulled. In the end the House will have no choice but to cave on this issue and fix the AMT without offsetting funds.

So, the Republicans are going to win the spin war. They’re going to make it look like the Democrats are the ones who are holding up your tax break while the deficit rises uncontrollably. Score that one, Republicans 1, the people 0…or more correctly, a negative $59.1 billion.

Who Really Supports the Troops?

In Congress representatives position themselves as supporting the troops while painting the other side as not supporting the troops. This verbal skirmish is just heating up. Between now and March 19th, the fourth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq the rhetoric will grow ever more shrill. Every word, every vote, every speech on the House or Senate floor is considered for how it will play in the next election advertisement. Energy is being spent on positioning the message while the troops are in the position of being in harms way.

Here’s one idea we can all agree on: The war in Iraq is a disaster. What has the Bush Administration told us about the War in Iraq?

• Our administration said the war would cost $50 billion dollars. So far it has cost over $365 billion and we’re adding billions more every month, even without an escalation of the war.
  
• They said there was an Al Qaeda connection with Iraq prior to 9-11. That was not true.
  
• The President said repeatedly that we would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We did not.
  
• The administration promised us we would have victory in 3 – 4 months and we would be out of Iraq in less than a year. On May 3, 2003, less than 2 months after the invasion of Iraq, President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln under a banner that declared “Mission Accomplished.” In fact, on March 19th, the US will mark the dark milestone of the 4th anniversary of the war in Iraq.
  
• We were told we would be greeted as liberators. More than 3,100 of our young men and women have died in Iraq. Another 23,417 have been physically wounded and thousands more suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Furthermore, according to Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA):

• The average weekly attacks [by insurgents in Iraq] have grown from 430 in July 2005 to well over 1000 today.
  
• Iraqi casualties have increased from 63 per day in October 2005 to over 127 per day.
  
• 91 percent of Sunni Iraqis and 74 percent of Shia Iraqis want the U.S. forces out of Iraq.
  
• In January 2006, 47 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S.-led forces. When the same polling question was asked just 8 months later, 61 percent of Iraqis approved of attacks on U.S-led forces.
  
• Less than 30 percent of Americans support the war and only 11 percent support the President’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq.
  
• A February 2006 poll showed that 72 percent of American troops serving in Iraq believed U.S. should exit Iraq within the year and 42 percent said their mission was unclear.

Now I have to admit that I’ve never served in the military and my voice might not mean as much. But here’s an interesting fellow, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. His credentials include a stint as the Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Regan. He was also a combat Marine in Vietnam where he was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts. You would think he has a perspective that most of us don’t when it comes to the argument about supporting our troops. So, what does he make of all of these non-binding resolutions and the debates over whether or not to debate?

"I know what that's like when you're sitting out on an infantry unit and seeing what you're doing interpreted politically. But ... it's an inverted political logic for people to basically say that we have to continue doing this for the good of the troops. We are not continuing this war for the troops. The troops are fighting this war on our behalf because we're continuing it. That's a vital distinction in the debate here."

The President has asked for $100 billion for Iraq on top of the $70 billion he has already requested for this year. He also asked for $145 billion for next year. All of this on top of the 11% increase he is seeking for the Pentagon, raising their budget to $481.4 billion.

Well, with money on the line, let’s see who really wants to support the troops. Murtha has said he wants to approve the funding the president has requested, but he wants to put some conditions on the funds. For example he has said:

1. You can’t send troops into battle until they have the equipment and the training that is required to do their jobs.
   
2. You can’t continue to extend troops overseas if they have been there more than 1 year. And when they do come home, he would like to allow them to stay home for a minimum of one year. Traditionally soldiers are allowed to stay home for two years, but in the current situation many troops are rotating back to battle after only six or seven months at home.
   
3. He wants to end the “stop loss” practice that allows the military to keep people in harms way even after their enlistment is over.
   
4. He does not want any of the funds spent to build permanent bases. A permanent base is a multi-decade commitment to support staffing and infrastructure. If Congress is going to appropriate funds, they should go to the troops.

If I were him, I would call this the “Troop Protection Act of 2007.” Keep in mind that there are no more troops to “surge,” so if we’re going to add 21,500 more troops to the theater, we’re going to have to extend the stay of those going over and we’re going to have to shorten the leave of those who are coming home. Also, you can’t add 21,500 troops without adding more support personnel. According to the Congressional Budget Office the actual surge will be more like 48,000 troops.

It seems to me that the proposal by Congressman Murtha is the best way to show support for the troops. If the president wants to surge, that’s fine. He’s the commander in chief, but he should not expect Congress to roll over and rubber stamp his proposal.

In essence, the President has asked us to trust him again and again. As for me, my trust bank account has been overdrawn by the current administration. It’s time for Congress to grow some backbone and to stand up for our troops. Let’s put some real conditions on funding that will show unwavering support for the troops.

Sip 'n' Spit

Have you ever seen a guy on a sitcom reading the paper while sipping coffee and then suddenly spray the coffee all over the place? Comedians call that a “sip and spit.” Well, this morning I did a sip and spit, 21st Century style.

I was searching Google News for articles about the pending legislation to allow the federal government to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare Part D. Just as I took a sip of my Starbucks, I spotted the name of the person who is leading the opposition to this common sense approach. As I was wiping the mocha from my monitor, I stared at the name of the leader of the opposition – Iowa’s own Senator Chuck Grassley. What in the world is my Senator doing opposing cheaper drugs?

Let’s start with this assumption. Reasonable people can disagree, so I’d like to give Senator Grassley the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming that Senator Grassley is in the pocket of “big pharma.” The article quotes Senator Grassley as saying “Federal price negotiations would unravel the whole structure of the Medicare drug benefit, which relies on competing private plans.” I’m not sure how Senator Grassley reached this conclusion. Is he saying that if we don’t let the drug companies have their way, they will collapse?

Interestingly, just below Senator Grassley’s quote in the article is this fact. “Families USA, a senior advocacy organization, released a study Tuesday that found that prices for the most commonly prescribed medications are an average 58 percent higher under Medicare prescription-drug plans than those paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.” That is because the VA is allowed to negotiate prices, while Medicare is not. So, doesn’t that point to the fact that, when we allow our government to use its massive buying power to negotiate on our behalf, we win?

This just seems like common sense, doesn’t it? You don’t have to be Warren Buffett to figure out that the government has massive buying power. If Wal-Mart can use its buying power to negotiate $4 prescriptions, shouldn’t our government be allowed to do the same thing on our behalf? How can cheaper drugs for seniors be a bad thing? Why would our Senator oppose such a common sense approach?

You know, now that I think of it, there might be a second reason to “sip and spit.” Have you ever sipped sour milk? When you sip something repulsive, you just naturally sip and spit. Maybe Iowans should sip this idea that negotiating better drug prices for seniors is a bad thing, and then spit it right out. This is an idea that we just can’t swallow.