Posts tagged with: United States Senate

After nearly 13 hours of speaking in an attempt to stall the confirmation of CIA Director nominee John Brennan, Sen. Rand Paul ended his filibuster. The filibuster is a grandiose method of legislative stalling, requiring the speaker to hold the floor, talking the entire time and not sitting down. In essence, one tries to talk a bill to death. The most famous fictitious depiction of the filibuster is probably is Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.

Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"

Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”

Paul Rand, as are many other Republicans, is concerned with the use of drones overseas, and believe that President Obama has not been forth-coming in his answers regarding the CIA program.

For most of the time, Paul squarely placed blame on the president for what he perceived a dangerous precedent in federal law. The Kentucky senator was quick to make comparisons between President Obama and candidate Obama.

“I think it’s also safe to say that Barack Obama of 2007 would be right down here with me arguing against this drone strike program if he were in the Senate,” he said. “It amazes and disappoints me how much he has actually changed from what he once stood for.”

Obama said there’s something “contagious” about the office of presidency and cited the famous quote by John Dalberg-Acton.

“It’s not just power corrupts, but that ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’,” Paul said. “I think people can become intoxicated with power. I don’t know if that’s the explanation for President Obama’s about-face. He was one, when he was in this body believed, in some restraint.”

Just before 1 a.m. Thursday, Rand ended his filibuster:

Repeatedly, Mr. Paul explained that his true goal was simply to get a response from the administration saying it would not use drone strikes to take out American citizens on United States soil.

President Obama wants his American Jobs Act passed immediately. You know this already—he made sure he delivered that message in his speech: “Pass this jobs plan right away” was his refrain. President Obama has definitely not read the Federalist Papers in a while. If he had, he would not be encouraging Congress to pass half-a-trillion dollars of new spending at a moment’s notice.

Congress is not a quick-strike team, and the Senate especially is not designed to be a rapidly responsive body. James Madison explained in Federalist #62 that it is to be slow and deliberative, because “mutable government” is ineffective and dangerous.

What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes [under the Articles of Confederation], but so many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the people, of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted senate?…

To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume…. It poisons the blessing of liberty.

The president’s urgency is understandable—he wants desperately to help the economy, and it could use help. It was announced today that the poverty rate is higher than it has been in 28 years, that the median household income has fallen, and that the number of people with health insurance has fallen. In his jobs speech, the president asked Congress to put political games aside, saying,

The next election is 14 months away. And the people who sent us here—the people who hired us to work for them—they don’t have the luxury of waiting 14 months. Some of them are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck, even day to day. They need help, and they need it now.

The irony may be painful, but President Obama was begging assistance from a body designed to fail him. And if Congress does pass something, the rich will be much more able to take advantage of the unintended consequences of the bill—as Madison put it:

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people.

Nobody actually expects relief for the poor from the Jobs Act, because economic growth isn’t generated by money taken out of the hands of productive businesses and entrepreneurs. (Google “cost of stimulus jobs” for a dark laugh.) It takes time to build up a business that contributes to the economy—Americans don’t really believe that 20th century progressives discovered the secret of warp speed, government-catalyzed growth.

In the mean time, who takes care of those who live “week to week” and “day to day?” Private institutions, of course (see Acton’s Principles for Budget Reform): churches and local charities and other groups that are equipped to provide assistance in less than 14 months. As Bruce Walker explained in an Acton Commentary last Christmas,

If one relies on government programs to help the poor, how can one be blamed for asserting “I gave at the office” rather than ponying up at the Salvation Army drum or the church collection basket, or buying a Christmas goose for the laid-off father of the family at the end of the block?

It’s getting too easy to pick on this administration.

Blog author: lglinzak
posted by on Thursday, August 11, 2011

Rumors are flying about a possible hearing involving Standard & Poor’s. It is believed the Senate Banking Committee is gathering information on the credit rating agency. Disgruntled over the loss of the government’s AAA rating, the rumored investigation is believed to be sparked by Treasury Department officials claiming that S&P’s judgment was affected by an error that overstated national debt projections by $2 trillion. And in the House, a few Republicans are wondering about talks S&P executives had with Treasury officials.

What is also being discussed as justification for a possible investigation is S&P’s, along with other rating agencies, failure to accurately rate mortgage securities which contributed to the housing bubble. The logic behind such an argument reflects a flawed train of thought, for surely if S&P  failed to rate mortgage securities they didn’t correctly rate the U.S. government.

It appears, based upon actions, that the government hasn’t learned anything from the recent downgrade. Instead of taking responsibility, elected officials are looking for a scapegoat and have decided to place the blame on S&P.

As Samuel Gregg explains in, “Down on the Downgrade?” S&P’s failure to accurately rate mortgage securities shouldn’t dismiss the obvious, which is the United State’s  inability to meet its fiscal obligations resulting in its credit downgrade:

There are many reasons to be cynical about ratings agencies. These are, after all, the same outfits that assured us collateralized-debt-obligation markets were doing fine just before they started imploding in 2007–2008. Their slowness in warning about the fading creditworthiness of corrupt entities such as Enron and government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a matter of record.

That said, Standard & Poor’s decision to downgrade America’s creditworthiness shouldn’t surprise us. It simply states in a pseudo-official kind of way what everyone — citizens, investors, politicians, and maybe even Paul Krugman — already knows: The failure of Washington’s neo-Keynesian policies combined with the long-term projections for entitlement-spending have lowered confidence in the U.S.’s ability to meet its fiscal obligations.

The surprise that many in the government are showing by the U.S. credit downgrade is appalling. S&P published reports clearly articulating the fiscal policy that was needed in order for the government to preserve its AAA rating which included $4 trillion in savings (the budget includes only abut half of that in cuts). Furthermore, in a report released on August 5th, S&P doesn’t just blame the lack of savings but describes  how entitlement spending is a problem:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

There are clear policy options the government needs to pursue if it wishes to return to fiscal health, and it should be of no surprise that such policies involve fiscal stewardship.

Instead of being humbled by the government’s loss of its triple AAA credit rating and learning from their mistakes, the politicians in Washington have chosen to sit on the sidelines. The lack of leadership in such a crucial time is astounding. Politicians are continuing down the path which brought them to this state: blaming others instead of accepting responsibility. It is time for some humility in Washington. Politicians need to admit to their mistakes and become leaders set on bringing America back on course.

Blog author: mvandermaas
posted by on Friday, June 15, 2007

Sometimes you come across a story that’s so powerful that it DEMANDS to be posted. This is one such story:

“Usually, if a turd gets into the Senate, it’s because he or she was elected,” Emily Heil reports for Roll Call. “But on Wednesday, several large piles of actual, nonmetaphorical ‘No. 2′ found their way into the Capitol, and the source isn’t yet clear.”

It was the first sentence that got me.