Bethejustin.com

In college I actually minored in political science and even before that I've always been kind of a poli-sci nerd. Essentially that means generally interested/fascinated in how the structures of of government actually produce policy and the effects of the structure and process on the quality of that policy.

Since it is 2010 I will just assume that everyone on the planet has by now heard that last night the United States House or Representatives passed a Healthcare Reform Bill. In fact technically it was the previously passed Senate version of the bill. Which brings us to our first piece of interesting maneuvering. How did is it that the House just passes the Senate bill and it become law? Isn't there usually two versions and a conference bill?

Typically yes the House and Senate will often produce their own versions of a bill and then the differences between those must be cleared up in conference committee. In this case House leaders decided they could get the Senate Bill passed and since the passed the exact verbatim Senate Bill no conference required straight to the President's desk.

Yesterday I spent much of the evening (see I said I was a nerd) watching CSPAN's coverage of the House floor and I have to say it was fairly fascinating to watch the maneuvering, strategy, and calculation that goes on in something as "simple" as managing floor time. Rules are created giving each party an allotted amount of time to slice up as they choose to allow their members to speak on a bill. What's interesting is when that time dwindles you will see a particular side reserve their time in an attempt to sort of get the last word or make the other side speak. There was very obviously some calculations going on on both sides.

Another interesting moment was around the normally fairly generic so-called "unanimous consent agreements" these can be used for a host of things but they are one way to allow a member to insert their speech into the record when the party doesn't have floor time for all members to give speeches. Yesterday you saw certain members of both sides attempt to use the request as a mini speech and insert their own commentary into the request. The chair of course was having none of that and anything deemed to be oratory in nature would be charged back to that parties allotment of time.

Of course there were numerous attempt to restore order to the chamber, parliamentary inquiries, reminders to heed the gavel when a member's time expires, stay out of the well/aisle during speeches, no doubt the chair (the person who stands up top and serves as the presiding officer of the chamber during debate, the position typically rotates among junior members) was busy yesterday for sure. At one point there was even a moment where a Democrat made a speech and the Republicans felt that the other side was making unfair accusations about the conduct so they had the Clerk actually review the member's words to see if any untrue accusations had been made. Eventually the member withdrew his remarks to clear the impasse none the less another of the arcane procedures you see pulled out of the quiver for intense debates like this.

As for the content of the bill itself there were numerous accusations about various kick-backs, bribes, pork, on and on that went into the bill. I think that we need to remember that the way the actual system is setup in fact encourages these practices of incentivising a particular state for example to vote a certain way. As the federal government has grown in size, influence and power in the modern era the States have tended to feel their power and influence weaken. Congress has become a place where they can still make their influence known. If your state's representative or senator wields considerable influences (as they no doubt will if they have been around for decades) that leverage can be used to secure all kinds of different things for a particular state. This is the nature of federalism and the tug of war between the interest of the states and the interests of the federal government.

Unless we alter the system itself these practices will never change. Yes the process is ugly, loud, and particualr obnoxious (which is to say nothing of the deplorable level of civil discourse in this country when we have to restore to racial slurs, outbursts, and spitting on our elected officials) but at the end of the day the benchmark must be does the end product do more harm than good? This was in fact the goal of the framers the structure of Congress is actually designed to slow the process of creating policy down to a grinding snails pace by design. Given he very nature that we have, relative to most systems, strong states the process of making law will always require some give and take. Show me a major piece of legislation that hasn't included various add-ons and hasn't on the whole been essentially a giant compromise. You can argue that you don't like how the process works but that is how it works and how it was designed to work.

Was this compromise worth it? From what I've read I generally have to believe that yes it was. It's astonishing that this country has remained the only democracy on the planet not to provide its citizens with affordable health care. No one should die, or be bankrupt out of their home, due to procedural hurdles. This law forbids insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, it also eliminates lifetime caps on total spending on care. I believe those two things alone will save lives, and one life saved should be enough is those to changes are proven out thousands will likely be saved.

We can debate the bill on its merits but as ugly as the process maybe the fact is that it does work as designed passage of this bill is proof of that. Which isn't to say changes to the process couldn't or shouldn't be made. For example I generally favor term limits on members of Congress in both houses but that is probably another post. 

I don't claim to be an expert or have all the answers just a poli-sci geek geeking out a bit.

One of my favorite songs from a band called "the American Tragedy" has a line "Take one good last look at American, it might not be here for too far long." [iTunes]  After look at this article from Yahoo about a recently conducted poll by CBS News I can't help but wonder if we're getting a fairly alarming, if accurate, last look at what was once America.  I encourage you to read the full article, it's not that long, but I thought I'd highlight a few of the findings I found particuarly intersting.

First up this gem:

Half the respondents of a new poll say taxing the richest Americans by at least 50 percent is a great idea, while more than a third consider Twitter a fad that will likely fade.

I don't think it's a huge secret I'm in favor of progresive tax structures however even I would say that 50% is a bit much. As far as the tidbit about one of my favorite services, Twitter, I don't think this is a huge surprise. I suspect there is a huge swatch of America that will just never get Twitter, perhaps an equally big group who will never use it just because its 'the thing,' and while that makes me sad deep inside I don't think there's much that can be done about it. Nothing too Earth shattering so far.

Let's move on shall we?

Nearly half of the respondents chose Wal-Mart as the institution that best symbolizes America today, leaving in the dust runners-up Google, Microsoft, the NFL, and the banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs.

Indeed nothing says American like "God Bless America" lawn signs made in China does it? I suppose it would be a toss up between that and people in helmets tackling each other for a couple hours every Monday night. Definetely those two, definetely not innovative inventions, products and services that provide access to information in ways not possible before. For those of you playing long a home you can check heavy sarcasm off your list (or if you're over 21 take one drink, responsibly).

And now for something truly shocking.

Obama was edged out by George Clooney (24 percent to 26 percent) among respondents choosing "which man they would most like to trade places with for a week," followed by Tom Brady and Bruce Springsteen.

But among woman, First Lady Michelle Obama was the favorite, chosen by 26 percent, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton picked by 16 percent, actress Angelina Jolie by 13 percent and singer Beyonce

What we learn here is something that we've known all along, women are smarter than men. Come on guys we might be loathe to admit it but push comes to shove let's me realistic.

So there you have it folks a look at what passes for America in 2009. Scary perhaps but I can't shake the feeling, while it might be a queasy one, it's a pretty accurate look at where America is right now. Remember this is the same country where less than a 1/3 of people say they believe in evolution. The country that once upon a time looked west and built a railroad, looked to the stars and put a man on the moon, was ravaged by disease and sought to cure it.

I didn't always view Ted Kennedy with the respect he commands from me now. I once shared the cynical view that many have of him. Of course I always respected and admired his brother John because of his involvement with the space program but Teddy would grow on me. Part of that was due to the respect and education by a former girlfriend and Massachusetts native, and part of it is I began to follow Ted Kennedy and politics in general more closely during the years surrounding the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

But I think what most endeared Ted Kennedy to me were his speeches on the Senate floor. No one could give a more impassioned speech in the well of that chamber than Ted Kennedy his face turning red, fist pounding the podium in front of him and hands waving. It was really something to behold even on TV. It was then that I realized he was a true believer everything else you might believe about him they weren't just words or names to him they were people without equal rights, or workers without a fair wage, or health care (his life-long cause now left unfulfilled), or soldiers who had died in an unjust war. Whatever the issue Ted Kennedy was a forceful voice more often than not on the side of those of far less means than himself. Having just become a Massachusetts resident myself I was looking forward to the opportunity to vote for a Kennedy though I may still get the chance we shall see.

Whatever your political background or beliefs the Senate and indeed the country are a lesser place without him. I was struck by these words from his family's public statement on his passing...

He always believed that our best days were still ahead, but it’s hard to imagine any of them without him.

The Senate's "liberal lion" is gone. Rest in Peace Senator Kennedy.

I can't say how emphatically I agree with this "New Rule" from Bill Maher. Essentially Bill is saying what I have been saying for a good few months now and everyone has been so shocked and taken a back by. It's time for the Obamas to stop acting like they are filming "The Real First Family of D.C." and start acting like they are the REAL FIRST FAMILY!! Who's role by the way should be to serve as a role model for the rest of the country.

As Bill said how hard is it for the president to pick up the phone and order a cheese burger? You know what I'm going to say that at the White House probably not that hard. An even better illustration of this is something that's been under my skin for a while. Okay I understand you know an eight year old has a birthday you throw them a party. Here's what that means to the real Americans that at one point and time the Obamas were claiming to represent, it means you go down to the party store and you buy some Hanna Montana napkins, cups, party favors, etc. and maybe you order a cake in the shape of a microphone with Miley Cyrus on it in on. Here's what it most definitely does not mean for the millions of Americans trying to get by with two increasingly less secure incomes, it doesn't mean that you whisk that eight year old away on a private jet to Paris and then to a special birthday party on the set of a major motion picture and then have the star of said motion picture attend the party.

Many have said to me, "who cares they're entitled to their life." Well here's the thing they are entitled to that life yes up to a point and that point is the point where it becomes extravagance. Part of the mystique behind the popularity of the Obamas and indeed President Obama is that people felt like they were just normal upper middle class family...that they were real. They were best suited to represent us because they were us...except not so much now.

Obama's slogan was "Yes WE can." Where is the WE now? THEY get fly to Paris for the weekend, THEY get a private motorcade to Five Guys, THEY get to steal away to New York with a private jet an motorcade, THEY get Hollywood stars attending their children's birthday.

So what do WE get? WE get a failing auto industry, WE get ever more crippling healthcare costs, WE get a world with the number of nuclear powers on the rise, WE get two wars, WE get to watch those we know fight and die in those wars, WE get to work ever harder and be thankful we have jobs, WE get to watch financial scandal after financial scandal, WE get to be the bail out.

WE fought for HIM now he must fight for us!!