It is entirely possible that Democrats will lose their 60 seat majority after Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts. In a normal world 59/100 seats would be a fantastic advantage. Of course, that was before it was clear that Republicans would refuse to negotiate on anything. Now it requires 60 votes for each and every issue. Biden has a good quote on the issue:
This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators. No democracy has survived needing a supermajority.
California plays by the same rules. Republican governor Ahhnold and the Democrats in control of the legislature have come to agreement on reducing the massive California budget deficit. The problem? Minority Republicans in the Assembly are able to stop it.
Biden's right: No democracy can survive needing a supermajority.
I thought I just read here RIP republican party? Now they win the next election, held in MA?? Strange!!!
ReplyDeleteI said the Republican party may be supplanted by the Tea Party. Today's pro-business/moderate social issue Republicans have nothing in common with the tea baggers who are taking over the Republican Party.
ReplyDeleteIn this post I said the Republican candidate in Massachusetts may win today's election.
They are two separate (and not contradictory) threads, but hey, I appreciate the comment.
Is it too much to ask that you sign your name? I made it as easy as possible to post comments on this blog. All I ask is that you sign your name.
I agree with the fact that a nation can't survive having a supermajority, but there is going to have to be some compromise involved. When a minority party locks arms and stalls things it is caused by unreasonableness on the majorities part (ie this exclusive meetings behind closed door business). You can always concede on some points to pick up a few votes. It was decided early on that the majority didn’t need the minority votes and they were not going to include them in the process. Remember McCain ran on heath reform too, and the ironic thing is he probably could have passed it.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot more irony surrounding what occurred last night but it's in the books. I watched Rachel Maddow last night on MSNBC claiming no one person was to blame for the loss except for GW Bush. Unbelievable!! I've heard that name repeatedly recently. Let's be clear: Obama didn't walk into green pastures, but at some point he needs to own it. The deflection of responsibility starts to sound real sour twelve months in.
Hate to say this to you Steve but I hope this harpoons health care, it was way too much at once. I have to believe it will, although I'm sure the leaders will want to shove it through (passing the Senate bill or otherwise), but I have the feeling there are going to be deflections as everyone up in 2010 starts to worry about themselves.
mtyler
It may well harpoon health care. I thought to myself this morning, "I guess I can live here until I'm 65. With my pre-existing conditions there's no chance I can move back to the US without a job in hand."
ReplyDeleteI do disagree with characterizing this as nationalized health care. I wish it WERE nationalized health care. This plan is all be private insurance, no government run system at all. There's nothing in the health care reform bill that seems all that radical and I don't understand the opposition.
And, I didn't see the Maddow program you are referring to, but I'm glad to know you are watching her. In the six weeks since I've had no cable she's the only one I'm missing.
ReplyDeleteIts not a habit, but I always flip to MSNBC during the Fox News commercials to see what the "other side" is saying. mtyler
ReplyDeleteThere are so many people out there who do NOT spend $6 on a latte, own Louis V. purses, drive a new car, own 100 Wii games and have a hard time with health care. Try having a child with a disability who does not qualify for Medicaid because his disability isn't "serious" enough but yet still requires a lot of money spent on therapies because otherwise he might not be a productive citizen when he grows up - which means he will either fall through the cracks and/or end up with having to be supported fully by the government after his parents die.
ReplyDeleteOur two vehicles are from 2000 and 2002. We have two because our jobs are in different directions. We do have a decent house so that we can live in a community that does a good job of educating my kids. We are not rich by any means but we make a good income - yet health care is a huge part of what we spend on. Often, we don't go to the doctor as often as we should because our insurance is terrible and we have to pay out of pocket for most everything.
I don't feel I'm responsible for everyone - but I have always been of the mind that I will help others. And if that means caring about whether others are able to afford healthcare, count me in! There are thousands of people who truly can't afford it and it is not because of poor budgeting. This economy has affected so many people who were just surviving until things crashed. Now there are a lot more people just barely surviving.
There are always people who have poor judgment or poor budgeting skills. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't help people, in my opinion. But that is also where parties seem to divide. If we take an "it's all about me" attitude and only care about ourselves, I feel very sorry for where this country will head.