The filibuster is dead. Long live majority rule.
Senate Republican leaders tripped the switch Thursday after Democrats vowed to filibuster the confirmation of Neill Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and executed the rule that a super-majority will be required to end debate on the Senate floor.
The filibuster had been rarely used in Supreme Court nominations, but these are rare times, and Democrats had enough votes to stop the nomination with more than 40 votes pledged to force the traditional, 60-vote super-majority to end debate over the nomination. Frustrated by this barricade, Republicans vowed to destroy one of the most hallowed traditions of the Senate, the liberty to continue debate indefinitely so long as a substantial minority of senators allowed such a delay.
Republicans had a nominee in Gorsuch who was as moderate as any Republican nominee could be expected to be. He was well qualified and well respected. In an ideal world, judges like Gorsuch would be confirmed with minimal debate. But this is not an ideal world, and Democrats were united to fight the nomination. Republicans vowed to do anything to get Gorsuch seated on the Supreme Court, even if it meant tearing apart the Senate.
Democrats had some righteous indignation on their side. President Obama nominated a well-respected jurist, Merrick Garland, to replace Antonin Scalia a year ago. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to consider the nomination, contending that the voters in the 2016 election should decide — a unique piece of illogical reasoning in the annals of American politics. Democrats argued that Republicans' refusal to even discuss Garland's nomination was even worse than a filibuster.
Democrats' record in defense of the filibuster has not been pristine. When Obama's federal court nominees languished for months because Republicans filibustered their nominations, Democratic leader Harry Reid pushed through a rule change that eliminated the filibuster in federal judgeships not including the Supreme Court.
Now the filibuster is gone, and no one knows what its demise might mean in the Senate. The hyper-partisanship in Congress can hardly get any worse, and the 60-vote cloture requirement seems quaint in an era of non-stop debate and non-stop campaigning outside the halls of Congress. The death of the filibuster might mean little in the long run. Filibusters have not been what they originally were for years now. Rarely has a senator talked non-stop for days to block legislation as was done in the first 150 years of the Senate. For years now, only the threat of a filibuster was enough to stop legislation. We had filibuster-lite, a watered down, painless blocking movement.
What is being lost, and has been lost for years, is the sense of camaraderie, of principle above party, of public interest over partisan interest. The dead filibuster is just one more symptom of the disease.
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Friday, April 7, 2017
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Unions ally with public employees
Labor unions have seen their future, and it is in the public sector. While union membership has plummeted, along with manufacturing jobs, union visionaries have realized the opportunity that lies before them: organizing government workers. Public sector unionizing is the only growth industry organized labor has seen in the past quarter-century.
Now, the Service Employees International Union, a political powerhouse, wants Congress to require state and local governments to negotiate with unions representing government workers. Such a law would overturn laws in several states, including North Carolina, which specifically prohibits bargaining with or strikes by public sector employees. If passed, the federal legislation would be a payoff for the SEIU's support of a number of powerful Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The problem with collective bargaining with public sector employees is the imbalance of power at the negotiating table. SEIU and its North Carolina affiliate, the State Employees Association of North Carolina, have shown their willingness punish any legislator who opposes their agenda and to threaten all others. "Management," in this case, is at a disadvantage because members of the board of directors (i.e., legislators and other elected officials) are in the pocket of the union that helped to get them elected. There can be no balanced negotiation when labor can influence management behind the scenes through campaign contributions and vote delivery.
Unlike private-sector negotiators, government officials have little incentive to oppose union demands. A corporation has to watch its bottom line and faces market forces that prevent raising prices to pay for too-generous labor costs. A city manager, however, has fewer limits in a labor negotiation. City services are almost always monopolies, so raising prices is no problem. And if more money is needed for higher salaries and better benefits, the city can always raise taxes. It is down this road that states such as California and countries such as Greece discovered the limits of their generosity. If North Carolina, which has prohibited bargaining with public employees for half a century, is forced by federal law recognize and negotiate with labor unions, taxes will inevitably rise.
There should be no right to strike against the public interest. Imagine the chaos — and the anger — if firefighters, police, emergency medical personnel and others went on strike. Even if strikes are prohibited (at first) union members could make their point by, for example, having Highway Patrol troopers ticket every driver doing 56 in a 55 mph zone. Or suppose the entire fire department got sick on the same day. Even with some moderate restrictions, collective bargaining with public employees could lead to chaotic consequences.
Just look at what is happening now, when public sector employees are prohibited from collective bargaining. Public employee "associations" (they're not officially unions in this state) directly lobby legislators for raises and better benefits. They protest loudly against any reductions in force or furloughs. In the past two years, as tens of thousands of private-sector employees have been laid off, the loudest outcry you heard was from state employees over wage freezes, furloughs and very limited layoffs. Public employees in this state enjoy extraordinary benefits, including a defined-benefit pension, which is extremely rare in the private sector now. Public sector pay, which has been safeguarded while recessions reduced private-sector compensation, is at least as good as in the private sector.
Giving public employees the heavy artillery of bargaining to go with their small-arms of political pressure would put government firmly in the hands of public employees, whose primary goal — as has been shown many times — is to look out for themselves. Instead of good government we'd have good-for-me government, and the "me" would be union members, not taxpayers.
Now, the Service Employees International Union, a political powerhouse, wants Congress to require state and local governments to negotiate with unions representing government workers. Such a law would overturn laws in several states, including North Carolina, which specifically prohibits bargaining with or strikes by public sector employees. If passed, the federal legislation would be a payoff for the SEIU's support of a number of powerful Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The problem with collective bargaining with public sector employees is the imbalance of power at the negotiating table. SEIU and its North Carolina affiliate, the State Employees Association of North Carolina, have shown their willingness punish any legislator who opposes their agenda and to threaten all others. "Management," in this case, is at a disadvantage because members of the board of directors (i.e., legislators and other elected officials) are in the pocket of the union that helped to get them elected. There can be no balanced negotiation when labor can influence management behind the scenes through campaign contributions and vote delivery.
Unlike private-sector negotiators, government officials have little incentive to oppose union demands. A corporation has to watch its bottom line and faces market forces that prevent raising prices to pay for too-generous labor costs. A city manager, however, has fewer limits in a labor negotiation. City services are almost always monopolies, so raising prices is no problem. And if more money is needed for higher salaries and better benefits, the city can always raise taxes. It is down this road that states such as California and countries such as Greece discovered the limits of their generosity. If North Carolina, which has prohibited bargaining with public employees for half a century, is forced by federal law recognize and negotiate with labor unions, taxes will inevitably rise.
There should be no right to strike against the public interest. Imagine the chaos — and the anger — if firefighters, police, emergency medical personnel and others went on strike. Even if strikes are prohibited (at first) union members could make their point by, for example, having Highway Patrol troopers ticket every driver doing 56 in a 55 mph zone. Or suppose the entire fire department got sick on the same day. Even with some moderate restrictions, collective bargaining with public employees could lead to chaotic consequences.
Just look at what is happening now, when public sector employees are prohibited from collective bargaining. Public employee "associations" (they're not officially unions in this state) directly lobby legislators for raises and better benefits. They protest loudly against any reductions in force or furloughs. In the past two years, as tens of thousands of private-sector employees have been laid off, the loudest outcry you heard was from state employees over wage freezes, furloughs and very limited layoffs. Public employees in this state enjoy extraordinary benefits, including a defined-benefit pension, which is extremely rare in the private sector now. Public sector pay, which has been safeguarded while recessions reduced private-sector compensation, is at least as good as in the private sector.
Giving public employees the heavy artillery of bargaining to go with their small-arms of political pressure would put government firmly in the hands of public employees, whose primary goal — as has been shown many times — is to look out for themselves. Instead of good government we'd have good-for-me government, and the "me" would be union members, not taxpayers.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
What's he apologizing for now?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's quote about then-candidate Barack Obama has caused a lot more stir than it's worth, but I'm not making excuses for Reid, who has apologized to the president and to all African-Americans. It must be hard to apologize for stating the obvious truth. I'm not a fan of Harry Reid, who, I think, has been the cause of much of the continuing divisive partisanship that has kept Congress from accomplishing anything (he has had plenty of accomplices), but I think a mountain has been made of a molehill of a remark.
Reid has apologized, but what has he apologized for? He admits saying the remark quoted in a new book about the 2008 campaign, referring to Obama as "light-skinned" and someone who did not engage in "Negro dialect" unless he needed to. His description of Obama is entirely accurate. The president is the mixed-race son of an African man and an American woman. His skin is a sort of medium on the color scale. He is widely regarded as one of the best speech-making politicians of his day. His speech patterns reflect a careful articulation without any obvious regional or cultural inflections. Those are facts. Reid has apologized for speaking the truth.
What he should be apologizing for is the fact that current political rules do not allow the pointing out of obvious racial differences, unless, of course, the racial or ethnic differences are written into law in a manner to benefit specific groups. You can pinpoint the desire of racial minorities to elect one of their own under the Voting Rights Act's special provisions, for example, but you can't point out that Islamist terrorists tend to be young males of Arabic descent.
As for the president, his candidacy benefited from the very attributes that Reid pointed out. His skin color is little different from the color of many Americans of European descent, and he doesn't talk like a rap artist. (Reid's use of the antiquated term "Negro" might seem awkward or insensitive but is not incorrect.) Americans might be uncomfortable with admitting that we might be ready for an African-American president but they're not ready for Al Sharpton or H. Rap Brown as president.
Republicans are screaming because they say Sen. Trent Lott was crucified when he suggested at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party that America would have been better off had Thurmond been elected president in 1948. Lott was forced to give up his majority leader position. Lott's remark was more stupid than insensitive, the result of trying too hard to compliment the old codger on his birthday. Being stupid is a more serious impediment in performing the duties of majority leader than whatever crime Reid committed. A more relevant comparison to Reid's remark is now-Vice President Joe Biden's 2007 remark in which he said almost the same thing Reid did, that Obama is articulate, "clean" and nice looking. Biden might have one-upped Reid on the political incorrectness scale.
If Reid loses his election this year, it should be because of serious issues in Nevada and Washington, not on account of an offhand remark that is deemed politically incorrect. Americans should be more willing to accept the truth, even if it does cringe our racial sensitivities.
Reid has apologized, but what has he apologized for? He admits saying the remark quoted in a new book about the 2008 campaign, referring to Obama as "light-skinned" and someone who did not engage in "Negro dialect" unless he needed to. His description of Obama is entirely accurate. The president is the mixed-race son of an African man and an American woman. His skin is a sort of medium on the color scale. He is widely regarded as one of the best speech-making politicians of his day. His speech patterns reflect a careful articulation without any obvious regional or cultural inflections. Those are facts. Reid has apologized for speaking the truth.
What he should be apologizing for is the fact that current political rules do not allow the pointing out of obvious racial differences, unless, of course, the racial or ethnic differences are written into law in a manner to benefit specific groups. You can pinpoint the desire of racial minorities to elect one of their own under the Voting Rights Act's special provisions, for example, but you can't point out that Islamist terrorists tend to be young males of Arabic descent.
As for the president, his candidacy benefited from the very attributes that Reid pointed out. His skin color is little different from the color of many Americans of European descent, and he doesn't talk like a rap artist. (Reid's use of the antiquated term "Negro" might seem awkward or insensitive but is not incorrect.) Americans might be uncomfortable with admitting that we might be ready for an African-American president but they're not ready for Al Sharpton or H. Rap Brown as president.
Republicans are screaming because they say Sen. Trent Lott was crucified when he suggested at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party that America would have been better off had Thurmond been elected president in 1948. Lott was forced to give up his majority leader position. Lott's remark was more stupid than insensitive, the result of trying too hard to compliment the old codger on his birthday. Being stupid is a more serious impediment in performing the duties of majority leader than whatever crime Reid committed. A more relevant comparison to Reid's remark is now-Vice President Joe Biden's 2007 remark in which he said almost the same thing Reid did, that Obama is articulate, "clean" and nice looking. Biden might have one-upped Reid on the political incorrectness scale.
If Reid loses his election this year, it should be because of serious issues in Nevada and Washington, not on account of an offhand remark that is deemed politically incorrect. Americans should be more willing to accept the truth, even if it does cringe our racial sensitivities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
