More Medicare Mischief... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Sparhawk · 12-02-2003, 11:36 AM

I missed this one last week, but I think it's worth a read

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14900-2003Nov25.html">[Medicare] Mischief</a>

Quote:

. . . And Mischief

By Norman Ornstein
Wednesday, November 26, 2003

One of the most disgraceful moments in American sports came in the 1972 Olympics, when officials gave the Soviet Union's basketball team three chances to shoot the ball after the clock had apparently run out -- allowing it to defeat the U.S. team.

American politics now has its own version of that infamous game. Early last Sunday, starting at about 3 a.m., the House of Representatives began its roll call on the Medicare prescription drug plan -- the most significant vote of the year. The House votes by electronic device, with each vote normally taking 15 minutes. After the allotted time, the bill, supported by the president and the Republican leadership, was losing. The vote stayed open. Before long it became clear that an absolute majority of the House -- 218 of the 435 members -- had voted no, with only 216 in favor. But the vote stayed open until Republicans were able to bludgeon two of their members to switch sides. It took two hours and 51 minutes, the longest roll call in modern House history.

This was not, technically speaking, against the rules. House Rule XX, clause 2 (a) says that there is a 15-minute minimum for most votes by electronic device. There is no formal maximum. A vote is not final until the vote numbers have been read by the speaker and the result declared. But since electronic voting began in January 1973, the norm has been long established and clear: Fifteen minutes is the voting time.

In the 22 years that Democrats ran the House after the electronic voting system was put in place, there was only one time when the vote period substantially exceeded the 15 minutes. At the end of the session in 1987, under Speaker Jim Wright of Texas, the vote on the omnibus budget reconciliation bill -- a key piece of legislation -- was one vote short of passage when one of the bill's supporters, Marty Russo of Illinois, took offense at something, changed his vote to no, and left to catch a plane to his home district in Chicago. He was unaware that his switch altered the ultimate outcome. Caught by surprise, Wright kept the vote tally open for an extra 15 to 20 minutes until one of his aides could find another member, fellow Texan Jim Chapman, and draw him out of the cloakroom to change his nay vote to aye and pass the bill. Republicans went ballistic, using the example for years as evidence of Democrats' autocratic style and insensitivity to rules and basic fairness.

In 1995, soon after the Republicans gained the majority, Speaker Newt Gingrich declared his intention to make sure that votes would consistently be held in the 15-minute time frame. The "regular practice of the House," he said would be "a policy of closing electronic votes as soon as possible after the guaranteed period of 15 minutes." The policy was reiterated by Speaker Dennis J. Hastert when he assumed the post.

But faced with a series of tough votes and close margins, Republicans have ignored their own standards and adopted a practice that has in fact become frequent during the Bush presidency, of stretching out the vote when they were losing until they could twist enough arms to prevail. On at least a dozen occasions, they have gone well over the 15 minutes, sometimes up to an hour.

The Medicare prescription drug vote -- three hours instead of 15 minutes, hours after a clear majority of the House had signaled its will -- was the ugliest and most outrageous breach of standards in the modern history of the House. It was made dramatically worse when the speaker violated the longstanding tradition of the House floor's being off limits to lobbying by outsiders (other than former members) by allowing Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson on the floor during the vote to twist arms -- another shameful first.

The speaker of the House is the first government official mentioned in the Constitution. The speaker is selected by a vote of the whole House and represents the whole House. Hastert is a good and decent man who loves the House. But when the choice has been put to him, he has too often opted to abandon that role for partisan gain.

Democracy is a fragile web of laws, rules and norms. The norms are just as important to the legitimacy of the system as the rules. Blatant violations of them on a regular basis corrode the system. The ugliness of this one will linger.

The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Just more of the same "Win at any cost" politics we've come to know and love from this congress and this administration, but worth a little bit of outrage.

reconmike · 12-02-2003, 12:56 PM

This was not, technically speaking, against the rules. House Rule XX, clause 2 (a) says that there is a 15-minute minimum for most votes by electronic device. There is no formal maximum. A vote is not final until the vote numbers have been read by the speaker and the result declared. But since electronic voting began in January 1973, the norm has been long established and clear: Fifteen minutes is the voting time.

Democracy is a fragile web of laws, rules and norms. The norms are just as important to the legitimacy of the system as the rules. Blatant violations of them on a regular basis corrode the system.

Were there any house RULES broken?

As we all know anything that is concidered the "norm" does change.
The minimum time allowed is 15 minutes, and there is no TIME LIMIT as to how long a electronic vote can take.

And win at any cost?

The winners here are the seniors who will drugs on medicare.

Or is it this author, who is blatantly liberal does not think it is a good idea to give seniors prescription care.

Now thats a first, a liberal who doesnt want to help someone.

maximusveritas · 12-02-2003, 01:39 PM

sorry reconmike, but you're way off here.
The writer, Norman Ornstein, is "a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute", which is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
Ornstein made no comment on the Medicare plan itself.
He's simply showing how the party in power has begun to fight dirtier than ever before in order to get its way. When it loses power, the dirty tactics they employed will be thrown back at them worse than ever before. This cycle will continue until the political process in this country is destroyed.
Its a matter of principle, no matter which party you belong to.

Sparhawk · 12-02-2003, 02:41 PM

Here's a taste of the "liberal" resident scholars you'll find at AEI: Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, Lynne Cheney, Richard Perle, and Fred Thompson...

To put myself back on topic, I sincerely hope that when the Democrats win back the congress they are magnanimous in victory and don't stoop to the Republicans' level.

onetime2 · 12-02-2003, 05:01 PM

Wait a second. Politicians follow the rules that are most advantageous to them? I'm shocked.

There are countless similar examples on both sides of the aisle. Pointing to only the Republicans or only the Dems is just partisan BS.

I expect my representatives (even the ones I disagree with) to accomplish their goals within the confines of the official rules of their respective houses. That goes for both Dems and Republicans. I'd be damned pissed if either side gave up their fight when there were still legal routes to accomplish them.

Ustwo · 12-02-2003, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Just more of the same "Win at any cost" politics we've come to know and love from this congress and this administration, but worth a little bit of outrage.

I rather doubt you mind that the Dems in the senate are using 'the rules' that require 60 votes to end debate in order to prevent a simple majority vote on Bush's judicial nominees, and in so doing are perverting the constitution.

Sparhawk · 12-02-2003, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Wait a second. Politicians follow the rules that are most advantageous to them? I'm shocked.

There are countless similar examples on both sides of the aisle. Pointing to only the Republicans or only the Dems is just partisan BS.

I expect my representatives (even the ones I disagree with) to accomplish their goals within the confines of the official rules of their respective houses. That goes for both Dems and Republicans. I'd be damned pissed if either side gave up their fight when there were still legal routes to accomplish them.

It sounds to me like you are completely uninterested in creating a better tone in Washington, a better tone that both Speaker Gingrich and Speaker Hastert promised to bring to Congress. I'm sorry you feel that way.

JamesS · 12-02-2003, 08:48 PM

I love the way disputes evolve. In this case:

1.) Declare your opponent's source a "blatant liberal" when he is in fact from a heavily conservative think tank.

2.) Divert attention from the serious and wholly unprecedented low in decorum to point out shenanigans used - whether it be in cloture tie-ups (democrats) or committee stonewalling (republicans) by both sides.

3.) And so on.

I point this out not to criticize per se, but to make the point that, from my standpoint as an independent, I see new previously unseen subversions like this as evidence that we are heading in the wrong direction.

Instead of questioning the motives of the accuser, or reflecting his charges back with out a thought those from each camp should think about the direction in which this country is moving.

If the excuse to perpetrate wrong-doing is that another has committed a similiar offense, what's to prevent the republic from spiraling into a cycle of ever increasing partisan rancor?

Dangerous times are coming. State governments have seen in the last few years a hyper-partisanship that threatens the efficacy of government in a way not seen in the past. Recalls, redistricting and many other issues are somewhat of an unknown - not inherently bad, but subject to endless abuse.

onetime2 · 12-03-2003, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
It sounds to me like you are completely uninterested in creating a better tone in Washington, a better tone that both Speaker Gingrich and Speaker Hastert promised to bring to Congress. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Then you are completely deaf. I guess you would prefer that partisan finger pointing continue ad nauseum.

The current "tone" in Washington is to denegrate your opponents using every detail available even if it has no relevance to the discussion. It's interesting that you rail against Gingrich and Hastert for not following through with these pledges, yet you don't rail against the Dems who have yet to even criticize the "tone" you feel should be changed.

The reality is that politicians should be in Washington to achieve the promises they made to the people who elected them. Using the rules to achieve those goals and getting the necessary votes to pass legislation is their job. Failing to use the legal tools at their disposal to accomplish their goals is a failure to do their jobs.

Sparhawk · 12-03-2003, 04:59 AM

Let's talk promises shall we?

Quote:

In 1995, soon after the Republicans gained the majority, Speaker Newt Gingrich declared his intention to make sure that votes would consistently be held in the 15-minute time frame. The "regular practice of the House," he said would be "a policy of closing electronic votes as soon as possible after the guaranteed period of 15 minutes." The policy was reiterated by Speaker Dennis J. Hastert when he assumed the post.

Promise made, promise broken. Thank you, drive through.

onetime2 · 12-03-2003, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Let's talk promises shall we?

Promise made, promise broken. Thank you, drive through.

That promise is an example of exactly the political finger pointing I'm talking about. If you missed it, I criticized both parties for this. You would prefer to only make it about the Republicans, I prefer to focus on the actions of BOTH parties which only serve to reinforce the "tone" you seem so interested in changing.

Sparhawk · 12-03-2003, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
That promise is an example of exactly the political finger pointing I'm talking about. If you missed it, I criticized both parties for this. You would prefer to only make it about the Republicans, I prefer to focus on the actions of BOTH parties which only serve to reinforce the "tone" you seem so interested in changing.

The promise made by the Republican leadership isn't an example of political finger-pointing, but perhaps my statement was. Regardless of party, it is the responsibility of the majority to exercise moral leadership, and they can't do that if they are consistently breaking promises. President Clinton abrogated that when he lied under oath, and the Republicans are doing it now when they say they will keep to a higher standard and fail to live up to their promises.

onetime2 · 12-03-2003, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
The promise made by the Republican leadership isn't an example of political finger-pointing, but perhaps my statement was.

It absolutely was because it was all about making an issue out of the actions of their adversaries. If it wasn't about finger pointing, they would never have broken the promise.

People accept that politicians lie, they accept the broken promises, they think their votes don't matter, they don't show up for elections. It was going on before Clinton lied and it's pathetic. It's almost a toss up when it comes to who I am more annoyed at, the voter or the politicians. In the end I have to blame the politicians more because they want and claim to be leaders yet the vast majority fail to set a good example. Progress will continue to be slow so long as the finger pointing is allowed to remain the primary activity of both parties. It's not about what needs to be done for the country it's all about how the "other guy" is doing "everything" wrong.

Sparhawk · 12-03-2003, 10:04 AM

I say that finger-pointing is EXACTLY what we need. Unless politicians start to modify their behaviors by curtailing practices they themselves have railed against, NOTHING is going to change.

You can't just let the party in power roll right over the other (or over their own in this case), not point out their mistake, and expect them to never do it again. That is just wishful thinking.

At some point the gauntlet must be thrown down, and those in power must point to past examples of partisan behavior, whether from the 'Dems' or the 'Reps', and say enough is enough.

What we saw last week was not in keeping with the spirit with which Hastert assumed the Speaker-ship.

Macheath · 12-03-2003, 10:37 AM

In the article, the 15 minute limit was called a "norm", a "regular practice", "longstanding tradition" and "standards". The speaker not only abadoned this practice, but allowed a member of the executive to enter and physically lobby in the legislature (very dangerous).

In Britain and Australia we call things like this legal "conventions" and, as Ornstein says, they're just as important as codified rules. Try reading the British constitution; you won't find one single grand document because the whole thing is a web of different documents, norms, traditions and legal conventions that provide the basis for a stable, democratic system.

This willingness to break legislative convention and bend the rules to their breaking point is even more dangerous to the integrity of Government than the definition of "sexual relations".

onetime2 · 12-04-2003, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
I say that finger-pointing is EXACTLY what we need. Unless politicians start to modify their behaviors by curtailing practices they themselves have railed against, NOTHING is going to change.

You can't just let the party in power roll right over the other (or over their own in this case), not point out their mistake, and expect them to never do it again. That is just wishful thinking.

At some point the gauntlet must be thrown down, and those in power must point to past examples of partisan behavior, whether from the 'Dems' or the 'Reps', and say enough is enough.

What we saw last week was not in keeping with the spirit with which Hastert assumed the Speaker-ship.

Finger pointing to change things and finger pointing to belittle the other guy with no intention of really following through are two very different things. I have little doubt that the Dems who will now point to Gingrich and Hastert as promise breakers will do the same thing when the opportunity presents itself. They absolutely will do the same thing when a critical bill of their own design is in the same position. It's not about Dems OR Republicans, it's about both.

Sparhawk · 12-04-2003, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Finger pointing to change things and finger pointing to belittle the other guy with no intention of really following through are two very different things.

They are indeed very different things. So when politicians do the latter, DON'T re-elect them, whether they are a 'Dem' or a 'Rep'. I don't intend on voting for any of my incumbent representatives this year, and there are some on BOTH sides of the aisle.

onetime2 · 12-04-2003, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
They are indeed very different things. So when politicians do the latter, DON'T re-elect them, whether they are a 'Dem' or a 'Rep'. I don't intend on voting for any of my incumbent representatives this year, and there are some on BOTH sides of the aisle.

I don't. Now if we can just convince everyone else that it matters.

12-02-2003, 12:56 PM	#2 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	This was not, technically speaking, against the rules. House Rule XX, clause 2 (a) says that there is a 15-minute minimum for most votes by electronic device. There is no formal maximum. A vote is not final until the vote numbers have been read by the speaker and the result declared. But since electronic voting began in January 1973, the norm has been long established and clear: Fifteen minutes is the voting time. Democracy is a fragile web of laws, rules and norms. The norms are just as important to the legitimacy of the system as the rules. Blatant violations of them on a regular basis corrode the system. Were there any house RULES broken? As we all know anything that is concidered the "norm" does change. The minimum time allowed is 15 minutes, and there is no TIME LIMIT as to how long a electronic vote can take. And win at any cost? The winners here are the seniors who will drugs on medicare. Or is it this author, who is blatantly liberal does not think it is a good idea to give seniors prescription care. Now thats a first, a liberal who doesnt want to help someone. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

12-02-2003, 02:41 PM	#4 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Here's a taste of the "liberal" resident scholars you'll find at AEI: Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, Lynne Cheney, Richard Perle, and Fred Thompson... To put myself back on topic, I sincerely hope that when the Democrats win back the congress they are magnanimous in victory and don't stoop to the Republicans' level. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work." Last edited by Sparhawk; 12-02-2003 at 02:49 PM..

12-02-2003, 05:01 PM	#5 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Wait a second. Politicians follow the rules that are most advantageous to them? I'm shocked. There are countless similar examples on both sides of the aisle. Pointing to only the Republicans or only the Dems is just partisan BS. I expect my representatives (even the ones I disagree with) to accomplish their goals within the confines of the official rules of their respective houses. That goes for both Dems and Republicans. I'd be damned pissed if either side gave up their fight when there were still legal routes to accomplish them. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

12-02-2003, 08:48 PM	#8 (permalink)
JamesS Crazy Location: Land of the Hanging Chad	I love the way disputes evolve. In this case: 1.) Declare your opponent's source a "blatant liberal" when he is in fact from a heavily conservative think tank. 2.) Divert attention from the serious and wholly unprecedented low in decorum to point out shenanigans used - whether it be in cloture tie-ups (democrats) or committee stonewalling (republicans) by both sides. 3.) And so on. I point this out not to criticize per se, but to make the point that, from my standpoint as an independent, I see new previously unseen subversions like this as evidence that we are heading in the wrong direction. Instead of questioning the motives of the accuser, or reflecting his charges back with out a thought those from each camp should think about the direction in which this country is moving. If the excuse to perpetrate wrong-doing is that another has committed a similiar offense, what's to prevent the republic from spiraling into a cycle of ever increasing partisan rancor? Dangerous times are coming. State governments have seen in the last few years a hyper-partisanship that threatens the efficacy of government in a way not seen in the past. Recalls, redistricting and many other issues are somewhat of an unknown - not inherently bad, but subject to endless abuse. __________________ The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives. -- Albert Schweitzer

12-03-2003, 10:04 AM	#14 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	I say that finger-pointing is EXACTLY what we need. Unless politicians start to modify their behaviors by curtailing practices they themselves have railed against, NOTHING is going to change. You can't just let the party in power roll right over the other (or over their own in this case), not point out their mistake, and expect them to never do it again. That is just wishful thinking. At some point the gauntlet must be thrown down, and those in power must point to past examples of partisan behavior, whether from the 'Dems' or the 'Reps', and say enough is enough. What we saw last week was not in keeping with the spirit with which Hastert assumed the Speaker-ship. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

12-02-2003, 01:39 PM	#3 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	sorry reconmike, but you're way off here. The writer, Norman Ornstein, is "a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute", which is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Ornstein made no comment on the Medicare plan itself. He's simply showing how the party in power has begun to fight dirtier than ever before in order to get its way. When it loses power, the dirty tactics they employed will be thrown back at them worse than ever before. This cycle will continue until the political process in this country is destroyed. Its a matter of principle, no matter which party you belong to.

12-03-2003, 10:37 AM	#15 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	In the article, the 15 minute limit was called a "norm", a "regular practice", "longstanding tradition" and "standards". The speaker not only abadoned this practice, but allowed a member of the executive to enter and physically lobby in the legislature (very dangerous). In Britain and Australia we call things like this legal "conventions" and, as Ornstein says, they're just as important as codified rules. Try reading the British constitution; you won't find one single grand document because the whole thing is a web of different documents, norms, traditions and legal conventions that provide the basis for a stable, democratic system. This willingness to break legislative convention and bend the rules to their breaking point is even more dangerous to the integrity of Government than the definition of "sexual relations".