« "...a growing number of Americans beginning to credit the President's stimulus package with helping to revive the economy." | JEP07's Blog | Do conservatives hate Obama more than they love America? »
Was the Senate Finance Committee "stacked" long ago to assure "no public option?"
Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) joined with all the committee's Republicans in defeating the amendment.
Am I just being paranoid again, or does it seem unlikely that so many 'dogs were on the Senate Finance Committee?
How is it that such a preponderance of right-wing (please, don't give me that "centrist" crap) Democrats are installed in these key obstructionist positions?
Call me naive, but it seems as if there's definitely some behind-the-scenes manipulation underway here, when so many members representative of a fairly small minority of Dems seem to be in positions of influence that abrogate, in many ways, the process that should express the PUBLIC will.
Congressional committees, like Congress as a whole, should represent the whole body, not just conservative parts of it. And to me, this list seems "stacked" against the public will, because these are lawmakers who are all extremely beholden to conservative corporate contributors, in this case, big insurance. Is that the very reason they were tapped for this committee?At least Ben Nelson outright admits he's protecting insurance company profits. So why is he on that committee in the first place? How did that very non-representative group become entrenched (installed) in the first place?
They are like a legislative blood clot obstructing the flow of public will.
Am I just being paranoid again, or does it seem unlikely that so many 'dogs were on the Senate Finance Committee?
How is it that such a preponderance of right-wing (please, don't give me that "centrist" crap) Democrats are installed in these key obstructionist positions?
Call me naive, but it seems as if there's definitely some behind-the-scenes manipulation underway here, when so many members representative of a fairly small minority of Dems seem to be in positions of influence that abrogate, in many ways, the process that should express the PUBLIC will.
Congressional committees, like Congress as a whole, should represent the whole body, not just conservative parts of it. And to me, this list seems "stacked" against the public will, because these are lawmakers who are all extremely beholden to conservative corporate contributors, in this case, big insurance. Is that the very reason they were tapped for this committee?At least Ben Nelson outright admits he's protecting insurance company profits. So why is he on that committee in the first place? How did that very non-representative group become entrenched (installed) in the first place?
They are like a legislative blood clot obstructing the flow of public will.
Advertisement
Not a blood clot so much as a bowel obstruction.
September 30, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Impacted
October 1, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think if you watch the votes closely on many issues - FISA, defense, etc. you find that they are routinely stacked. A few faux progressives rotate their votes for the losing progressive side often enough to win reelection in blue states and the party is SO SORRY when WE DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES as the rest vote just like Republicans.
We have one party - the corporate party. It is not on your side.
September 30, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are thinking small. The committee was stacked so that corporate interests were able to dominate on ALL issues.
Also notice, if you add up the total population of the reps you mention combined (leaving out Nelson who's state is heavily stacked with the elderly) they represent about half the population of New York City proper. If you go NYC Metro area and add in Florida, the group represents about 2 Million more people than a single city. It's far easier to defend a small-state with a minor flood of cash than a large state if the voters get pissed.
The more amazing thing is that only six people were actually allowed to work on the bill ... and ALL of them were small-staters.
Go figure.
September 30, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had that very thought when I posted this. Like the Supreme Court, the deck has been stacked in favor of big corp systemically.
No matter whart else happens, those corporate interests always have an advocate on board, to protect their profitablity.
Government is one of the few tools a monopolist can buy that gives them not-so-free-enterprise control over their competition. Our pay-for-play campaign system has compounded that problem, creating symbiotic relationship between two parasites (politics and corporations) sucking all the blood from their host (the public.)
Unfortunately, what does that mean for the host?
October 1, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obstructionist?
By employing that term you seem to be implying that a public option is the right option and any disagreement or dissent is wrong.
That's not the case, but to answer your question, you always have to keep 2 things in mind: 1) who is up for re-election next year, and 2) Which lobbies and special interest groups are these people connected with?
October 1, 2009 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"a public option is the right option and any disagreement or dissent is wrong."
"the public option" should be more than one option, in the first place.
As for "which lobbies", I'd like to know that, and which pharmies and HMO's they're invested in.
And when our own lawmakers obstruct the public will, which has been in favor of a public option for quite some time now, I would say that is obstructionist.
We elect then to govern according to that publc will, not to protect special interests that make big campaign contributions. So they are not only obstructionists, they are PAID obstructionists.
Disagreement or dissent is fine, as long as the small minority of dissenters is willing yield to the great majority that we can safely (at least according to the rules of democracy) call, the public will.
And don't give me that "tyranny of the majority" crap, either, that's profane doublespeak in this instance, this is not majority tyranny, it is the public demanding mercy and compassion where now only greed prevails..
October 1, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink