Thursday 31 January 2013
State of the Union address planned for Feb 12 2013
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24312/state-of-the-union-2013-obama-will-defend-bold-liberal-agenda
Debt Ceiling crisis postponed until may
Senate passes debt ceiling, no-budget no-pay bill
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/senate-passes-debt-ceiling-no-budget-no-pay-bill-87018.html
Sent via Flipboard
BBC filibuster podcast
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yhv96/Americana_13_02_2011/
Filibuster - listen to first 10 minutes
Filibuster - listen to first 10 minutes
Wednesday 30 January 2013
Role/functions Congress - Judiciary Committee hearings into potential gun control: Gabrielle Giffords tells Congress to act now on gun violence - Telegraph
Gabrielle Giffords tells Congress to act now on gun violence - Telegraph:
'via Blog this'
Giffords - you will remember, was the Arizona Democrat Congresswoman, and victim of a shooting in 2011.
'via Blog this'
Giffords - you will remember, was the Arizona Democrat Congresswoman, and victim of a shooting in 2011.
Role/functions/power of Congress - Congressional Oversight of the Executive
Here, former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton gets 'overseen' by Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Jan 2013. The hearing relates to the mob-murder of US Ambassador to Libya and the extent to which the US government were to blame or could have avoided the attacks.
Telegraph article
Hillary Clinton appears at Senate Foreign Relations Committee• 'I take responsibility' for Benghazi, says Clinton• 'Arab revolutions' shattered security across region• Clinton chokes up when talking about Benghazi diplomats• Hits out at allegations of cover upIn an emotional appearance in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mrs Clinton cast the incident, the first in which a USambassador was killed since 1988, as part of a long history of such violence as well as the result of regional instability since the Arab Spring of popular revolutions began in 2011.
Speaking in congressional testimony delayed by more than a month because of her ill health, Mrs Clinton offered her first detailed accounting of the first days after the attack, saying she directed the US response from the State Department.
"I take responsibility," Mrs Clinton said, echoing comments she first made in October and stressing that she has accepted all of the recommendations of an independent review panel that ultimately held lower-level officials responsible.
Sunday 27 January 2013
Debt, congress and the presidency...for dummies
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=m-ch-fea&v=KIbkoop4AYE
A great 'for dummies' explanation of the debt problem in the USA and its political implications. Puts the fizz into fiscal...or something.
A great 'for dummies' explanation of the debt problem in the USA and its political implications. Puts the fizz into fiscal...or something.
Saturday 26 January 2013
Will the January 2013 filibuster reforms end the tyranny of the minority in the Senate?
This well known measure to slow down or block legislation has been in the news recently. Senate party leaders have agreed to minor changes which limit the opportunities for senators to filibuster. However, senators STILL have some remaining opportunities for the filibuster, hence why it is being seen as a very modest reform.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/01/senate-keeps-its-filibuster-tactics-with-bipartisan-rules-change.html
The significance of the filibuster is that it allows a minority of senators to block the democratic will of the majority. It might be argued that it effectively gives some senators a veto on legislation. Other critics of the filibuster point to the fact that sometimes senators representing a tiny proportion of Americans can block legilsation (2 Senators per state no matter how big or small).
To prevent a filibuster takes 60 votes, therefore if the party balance in the 100 seat Senate is 59-41, the 41 party (as it were) could potentially block all legislation. In reality of course, the minority will not block all legislation necessarily, but can use the threat of such action to influence deals done over Bills, and force changes. This is the modern functioning of the filibuster. One rarely sees 24 hour speeches on the floor of the Senate any more. The threat of the filibuster is usually enough for the majority party to seek negotiations and compromises, rather than forcing anyone to actually speak for a long time in the chamber, which is seen as a waste of time.
Where the margins are very slim, as described in the aforementioned example, Senators from the minority can sometimes be persuaded to vote for a cloture motion against their own party, if a bargain can be struck, but this will still mean the majority will have to make concessions to a minority. Increasing partisanship with the Senate has seen an increase in use of the filibuster since the election of Obama, as Republicans have tried to block as much of his policy agenda as possible. For a short while in 2009-2010 the margins were 59-41 in favour of the democrats, which made the chances of Obama getting his healthcare reforms through particularly nerve-racking. Could a deal be done with one Republican senator to peel them away from their party on this issue and force a successful cloture motion against an otherwise implacable republican minority? The answer was no, and the 2010 mid-terms saw a reduction of the Democrat majority in the Senate forcing a much bigger compromise from the Democrats over health care reform.
So what is the significance of the 2013 reforms? They reduce the opportunities for filibuster without getting rid of it all together. This may mean a slightly speeded up average time for the passing of Bills through the Senate. This remains to be seen.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/01/senate-keeps-its-filibuster-tactics-with-bipartisan-rules-change.html
The significance of the filibuster is that it allows a minority of senators to block the democratic will of the majority. It might be argued that it effectively gives some senators a veto on legislation. Other critics of the filibuster point to the fact that sometimes senators representing a tiny proportion of Americans can block legilsation (2 Senators per state no matter how big or small).
To prevent a filibuster takes 60 votes, therefore if the party balance in the 100 seat Senate is 59-41, the 41 party (as it were) could potentially block all legislation. In reality of course, the minority will not block all legislation necessarily, but can use the threat of such action to influence deals done over Bills, and force changes. This is the modern functioning of the filibuster. One rarely sees 24 hour speeches on the floor of the Senate any more. The threat of the filibuster is usually enough for the majority party to seek negotiations and compromises, rather than forcing anyone to actually speak for a long time in the chamber, which is seen as a waste of time.
Where the margins are very slim, as described in the aforementioned example, Senators from the minority can sometimes be persuaded to vote for a cloture motion against their own party, if a bargain can be struck, but this will still mean the majority will have to make concessions to a minority. Increasing partisanship with the Senate has seen an increase in use of the filibuster since the election of Obama, as Republicans have tried to block as much of his policy agenda as possible. For a short while in 2009-2010 the margins were 59-41 in favour of the democrats, which made the chances of Obama getting his healthcare reforms through particularly nerve-racking. Could a deal be done with one Republican senator to peel them away from their party on this issue and force a successful cloture motion against an otherwise implacable republican minority? The answer was no, and the 2010 mid-terms saw a reduction of the Democrat majority in the Senate forcing a much bigger compromise from the Democrats over health care reform.
So what is the significance of the 2013 reforms? They reduce the opportunities for filibuster without getting rid of it all together. This may mean a slightly speeded up average time for the passing of Bills through the Senate. This remains to be seen.
Friday 25 January 2013
Presidential nomination hearings on Kerry
Smooth sailing seen ahead for Kerry as State Department pick http://t.co/gFsTxR7T
Wednesday 23 January 2013
How can the Senate not have passed a budget since 2009?
The key to this one is understanding the difference between a budget and an appropriations bill.
Budget resolutions are policy plans. They are not appropriations bills, or spending bills, which actually allocate money for specific purposes.
If a budget resolution doesn’t pass, the federal government won’t go dark. In the absence of a budget resolution, appropriations bills have continued to allocate money.
But, as a previous PolitiFact story said, "the inability to pass the budget framework can reflect poorly on the majority's organizational skills and/or the degree of partisan discord in Congress. It also increases the likelihood of a logjam of appropriations bills in the fall and winter, and decreases the chance that controversial tax bills will pass the Senate."
PolitiFact Ohio | John Boehner says Senate Dems haven't passed a budget in more than 1,000 days
Saturday 19 January 2013
Persuasion: Obama vs gun lobby and Congress
Obama seeks American support to pressure Congress on gun control http://gu.com/p/3d7h8
Thursday 17 January 2013
Tuesday 15 January 2013
Sunday 13 January 2013
Saturday 12 January 2013
Executive orders
How far can President Obama go with an executive order on gun control? | Harry J Enten http://gu.com/p/3d2m6
Wednesday 9 January 2013
Obama's selection 2013
Chuck Hagel: is the enemy of their GOP enemies the Democrats' friend? | Ana Marie Cox http://gu.com/p/3dvj8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)