Sometimes you just have to scream at the top of your lungs. Given that it's currently very early in the morning and my beautiful and talented wife (The BTW) is still asleep, I'm going to post it here instead.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) likes everyone to think he's the ultimate fiscal conservative. He routinely rails against earmarks, puts holds on bills that will spend money, and castigates his colleagues for doing things that spend federal dollars needlessly.
That's why I found this article in Roll Call so infuriating:
Coburn Vows to Read Health Care Bill on Senate Floor
Nov. 16, 2009, 6:53 p.m.
By Emily Pierce
Roll Call Staff
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) confirmed Senate Democratic leaders’ fears that he will insist that the massive health care reform bill be read aloud on the Senate floor.
“The American people are going to get to hear this bill read, period,” Coburn told reporters Monday night.
The bill is expected to be hundreds of pages long and possibly more than 1,000 pages. It would take the Senate clerk several days to read the entire thing.
***
Coburn said he would also block other legislative shortcuts that Reid might seek to employ. For example, he said he would require the Senate to use up the entire 30-hour debate period called for after a filibuster has been broken. Republicans plan to try to filibuster the motion to proceed to the health care measure, but Democrats say they think they will be able to rally all 60 Members of their caucus to produce the three-fifths vote needed to block the gambit.
I understand: Coburn doesn't like the health care bill.
But does Coburn understand that his tactics will cost taxpayers thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars that would not otherwise be spent? Does he think keeping the Senate in session costs nothing. Does he think that printing the Congressional Record is free?
Given that reading the bill will only delay rather than prevent the debate on health care reform, does Coburn not understand that he'll be forcing federal taxpayers to spend money that will accomplish absolutely nothing and have no value? In other words, does he not understand that this will be his version of the now infamous earmark that would have had the government build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska at the behest of former Senator Ted Stevens. (If I remember correctly, Coburn opposed that earmark.)
And does Coburn (and Rep. Frank Wolf) understand that you can't serve the Lord half way? You can't be against unnecessary federal spending only when you feel like it or when someone else is doing it. That's a little like being against sin except when you feel like sinning.
I know: in the context of the federal budget hundreds of thousands of dollars barely seems like it's worth the time it takes to read this post. But it is. Those who claim to be deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives should hold themselves...and be held...to the same standard they try to impose on others even if the sums are small.
The time is upon the Democrats
to quit flinching at the idea of a filibuster. At this moment in history, the conditions are such that the Republicans in the Senate can filibuster one time and one time only. The "tradition" of filibuster makes no sense to most Americans even if they may oppose what the filibusterers oppose. But Americans won't tolerate gridlock. Never get in the way of your opponent, be it a person, or an organization, that is making a mistake. It is now time for the Senate Democratic leadership to step out of the way and let the Republicans filibuster. The political blowback against the GOP will be nuclear. The GOP can't reload. Two filibusters will never be tolerated. So if I were Harry, I'd time the situation such that the Senate Republicans begin filibustering in summer 2010. Then get a comfortable chair in the shade behind blast walls and watch an American populace hungry for change, even if it isn't perfect change, incinerate the GOP in the fall. 32 and 64 will look like a "tea party". GOP is now the party of "no".
Wasting money in politics
Yes, it's true that Republicans are wasting money fighting this health care bill.
But then, they wouldn't be if the Democrats weren't wasting so much vastly more money pushing through such a budget-buster of a (bad) heatlh care bill based on fictions such as that 40% of its cost will be covered by cuts to Medicare to be named later ... plus other gimmicks including a new raid on the Social Security trust fund, counting cash flow spending as "balanced" over a fixed set of years when taxes start coming in years before any benefits are paid and spending far exceeds taxes in the last year of the set, and a lot more ...
Those who claim to be deficit hawks and fiscally responsible -- and who call others hypocrites -- should hold themselves accountable to the same standard they'd impose on others.
Especially on BIG spending issues. Such as when they support a budget-busting new entitlement with finances as overtly politically gamed as this one's, as if it actually meets the solemn political promise...
"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. Period"
When the sums are *big* they matter.
One really can't be a budget hawk and champion of fiscal responsibility starting only after we play whatever bogus fiscal accounting games we must to get "this" issue through the process as if it meets our promise of not adding to the deficit ("now or in the future") no matter how much it actually does.
Because after "this" issue, there's is always going to be the "next" one.
But on lighter note, an amusing politcal cartoon.
Stan, I think your expression
Stan,
I think your expression of outrage is at best poorly targeted and at worst unjustified and harmful.
First, I don't know if I can just assume (as you assert) that Coburn's tactic can't possibly have any practical effect on this bill or others that would be positive from Coburn's perspective and/or from the perspective of our fiscal outlook, and just assume that it is purely, definitely, 100% self-promotional for it's own sake.
Second, yeah, it's small potatoes (well, if potatoes were microscopic) not only relative to the size of the budget, but also relative to the size of the spending he's fighting against.
Third, as I've said before, although I appreciate the concept of leading by example, (1) things should be put in some sensible perspective, and (2) if all those seeking fiscal responsibility and spending restraint in particular were to completely forego any type of spending that is arguably not justified (franking, public campaign money, pork for constituents, etc.), that would probably result in some/most of them losing the next election, and what you'd have left would be members of Congress who would be even more devoid of fiscal responsibility than what we already have (imagine that!), but who at least would be spared this sharp criticism from you because you wouldn't charge them with hypocrisy. Apparently you want those fighting the good fight -- well, the Republicans at least -- to unilaterally disarm. I don't. And I consider it unfortunate that you choose to focus your expressions of outrage, even for a couple of posts, in such a petty way.
I hope partisanship isn't a factor here, biasing your view and sense of perspective and/or affecting whom you choose to target for harsh criticism.
See also http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/1253/rep-frank-wolf-...
Of course it might prevent the bill from passing
There is a reason that the minority always wants the text of the bill available for days before it is voted on, and the majority wants to be able to pass it without the opposition seeing it. The longer opponents of the bill have to understand the bill and craft opposition research on it, the better chance they have to create enough public opposition to the bill to swing the vote.
If you think the health care law will result in wasting billions of dollars, spending a few hundred thousand to decrease the chance of it passing is a good trade.
The Dean of Harvard Medical School wastes effort and money
By JEFFREY S. FLIER
As the dean of Harvard Medical School I am frequently asked to comment on the health-reform debate. I'd give it a failing grade...
In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.
There are important lessons to be learned from recent experience with reform in Massachusetts. Here, insurance mandates similar to those proposed in the federal legislation succeeded in expanding coverage but — despite initial predictions — increased total spending.
A "Special Commission on the Health Care Payment System" recently declared that the Massachusetts health-care payment system must be changed over the next five years, most likely to one involving "capitated" payments instead of the traditional fee-for-service system. Capitation means that newly created organizations of physicians and other health-care providers will be given limited dollars per patient for all of their care...
[Cost controls!]
... a new Massachusetts state bureaucracy clearly will be required.
Similar challenges would eventually confront the entire country on a more explosive scale if the current legislation becomes law.
Selling an uncertain and potentially unwelcome outcome such as this to the public would be a challenging task. It is easier to assert, confidently but disingenuously, that decreased costs and enhanced quality would result from the current legislation.
So the majority of our representatives may congratulate themselves on reducing the number of uninsured, while quietly understanding this can only be the first step of a multiyear process to more drastically change the organization and funding of health care in America. I have met many people for whom this strategy is conscious and explicit.
We should not be making public policy in such a crucial area by keeping the electorate ignorant of the actual road ahead.
~~~~
Well, if the Democrats are going to pass a bad law anyway just so they can have the victory of passing it, then we must admit the Dean is wasting his time and effort and other peoples' resources in publishing his opinion like this, simply so that voters would be better informed.
And, yes, the Republicans would be only compounding the waste if they read this into the Congressional Record for the same reason.
Reading the bill
When our legislators don't read and research the bills they pass into law, we often end up with gross violations of our rights or serious waste. And we end up with economic bubbles which burst and put us into serious recessions.
Witness violations of rights: Patriot Act
Gross waste: Bush Bailout, Stimulus package
Economic Bubble: Revising the Community Reinvestment Act, repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act, lowering lending requirements for financial instutions.
Legislators should read, understand and research the actual bill they are to pass, not some watered down interpretation to what the bill says.
We elect and pay them to do a good job, not pass the buck to someone unseen person we didn't elect. Sometimes it's what's not in the bill that causes the most harm. You can't know about these without personally reading the actual bill, and dotting the I's and crossing the T's.
Legislators should be proud enough of their work that they aren't afraid to post their legislation on the Internet before the vote.
Jerrol LeBaron
Executive Director
Honor In Office
www.HonorInOffice.org
Answer 2
Take a look at this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfhO38CPlAI
This is what happens when reading the bill is not important.
Gross government waste or violations routinely come about when the bills are not read. Witness: Bush Bailout, Stimulus Package, Patriot Act.
I don't care what Party a person belongs to. If a lawmaker is going to vote in favor of the bill, that person has a moral and fiduciary responsibility to read and thoroughly analyze the bill. This applies to any bill, not just the healthcare bill.