TIME TO PUT THE INTERESTS OF AMERICAN WORKERS ABOVE THAT OF FACTION

US HOUSE VOTES TO BLOCK JOB KILLING ACTIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR BOARD

The U.S. House voted this week to block the controversial actions of the National Labor Relations Board in attempting to block Chicago based aircraft maker Boeing, Inc. from opening a new plant in worker-friendly South Carolina instead of union-dominated Washington state, where it currently has major production facilities.

The largely Obama-appointed national labor board members, whose primary mission under law is to protect American workers and intervene in labor vs. management disputes to avoid devastating strikes, filed a lawsuit against Boeing in federal court seeking declaratory relief and monetary damages based on its allegations that the company's actions in attempting to produce the company's “dreamliner” plane in S. Carolina constitutes a “dilution” of union worker rights in Washington state contrary to law and violates Boeing's contract with the unionized workers there, prompting a fierce debate over the rights of American company's to conduct business as they seek fit and potentially pitting “right to work” states against heavily unionized ones at a time when jobs are altogether scarce to come by. It has also prompted at least one other related lawsuit by those seeking to get to the bottom of the national labor board's reasoning for taking this legal action which could have long-term and damaging repercussions to American jobs, see here.

Leaving aside the obvious that in a free Republic a company should be allowed to build wherever it seems best to them in order to make a profit, at last check a prominent feature of capitalism lest companies give up entirely risking their money to create jobs-- indeed, the fact we're even having this debate brings into question this basic premise and is a sad commentary at just how far we have become slaves of big government rather than its master-- comes at a time when hundreds of thousands of American jobs have been lost overseas already.  


Accordingly, the actions of the NLRB has seemed to some, including this organization, as particularly short-sighted, and prompted us to ponder aloud: Is the Obama Administration so hell-bent on government control and defending their union allies-- who it is no secret gave heavily to support the election of the Barack Obama in 2008 and undoubtedly will do so again in 2012-- that they would prefer to see these quality American jobs lost to overseas competition from countries whose workplace and environmental standards already place them at a competitive advantage? In other words, if we can be so blunt, would this administration, and the union bosses who support it, rather see these jobs lost to China?

Indeed, the cavalier attitude of the unions, and most worrisome, this administration, at the spectre of the loss of potentially thousands of relatively high-paying American jobs in the critical manufacturing sector is coming at a time we can ill afford it, when global competition between the American plane manufacturer and its European competitor Airbus is at a critical tipping point.

But to stand back and allow the loss of any American jobs to simply make a point and, in the most charitable view, protect union bosses cushy benefits and perks while destroying the ability of thousands of ordinary American families to make a fairly decent living seems to us distinctly un-American and to throw the baby out with the bath water.  (Apparently the union bosses would rather see the creation of no new jobs for Americans, rather than the potential loss or scaling back of any current union ones. So much for caring about all American workers, the mantra of the big unions!).  

Of course, in the less charitable view, and regarding the leadership (or lack thereof) of the White house on this matter, such conduct seems to fit a disturbing pattern of this Administration to protect its powerful political allies and special interests out of a purely crass political motive of self-preservation regardless of the broader consequences to the nation.

This, to us, is one of the dangers to our Republican form of government spoken of by Founding founder James Madison in Federalist number 10, in which he plainly warned:

It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments... These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations. By a faction, I understand [mean] a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

James Madison, Federalist no. 10. 

Then too, Madison continued on a related theme in Federalist 51:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

James Madison, Federalist no. 51.

It seems to us, if ever a factious spirit has invaded our government, the actions of late of the National Labor Relations Board, and the Administration at whose pleasure it serves, are evidence of the destructive effects of the dangers of faction of which Madison speaks, and its ability to result in injustice and oppression to vast sectors of society in order to serve narrow interests.

Accordingly we urge the peoples' representatives in the U.S. Senate to quickly act on the House's example and pass the bill, and call on the President to promptly sign it into law.  


Even better, we call on the President to take immediate action disavowing the job-killing actions of the NLRB by ordering it to drop the suit against Boeing corporation.


It is time to put the needs of the American people for jobs ahead of the political interest of faction. jp

 

On the merits of ending ethanol and other pet Government subsidies- Part III

 We started our journey into this highly timely and relevant discussion re: public ethanol subsidies by the federal government in a broader and controversial discussion here on whether federal subsidies in other areas ought generally to be allowed to go against the basic values or interests of the majority of the American people, and continued with a slight detour to deal with some philosophical matters that touched upon the current debate over Obamacare and health care autonomy here.  We now, in part three of this complex subject finally come to the crux of the present matter:  Namely whether, as a matter of public policy, subsidies and/or laws mandating the use of newer and "environmentally friendly" personal fuels such as ethanol-- and by extension agricultural subsidies in general-- should continue to be provided to encourage the phase out of "older" fuel technology (i.e. "fossil fuels") which we assume for the purposes of our discussion would be advantageous to the nation for not only environmental purposes but many other reasons as well, (including helping wean our nation off its addiction to foreign oil from often unfriendly and tumultuous parts of the world).  


  It is important to note our question here is not whether public policy makers have the authority to make such determinations, (as we believe they indeed do), but whether such public policy is a wise and scientifically/economically justified use of public resources.  In other words, whether the public taxpayer should be on the hook for the development of such new and perhaps even necessary products and technologies that provide broad and beneficial uses to society as a whole instead of, say, leaving the development of such products and technologies to the private sector.  That is the question we are (finally!) set to tackle (or at least begin) with today's post. 


  Initially, we are not unmindful of the critical impact upon farmers and the farming industry that a reversal of current policy would entail, (at least as pertains to agricultural subsidies for things like ethanol production).  Our nation's system of agricultural laws-- read subsidies-- are profound and far reaching; in everything from meat to milk, wheat to soybeans, and of course, our most salient crop here discussed, corn, farmers today are paid (or not) for almost every decision they make in a complex and delicate balancing act by the federal government to stave off shortages by insuring both a stable supply of basic foodstuffs at a reasonable price as well as a sustainable standard of living for farmers, (policies which sometimes seem at odds).  


 Indeed, farming is no longer a simple vocation run by "salt-of-the-earth" men (and women) living off the land and producing extra for their neighbors and society if that year's mixture of toil, sun and rain happens to yield a bumper crop; In many places, the "family farm" is becoming a thing of the past, replaced by bottom-line businessmen and executives at the head of vast agri-business farming conglomerates-- many 
times publicly traded corporations-- utilizing such high-tech solutions as genetically modified hybrid seed, Global Positioning Satellite and weather forecasting systems to determine exactly where and when to plant to achieve maximum production, (and creating, in many cases, local concern and opposition over excessive noise and odors, as well as pollution from waste and pesticide runoff created by such operations, see here).   


  Accordingly, our first (and obvious) observation must be that the decisions today's farming operations make are profoundly in tune with-- and effected by-- public policy vis a vis subsidies for ethanol (or other crop specific subsidies) to the point of effecting/altering their production.  (Indeed, to assume such business-saavy operations of this scope wouldn't be mindful of public policy regarding taxpayer funded federal subsidies would be indeed naive).


  The second observation we would like to make is that, on the whole, there is no doubt that any changes in the current and complex patchwork of rules and regulations that is federal agricultural policy would create winners and losers, (just as it currently does, only with different winners and losers).  For example, the current policy fad of increasing ethanol production undoubtedly promotes the fortunes of corn farmers at the expense of some other types of farming, such that any change in current ethanol policy-- our matter chiefly under consideration here-- would result in the loss of thousands of dollars, (and perhaps jobs as well), to farming operations concerned chiefly with its production.  However, this alone, in our view, is insufficient reason to continue ethanol subsidies.  


  Although on philosophical grounds we continue to believe it is not the government's job to pick winners and losers, but to provide a level playing field, the current "field" is anything but level.  Therefore, without true comprehensive reform of the agriculture subsidy system, we find compelling the argument that every agricultural rule of the government is going to, in some manner, create winners and losers and at this stage of the game cannot be helped.  (Indeed such is the result of our modern federal bureaucracy generally.) Thus, while this argument may be availing in the context of a broader discussion on complete elimination of all federal agricultural subsidies, such a debate will have to await another day and be much more extensive than the matter of which we are chiefly concerned with here re: ethanol.  However, it is also the reason we find other more compelling reasons to be concerned with the current corn ethanol subsidies.   


 As has been previously pointed out, government, as a whole, is a particularly poor and inefficient utilizer of resources due to its excessive overhead and bureaucracy (see here).  Beyond five hundred dollar toilet seats and fifty dollar screws, (if we even make screws anymore, see here), this is particularly so when it comes to new trends and technologies coming down the pike which could make the government, (and by extension the lives of Americans), simpler and more cost-efficient.   


 Moreover, and perhaps more saliently, government has proven itself again and again a particularly poor seer of the next and best technological "trend" even when such trends are in favor of the purposes which it ostensibly seeks to advance.   Indeed, even when a change of course is clearly needed, government is rather like the Titanic than a 15 foot sailboat, unable to quickly and efficiently change even when the needs and safety of all aboard this ship of State called America requires a change in course to avoid certain disaster.  (Contrary to the practice of business, say, with a publicly-traded company which has no choice other than to promptly switch gears if what it is doing isn't working, at least if it is to keep its shareholders happy and stay in business at all!)  


   A good example of this problem of having the government at the helm would be the current debate over which exact biofuel or process for its development should the government be encouraging with our tax dollars (and related "official" policy).   Indeed, there is good evidence that the current corn-food based ethanol production process is a rather poor one among other available choices, (see here, here and here).


   Not only does corn yield a rather low energy "bang for the buck" compared to the cost of creating ethanol from other sources such as beets or sugar cane, (the latter of which is five to six times more energy efficient), but it ignores other promising alternatives such as biodiesel and newer technologies which utilize cellulosic ethanol from non food-stuffs such as sawgrass or bagasse in ethanol production.  Indeed, as the following quote makes clear, it is simply not the most efficient means of making ethanol in any case.  


    "In the current alcohol-from-corn production model in the United States, considering the  total energy consumed by farm equipment, cultivation, planting, fertilizers, pesticides, 
herbicides, and fungicide made from petroleum, irrigation systems, harvesting, transport of feedstock to processing plants,fermentation, distillation, drying, transport to fuel 
terminals and retail pumps, and lower ethanol fuel energy content, the net energy content value added and delivered to customers is very small."
Wikipedia, for full source page in context click here).   

  In contrast, using newer technologies which tap "cellulosic" sources such as sawgrass and other non-food plant matter (including even algae!) and which utilize special enzymes to "chemically" aid in their conversion to ethanol can eliminate altogether the need for heating in the production process of this staple gasoline additive, see here-- which has all but replaced gasoline in cars in places like Brazil, see here--  suggesting ethanol production methods that could be up to seven times more efficient than current processes.  (Indeed, studies show that cellulosic-based ethanol has an FER, or "Fossil Energy Ratio" of 10.3 compared to just 1.36 for corn ethanol, see source in Wikipedia by clicking here and scrolling down to 'bioalcohols' section as well as see other biofuel options generally at same page).   As compelling a case as this is for the ending of government subsidies for corn based ethanol subsidies however, it is NOT the final (or most compelling) word on the matter, (or on agricultural subsidies in general).   


  The biggest argument for eliminating federal ethanol subsidies as currently exist is a more humane one that perhaps you may have guessed by the above reference to non-food-based cellulosic ethanol.  Namely, that in a time when so many people around the world are suffering from the recent spike in food prices-- and indeed literally starving to death in many places--  it makes utterly no sense, and indeed, is a moral and human outrage, that our government would rather support politically correct "environmental" policies that don't even further the public policy goals professed at the cost of starving people to death!  


  Only in Washington could such an unnecessary waste of public resources (and human lives!) for no purpose at all be considered remotely rational, (even if initially begun with the best of "intentions").  Which brings us to the final reason we feel corn ethanol subsidies should be promptly eliminated by the government, (if its inefficiency compared to the private sector, inability to adapt to the promise of newer technologies, and the abject suffering such policies are causing around the globe isn't enough!).  


  The increased amount of acreage dedicated to corn production to make ethanol that otherwise would not be taking place but for the governmental policy favoring corn ethanol production has resulted in an according and inordinate increase in the amount of fertilizer, pesticides, and other potentially dangerous chemicals which many environmental groups claim is polluting waterways when "runoff" occurs, (see here).  And while we would point out that none of this would even be occurring if those same environmental groups hadn't pushed from the getgo for higher ethanol production to reduce pollution from greenhouse-gas polluting gas powered vehicles-- ahh the completely equitability and unavoidable effects of the law of unintended consequences!-- that does not make such claims invalid.  Rather, such claims, if true, provide just one more reason to finally eliminate corn ethanol subsidies.   


  To that end, we are heartened that Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Tom Coburn (R-OK), joined forces last month to introduce a bill that would eliminate the .45 cent a gallon incentive to ethanol producers, see here and here.
  
  While it is still uncertain if the bill can garner enough broad-based-based and bi-partisan support to overcome what is expected to be stiff opposition from farming interests, (who in the years from 2000-2005 received a total of 115 Billion in federal subsidies, see here, and have reason to fear a potential onslaught if subsidy-cutting fever catches on more broadly), it is encouraging that a broad coalition of citizen and activist groups have voiced strong support for the measure, see here).  The ACLP is all too glad to add its voice to the demand for this wasteful, unnecessary and counter-productive subsidy to be ended.   


  Unfortunately, the only reason we are not hearing MORE of a chorus of support amongst Washington players themselves for elimination of these subsidies is the powerful agricultural interests at stake in "keeping the status quo" and the sums of money the farm lobby continues to shovel at our elected leaders.  Indeed, we will find it no coincidence coming up to the 2012 elections-- which start in of all places, you guessed it, Iowa, the heart of corn country itself!-- if newly elected Congressmen, especially those from farming states in the corn-belt, might be a bit squeamish to support such bills or not be the first to suggest major changes in our patchwork system of non-sensical and often contradictory agricultural subsidies when they are keenly mindful of the 65 million dollars agri-business and its allies contributed to the political parties and candiates' elections in 2008 (62% of which went to Republicans).   


  Nevertheless, and even in the face of considerable pressure from big agriculture, some Republicans have for some time, and to varying degrees-- at considerable risk of cutting their own throats from a campaign contribution perspective I may add-- been sounding the call for broadly based agricultural subsidy reform or at least a review of federal subsidy practices, including the likes of newly elected Tea Party aligned Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).  We applaud their courage and urge them to stay in what will undoubtedly be a bruising political fight.  


  And it's not as if we haven't been here before.  Last December, before the reauthorization of the ethanol subsidy was voted on as part of the package extending the Bush Tax cuts in the "lame duck" Senate session following historic mid-term electoral gains by Republicans, a bi-partisan group of 17 Senators led by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and John Kyle (R-AZ)-- at considerable risk of raising big agriculture's ire against them-- mounted a last minute effort to repeal the ethanol subsidy only to be lopsidedly defeated 81-19. Perhaps Senators Coburn and Cardin know something more that we don't this time around; indeed, we can only hope this display of bi-partisanship will last long enough to end this pernicious practice of the agri-welfare nanny-state. 


  But will this display of bi-partisanship be enough to pass ethanol-subsidy reform through the whole Congress and gain President Obama's support?  That remains the 64,000 dollar question. 


  After considering the kind of public lambasting which the President gave Republican leaders bold (or stupid?) enough to openly suggest fiscal plans to get our spending and debt under control last week, see here-- the same leaders who he had just praised for their hard work on the previous week's budget compromise avoiding a shutdown mind you, see here or for video here-- we have our doubts. 

   Frankly we can't blame any of our elected leaders, particular Republican visionaries like Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan in the House of Representatives, (R-WI.), if they don't want to become walking bullseyes  for Obama's re-election campaign to target the support of confused environmentalists and voters generally with scare tactics that the Republicans not only want to give taxbreaks to the "billionaires," force poor kids to eat dogfood and Grandma to go without medicine but want to destroy the environment as well.   


  In fairness, we would be remiss not to mention President Obama's recent moves towards capping or "means testing" larger and wealthier farms' level of subsidies, see here, (even if such reforms are relatively modest and insufficient in light of the systemic nature of the problem and the cynic in us wonders if, in light of ag-business giving more money to Republicans last election cycle, if there isn't a political motivation behind the President's actions).  Hopefully such fears are mere paranoia on our part, and all the talk about bi-partisanship-- however tenuous it may appear at times-- will result in a giving way to cooler heads now that divided government insures deadlock if our leaders can't start acting like adults and work together for a change.    


  In any case we welcome all comers to the debate; indeed, we will need a much stronger and bi-partisan effort by many more public leaders if we are to defeat the farm lobby and repeal the federal subsidies for corn ethanol-- as well as agriculture subsidies and other programs of the cradle-to-grave nanny state generally-- that make no environmental, economic, or even human sense.   


 Accordingly we call on the Congress as well as President Obama to take the lead in reviewing (and repealing!) this expensive and senseless federal policy which can only benefit a few at the expense of the many and in the long run can only get in the way of sensible American agricultural policies that encourage innovation and competition to the benefit of the American people as well as sound environmental practices.  jp
   

Filibuster Reform in the Senate- A good idea?

Amidst the vast changes begun to be enacted in Washington D.C. as a result of the Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives in the historic midterm elections, (earmark reform and the largely symbolic "repeal" of Obamacare comes to mind), was one more obscure in the upper chamber  that seemingly takes a degree in 'History of U.S. Senate Rules' to understand. 

We are talking of course about reform of the "Filibuster," that staid practice of old popularized by the Frank Capra political charmer and one of my favorite movies of all time, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington."  You know, that practice where one Senator, any Senator, can, at least in theory, take the floor of the U.S. Senate and talk 'til the cows come home,' (something perhaps taken too literally by uber liberal 'Independent' Senator Bernie Sanders from the State of Vermont recently, for more info click here).

The question is, should the filibuster be ended, or at least significantly reformed, under the premise that it unduly restricts the ability of the Senate to complete its work and gives the minority party too much power to play politics with a virtually unlimited ability to obstruct important legislation for often purely political reasons?

NOTE:  Although new readers to this blog may due to a perceived frequent agreement with the "Republican" point of view wrongly infer we are a "Republican" organization-- regardless of the fact  our perspective on political and societal issues may at times coincide with views of the Republican party-- we are not officially affiliated with the Republican party or, for that matter, any other partisan group or party.  Rather, we are governed by our own independent judgment and the official and non-partisan mission of the ACLP to foster debate and discourse among individuals and American institutions on issues of vast import to the body politic as a whole.  Indeed, we do not believe that such issues as the impact on privacy and freedom of speech that the new internet protocol ipv6 may pose, the U.S. Constitution, or Dr. Martin Luther King's dream for racial equality are "Republican" or "Democratic" issues, (all recent topics for discussion posted on this blog).  Thus, if you are a person slavishly devoted to just the "Republican" or "Democratic" parties, or for that matter, any other particular platform or ideology instead of a discussion of "ideas," you are likely to find yourself frequently disappointed by many of this organization's blog posts.  Today's is no exception. 

Following that little disclaimer then, it may come as no surprise, (or may, depending on your level of obtuse partisanship), that we find the current push by Senate Democrats to reform use of the filibuster under Senate Rules to be reasonable and in the best interest of the country, especially as it pertains to ending the use of "secret holds," the practice where a single Senator can anonymously prevent legislation-- or in some cases votes on nominees of the executive branch to federal agencies or vacancies in the courts-- from coming to the floor for a vote.  In conjunction with the now-common practice of holding up legislation with a mere "threat" of a Filibuster without ever having to take to the Senate floor to actually carry it out, such tactics can be used by the party out of power to delay, often permanently, action on nominees or legislation they find objectionable. 

Such practices have, in recent years, been increasingly abused for partisan purposes by politicians on both sides of the political aisle, (the Democrats blocking virtually any Amendments by Republicans to the "health reform" bill more popularly known as "Obamacare" comes to mind), but it is not a practice by any means of Democrats alone; Indeed, Republicans during the current, as well as the Clinton Adminstration have also utilized such practices.

Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that use of the filibuster and such tactics as mentioned above for partisan and obstructionist purposes have little place in our modern Democratic Republic. 

Indeed, instead of a tool meant to guarantee full discussion and debate on matters of important public interest before action is taken that may have long term unintended consequences, (rather than delivering the sound bites and political zingers we have become all too accustomed to and which the current rules encourage), the current incarnation of the filibuster little resembles the one that Jimmy Stewart's character would have recognized and has come to be wielded instead as a tool to shut down debate of issues.  This, in a Democratic Republic founded on principles of the First Amendment, should not be so.  

In this regard our leftist-leaning Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders had it right.  In line with the more traditional and historical use of the filibuster he at least had enough respect for its proper use to actually take to the floor of the Senate for an astonishing-- at least in the modern age-- almost 9 hours before exhaustion forced him to step down (or more precisely, away) from the podium.  

In our view, this is as it should be.

In this light, we believe it shortsighted for the Republicans (or any Democrats for that matter) not to support a return to a more traditional use of the filibuster and related rules; indeed, while today it may be the Democrats who, for admittedly partisan gain at this point in time want to reform said rules, that should not preclude consideration of this issue on the merits.  (Indeed, even from a "Republican" point of view it is our humble opinion that opposing such reform makes little sense, as we shall shortly show).

We therefore urge both parties, (and especially the Republicans who are more apt to object at this point) to support reasonable Filibuster Reform and put the good of the nation ahead of short term political advantage. 

Now in fairness, Republicans do have some concerns.  They were boiled down to chiefly four last week by Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), in justifying opposing filibuster reform.  According to a Huffington Post article, and in Senator Alexander's words, (his words in quotes), we note the following objections of Mr. Alexander to this seemingly common-sense change in Senate Rules:

1) They "dimish the rights of the minority," 2) "diluting the right to debate and vote on amendments deprives the nation of a valuable forum for achieving consensus on difficult issues," 3) the "brazen power grab by Democrats this year will surely guarantee a similar action by Republicans in two years if Republicans gain control of the Senate as many believe is likely to happen" and 4) any legislation pushed through the Senate under the new rules would "undoubtedly die in the Republican-controlled House during the next two years." See here.

This however seems to miss the forest for the trees and deny the truth-seeking dictum to disregard the source in determining the validity or non-validity of an idea.  And, at least from our perspective, the idea of some form of filibuster reform is sound.

As to the first, well, yes, to an extent any cutting back of the use of the filibuster diminishes the power of the minority.  But in light of the fact that Republicans have complained bitterly about alleged abuse by the Democrats of this power in recent years-- The recent health care "debate, "where Democrats would not allow Republicans to offer significant amendments to the legislation before forcing it through on a party-line vote, comes to mind-- why wouldn't they want to pare it back to at least its more traditional "Mr. Smith" form?  This to us seems distinctly in the national interest.

Number two is not necessarily true, especially if new filibuster rules enacted preserves the right by Senators to engage in the afore-mentioned and more traditional "talking filibuster".  It actually might foster the opposite effect of forcing Senators to actually work together more to reach consensus on difficult issues if they knew they couldn't simply hold up legislation endlessly and would have to hold the floor of the Senate instead of merely threaten a filibuster on divisive issues they cared deeply about.

Three, if, Republicans truly believe they will win a majority in the Senate in 2012, as the numbers do indeed suggest, changing the rules now will in fact make it more difficult for Democrats to block Republican reforms in two years, (when Democrats will then be in the minority).  In any event, pure partisanship seems a particularly poor basis on which to make public policy in this country. 

As for the fourth concern of Senator Alexander, again, this appears to us to be a classic case of missing the forest for the trees.  Aside from the fact that we are not aware that the House has authority to vote on alterations to Senate Rules, even if true, the Senate voting to do the right thing shouldn't be held up merely on the basis that the House might not like it.   Let the Senate pass what they deem fit, and let the House respond in due course and/or the differences be ironed out in conference.  This is what our Democratic process is for.  

In closing, it is worth mentioning that we at the ACLP believe that, in this greatest nation on earth where the First Amendment was born, the solution to bad legislation is more debate, not less, and that the Senate, as the nation's highest law making body, should be ashamed of its desire to hide behind an expanded, modern "filibuster" just to avoid having to publicly take stands on issues.   Indeed, isn't this what true reform a la the phenomenem of the Tea Party movement which has just swept the Republicans back into the majority in the U.S. House is in large part about, more transparency?

In our view, this common sense reversion back to the traditional use of the filibuster, along with elimination/revision of the "cloture" rule, (i.e."secret holds"), ought to rather be at the top of the list of reforms enacted by new members of the Senate, (indeed, such an idea has broad bi-partisan support, see here.


Doing so is particularly in the national interest.  jp