Bunning ends filibuster, but 205,000 people won't get a check this week

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 19:56


Jim Bunning has ended his filibuster of unemployment and COBRA benefits extensions:

Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-Ky.) one-man filibuster ended on Tuesday.

Bunning agreed to stop blocking legislation to extend benefits and COBRA health plan subsidies to the unemployed after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) agreed to allow him a vote on an amendment to pay for the $10 billion bill.

It's the same deal Bunning was offered last week, but Bunning at the time decided to continue his fight. He'd been holding up an extension of the benefits since Thursday.

However, Bunning still did real damage.  205,000 people will not get an unemployment check this week:

Andrew Stettner of NELP says that, no matter what, some 205,000 people won't get a check this week, since it takes anywhere from two to six weeks for the states to get their bureaucracies geared up. "We've already crossed the Rubicon. Now, we have to play catch-up," he says.

With that 2-6 week delay, this could be extended pain for hundreds of thousands of Americans.

I'd really like to hear all the principled defenses of the filibuster now.  Better yet, I dare someone to defend the filibuster to one of those hundreds of thousands of Americans.

This won't be the last time that a Republican like Bunning, assisted by a handful of true wingnut Senators, does something like this.  It is time to end the filibuster.

Update--Senate leadership will use Bunning to combat Republican outcry against using reconciliation to finish health reform:  A Senate Democratic leadership aide writes in to say:

Bunning lifted the curtain on the great lengths that Republicans go to drag out every single action taken by the Senate, no matter how routine. This is why we need to return to an era of more up or down votes and fewer filibusters. It's why all options are on the table moving forward, including reconciliation.

Glad to see they are willing to take steps against filibusters in Bunning's wake.

Chris Bowers :: Bunning ends filibuster, but 205,000 people won't get a check this week

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Bunning ends filibuster, but 205,000 people won't get a check this week | 27 comments
Sorry to make light of a serious situation (0.00 / 0)
but this is an odd threat:

Better yet, I date someone to defend the filibuster to one of those hundreds of thousands of Americans.


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
fixed (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Bunning is cool (4.00 / 6)
He's that kind of guy. That's what he does. He was elected to do that. He's a typical Republican. They were glad to have someone willing to go front and center (even though he's well known to be brain dead.)

The Democrats are the ones who should be embarrassed. (And the sane Republicans, if there are any. Maybe a few of them finally showed up and talked to Bunning).

The Republicans have changed the way the filibuster is used. By doing that they put the ball in the Democrats' court, and it's still there. A response is required. Why do I (an inexperienced nobody) understand these things,  when 59 Democrats don't?

Because the 59 Democrats are Senators first, Democrats second, Americans third, and hardly human beings at all. As Senators, they're all thinking "If we end the filibuster, I'm going to lose a lot of chances to squeeze money out of government for my donors."

Don't anyone hold their breath.

Bunning is retiring, he's the perfect point-man on something like this. (0.00 / 0)
There's no down side for him, is there? I'm sure he was offered something in exchange for his Snidely Whiplash impersonation, yes?

Oh, I'm sure every Dem in DC understands your question perfectly well. This is all kabuki... of a particularly noxious sort. Fact is, the Dem leadership doesn't have the balls to come out and admit they are the same neo-liberal d-bags as their GOP cohorts. I mean, why else would the White House, knowing full well what this kerfuffle means in real terms for real people, not make so much as a peep on this? Where was Reid? Where were the Dems in general, besides making the same stale pseudo-partisan excuses they always make? They issue a blandly worded press release....

What these folks always seem to forget is people who don't care about process issues DO know there are 59 Dems in the Senate and we also have a Dem President who is oddly quiet when the Thugs pull these little ops of theirs.

For my money, I think this will only hurt the Democrats in November. I say this because if I'm not mistaken, this particular UE extension is only good for two weeks, which means we'll all get bludgeoned with this again shortly. I can't wait and neither can the rest of the country, I'm sure!

So the Democrats could have taken Thor's Hammer to these people on this to devastating effect and instead act like it's no big deal. Because for them, it's no big deal. So either the DC Dems are complete morons, or they're trying to be too clever by half.

The longer this stupid charade continues, the worse things will be in November. That much I can say. Americans may be uneducated, but they aren't that stupid. People can usually figure out when they're being lied to... when it really matters.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
I'd really like to hear the blogs, (4.00 / 5)
the media and the Dems call this what it is: a Republican assault on working and unemployed Americans. Enough with the "crazy old fart" narrative. He's just following GOP tactics and goals. The Dems catch hell because they can't control Lincoln and the rest of the turncoats. Why doesn't the same apply to the Republicans?
Senator Bunning has done a great service to America (4.00 / 1)
by showing how ludicrous the Senate rules are and how easily (and frequently) they are abused by Republicans. His stunt has drawn massive media attention to the arcane Senate rules. He has done what we would have had a very difficult time doing. I applaud Senator Bunning for his efforts on our behalf. /snark
Another hanging curve (4.00 / 4)

 "Republicans want unemployed Americans to starve to death."

 That's the message our leaders should be pounding.

 But no. Must be bipartisan. Even with these animals.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

re: message (4.00 / 2)
"Republicans want unemployed Americans to starve to death."

That's the message our leaders should be pounding.

are you kidding? that'll anger republicrats

[ Parent ]
Where's Alan Grayson when you need him??? (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
There will be somewhere a sad, human toll (0.00 / 0)
Someone is going to get sick, some child is going to irrparabley harmed in some way.  People will have lose heat, elctricity, health care, and even family.

It seems melodramatic..but very real somebody or somebodies will die.

Out of 205,000 people who have been left bereft, hanging by their fingers to a ledge, someone(s) will fall off the ledge.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

This is a great opportunity to recast the question of the role of government (4.00 / 2)
Jim Bunning's filibuster should've been wildly popular.  We're a center-right country, right?  We all hate government and think it should be spending less money, especially on jobless bums, right?

...right????

This is a great chance for liberals everywhere to say look, this is what government does.  It's there to keep you afloat when you're down on hard times.  We liberals think that government should be using its power to help sustain and improve people's lives.  Conservatives like Jim Bunning want to prevent government from doing the right thing.

How Much Is Enough Chris? (0.00 / 1)
Can you please tell me, as specifically as you can, what threshold represents the maximum point at which the government has to say no more extensions of unemployment benefits, as a matter of fiscal responsibility? Assume that unemployment stays near 10% for the next 10 years. Is there a limit to this (now) entitlement, ever? If so, what is it and why is that level the correct level? If not, how do you expect to be taken seriously in a policy debate when costs are irrelevant to you?
Why should he talk to you, MinnRick? (4.00 / 3)
You're just a clown repeating cliches.

But yes, while the goal should be to get unemployment down to 5% or less, if we can't do that (i.e., if we have gone into a deep depression) benefits should continue. Ten years of 10% unemployment would be a catastrophic policy failure with grave consequences all around, but apparently to you it's not something to worry about. You're just worried that the unemployed will receive too much government money.  

[ Parent ]
Sure I'm Worried (0.00 / 1)
But unlike you I'm worried about everyone, not just the ones who've lost their jobs. That's all liberals know how to do - be empathetic and spend other people's money in the name of that empathy. You wouldn't know fiscal responsibility if it bit you in the ass, which is why instead of answering my question - a valid, economically important one - you chose to call me names. Who's the clown?

When you're prepared to recognize that costs matter and that their effects - all of them, beyond just the immediate relief that they provide - must be considered with every bit the priority as 'helping people' or 'saving the planet' give me a call. Until then you're an economically clueless simpleton whose ideas are well on their way to bankrupting our nation.
[ Parent ]
Conservatives have exploded the deficit. They're liars. (4.00 / 2)
Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all had horrible records on fiscal responsibility, but that doesn't keept their worshippers for dragging out their slogans whenever a Democratic program is in question.

As I understand, it's your proposal that, if the American economy goes permanently bust, the unemployed and the poor should be cut off cold in order to save the better off. You seem to think that that's the obvious thing to do and will somehow help the situation, but it isn't and it won't. What we need to do is make sure that unemployment doesn't stay at 10% forever, not make plans about who gets screwed.

OL has no need for Republican talking points. You are a troll and they should boot your ass out of here.

[ Parent ]
The truth is that costs only matter… (0.00 / 0)
...when conservatives feel they should. Many of the unemployed have been paying into the system much longer than the equivalent of a year-and-a-half of unemployment benefits extensions. What fiscal conservatives are suggesting is that we hang those folks out to dry at a time everyone that agrees is particularly trying. If that happens, how do we expect those folks to retain trust the system (i.e., feel comfortable contributing to it) once they finally return to work?  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
[ Parent ]
Should say… (4.00 / 1)
"What fiscal conservatives are suggesting is that we hang those folks out to dry at a time everyone agrees is particularly trying. If that happens, how do we expect those folks to retain trust IN the system (i.e., feel comfortable contributing to it) once they finally return to work?"  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
[ Parent ]
If "liberals" know this: (0.00 / 0)
That's all liberals know how to do - be empathetic and spend other people's money in the name of that empathy.

What is it that drives the opposition? Be militaristic and self-centered and spend other people's money in the name of that militarism and self-interest?

If someone is gonna spend my money (assuming I'm one of the "other people") I prefer them to be empathetic. With enough oversight to assure me that they are spending my money in empathetic ways, of course. "trust but verify", so to speak.

But, really, am I one of the "other people" whose money you claim these "liberals" are pissing away on empathetic policies?  Only if I read the Constitution like fundamentalists read the bible - edited of ideas that don't support my agenda - do I interpret the situation in such a one-sided manner. Isn't it true that the "government" is intended to be BY and FOR the People? If the citizens are not gonna fund the "government" by taxation - how do you propose to fund it?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Rick is a troll (0.00 / 0)
I just looked at six or so of his comments, and they're 100% Republican talking points. There's no possibility that he'll ever contribute anything valuable here.
[ Parent ]
He's a foil (0.00 / 0)
a sparring partner. Not so much about changing his mind, as honing one's debating points for other discussions.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
We actually have fruitfall discussions here (0.00 / 0)
We can spar with winger ideologues on hundreds of different sites.
[ Parent ]
Typical Republican (4.00 / 1)
You pay unemployment insurance all your life, you lose your job, and suddenly you're a worthless parasite.

Let's leave aside the fact that you're an appalling cretin with no knowledge of how counter-cyclical spending works. That money was paid in to cover unemployment benefit, it should be paid out. Otherwise it's little better than theft.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
BUNNING WAS RIGHT???? (0.00 / 1)
Where is the money coming from to pay for it?  Why is it Wall Street got a $700 billion ++++ bailout and the new jobs program is only $15 billion??? Bunning wanted the unspent money from the Wall Street bailouts spent for the unemployment benefits.

http://www.humblelibertarian.c...

1) Bunning is right. Jim Bunning's reason for blocking the extension of unemployment benefits is absolutely well-founded. He is asking the question we should ask of every appropriation: where is the money coming from to pay for it?

He doesn't oppose the unemployment extension, he is simply insisting that we pay for it with unspent money from 2008's appalling financial bailout package- money that would go to financial corporations if we don't give it to struggling Americans like Bunning suggests. Really terrible of him, huh?

Where the fuck do you people come from? (4.00 / 1)
Bunning is well known to be mentally impaired and approaching dementia. The Republicans were talking about squeezing him out a couple of years ago. It was just a dumbed down version of the same old Republican obstructionism. Who cares what he claims or you claim his reasons were?

If you want to know where money for the bailout etc. comes from, it's from taxes on future growth. Credit is like that. Businesses don't finance expansions from money they already have just sitting around, they borrow. The national economy is not a pile of gold coins just sitting there.

As a percentage of the GDP, the debt is not especially high compared to earlier perios, though it would be a lot lower if it hadn't been for Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and our various military adventures.

[ Parent ]
And thats why (0.00 / 0)
Banks have so much power.

Businesses don't finance expansions from money they already have just sitting around, they borrow. The national economy is not a pile of gold coins just sitting there.

The national economy is not a pile of gold coins, but it is a pile of money from taxes. Whether it should also include credit or borrowing is debatable. When you rely on other people to loan you money, you cede power. And guess who loans us money? Banks and China. Want to know why Greece is in trouble? Because they need loans to get by. You think Greece would care what banks think if they didn't need to borrow so much from them?

[ Parent ]
Why on this issue (4.00 / 3)
and not a military appropriation, or corporate bailout?

Why make a stand on the backs of those who are at most risk in the nation Bunning claims to represent, love and defend?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Those 205,000 people (4.00 / 1)
Are now enraged with the Democratic government, and will either vote Republican or stay home.

This is scorched-earth electoral politics.  

Bunning ends filibuster, but 205,000 people won't get a check this week | 27 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox