What would Thomas Jefferson think of Bachmann and Coburn comments ?

Revolution talk is in the air.

Last week, the Tulsa Beacon reported that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said “I like the idea of tea parties and a real revolution.”
During the same interview, Coburn was asked about The Freedom of Choice Act and how people should react if it was enacted.
Dr. Coburn’s answer? "Civil disobedience.”
Coburn went on to say “The battle in Washington, D.C. is real. Every day in the Senate without Al Franken is a great day. ”

Saturday, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN:06) told WWTC 1280 AM, "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country.

Would the Founding Father recognize – Revolution, Civil disobedience, Battles, Armed and Dangerous – as the political discourse prevalent in our nation 220 years after the Constution was approved ? Hardly.

Thomas Jefferson would not appreciate having his words mangled and taken out of context. Jefferson never said or wrote 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,'; Jefferson did write to Abigail Adams in 1787 (Note : Jefferson was in France during 1787) “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."
So a number of thoughts.
First, it was written before the US Constitution was approved, and the Congress or President elected. America was still in its development.
Second, he clearly stated that “resistance” is based on “certain occasions” … in other words, a limited application. A “little rebellion” which is a vast difference from a “revolution” to overthrow the government. Today, peace protest marches have replaced armed rebellions.
Third, Jefferson eventually saw that the elective form of government was working and in 1806 wrote “In a country whose constitution is derived from the will of the people directly expressed by their free suffrages, where the principal executive functionaries and those of the legislature are renewed by them at short periods, where under the character of jurors they exercise in person the greatest portion of the judiciary powers, where the laws are consequently so formed and administered as to bear with equal weight and favor on all, restraining no man in the pursuits of honest industry and securing to every one the property which that acquires, it would not be supposed that any safeguards could be needed against insurrection or enterprise on the public peace or authority.”
In other words, voters should use the ballot box for protest … not insurrection.

The common denominator for Coburn and Bachmann is their opposition to abortion and a proposed “cap and trade” legislation.
Jefferson may have an opinion here also. After his presidency was over, Jefferson wrote in 1816 “Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure."
So Jefferson was in essence suggestion that the Constitution was not a fixed document, but that new generations may look at issues differently.
A March 2009, Zogby Poll found that nearly 42 percent of the respondents said they "strongly agree" while another 16.5 percent who reported that they "somewhat agree" with the president’s proposal "that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America."
A January 2009, ABCNews/Washington Post Poll found that over 80% approved of abortion which involved saving a woman’s life, health or in the case of rape or incest. Further, 57% considered it should be legal in most cases.
My point is not to debate “cap and trade” or abortion, but just to point out that if Jefferson’s concept of a new constitution every generation may produce – over time – a country that addresses gay rights, health care reform, gun restrictions, etc in an entirely different approach than today … and that Coburn and Bachmann may not like what the “people” would enact a new constitution.

Using terms like Revolution, Civil disobedience, Battles, Armed and Dangerous is totally inappropriate by someone elected and sworn to uphold the Constitution.
The words inspire Anarchy.
According to a Bachmann spokesman, her remarks about Revolution were Metaphorical.
That response is insufficient.
These comments could easily be denounced by Democrats, but it really must come from Republicans. No doubt that “Cap and Trade” is a contentious issue … after all, Bachmann was unable to get the RNC Platform Committee to included any amendments to oppose cap-and-trade. This is understandable considering that Senator John McCain was a proponent of the legislation. McCain was not alone. Norm Coleman was a co-sponsor of John Warner and Joe Liebermann legislation. Although Coleman is not presently a member of the Senate, he could exercise great leadership by denouncing both Coburn’s and Bachmann’s choice of words.
Another Minnesota Republican that should denounce these words is Governor Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty approved the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 which addresses a multi-sector cap-and-trade program.

The country has too many problems that need addressing that require reasoned discussions, not rhetoric that is designed to incite a radical emotion.

MN-01 : Brain Davis Hero gets Special Legislation – Vote 60

Why are Congress’ poll ratings at an all-time low ?

There are many reasons, but one most certainly is Gamesmanship.
The Republicans have used a number of procedural tactics to delay and stymie movement on legislation.
Representative Steve King (R-IA) has been particularily effective in the Judiciary Committee requiring roll call votes in committee meetings and denying other Members of Congress from questioning witnesses.
In fact, the House has been prone to many Roll Call votes when Voice Votes were customarily used … even having some Representatives change their votes in midstream just to delay things longer.
The goal of the Republicans may be to kill legislation---or delay it interminably --- not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
As Trent Lott (formerly Republican Majority Leader in the Senate) stated “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail.” Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.

It’s time the public, puts the blame where it belongs.

In the House, the Democrats with a slight majority have joined with moderate Republicans to pass many bills onto the Senate … but that is where they stop. The Senate has a number of procedural rules that Senators can use to halt progress. For example, since January 2007, Senator Tom (a.k.a. Dr. Death) Coburn has used his senatorial "hold" to block more than 80 pieces of legislation. Some of the bills, including a child pornography law that passed the House 409 to 0 in November, are so non-controversial that they would normally sail through on voice vote.

Now, the Senate is now moving forward legislation that would roll 35 bills into one omnibus package … all designed to get enough Republicans – and particularly Senator Coburn -- to break their obstructionists grip.
This is not good government … but unfortunately necessary when obstructionists can use rules and parliamentary tactics to impede progress.

For some, Coburn may be a roll model.
As The Mankato Free Press reported during its first interview with Republican First District candidate Dr. Brian Davis : “As a living political hero, he lists Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a fellow physician who Davis said isn’t afraid to offend Republican colleagues when he thinks they are placing self interest over the interests of his constituents or the nation.”

Coburn … a hero ? Is this an indicator to what sort of tactics that Davis could use if elected?

Since Minnesota First asked about Davis stance on the issues, The Mankato Free Press article stated : “Davis, a fiscal and social conservative, emphasizes numerous issues that tend to be important to Republican activists: illegal immigration (he considers it very damaging to the middle class), abortion and gay marriage ( strongly opposed to both), stem- cell research (it can be done without embryonic stem cells), the estate tax (repeal it), the Bush tax cuts (make them permanent), the Iraq war (no hasty withdrawal) ...”
That was October 25,2007.
That was the issues that he thought could garner votes, yet those are more controversial. But that’s his agenda.
Now, it’s OneIssueDavis … WMD … WantMoreDrilling.

So to the voters in Minnesota’s First District Republican Primary Election, please consider which candidate is bested suited for effective governance as you decide between State Senator Dick Day and OneIssueDavis.
Voters in November are starting to get an impression of Davis and it’s not good. From late tax payments to misinformed statements, Davis is showing that he is not prepared to represent the First District.

FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future commentaries and you can read about it here.

VOTE 60 : Klobuchar loses Fiscal Fight to Coleman & Coburn

FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future commentaries and you can read about it here .


Wanna get a Fiscal Conservatives blood to boil ?

Ask if it is right that $3.1 million in farm payments went to the District of Columbia … or $4.2 million has gone to people living in Manhattan … And $1 billion of taxpayer money for farm payments has gone to Beverly Hills 90210 ?

Fiscal Conservatives see that as wasteful government spending.

Farm subsidies have been getting a lot of media attention … and rightfully so.

Good news for Fiscal Conservatives … we have a Senator who wants to fight for taxpayers’ monies and added an amendment to the Farm Bill to address those excessive payments.

Bad news for Fiscal Conservatives … we have too many Senators that talk about the need for fiscal conservatism, but when it comes to the vote, they side with special interests.

The Fiscal-Fraud Du Jour is Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn (R). There doesn’t seem to be a bill that comes to final vote in the Senate without Senator Coburn offering an amendment … that’s why I call him Doctor Death .
The Farm Bill was no exception as Coburn offered Amendment 3807 : To ensure the priority of the farm bill remains farmers by eliminating wasteful Department of Agriculture spending on golf courses, junkets, cheese centers, and aging barns.
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion … but seven days later the amendment was withdrawn.

The efforts to reign in subsidies had an aggressive amendment known as the Dorgan-Grassley amendment (of which Senator Klobuchar was a co-sponsor.) It would have closed loopholes, placed a hard cap of $250,000 on payments and invested the savings in small business development, beginning farmers and other initiatives to create future in rural America.
Coburn and Coleman voted against this amendment and it failed the SuperMajority requirement (see VOTE60).

Despite that aggressive amendment failing, Senator Klobuchar offered an amendment Roll Call 426 which would allow payments only to full-time farmers making less than $750,000 a year and part-time farmers making less than $250,000, after expenses and use the savings to provide additional funding for certain programs and reduce the Federal deficit.
Once again, Coburn and Coleman voted against this amendment.

Former First District Congressman Tim Penny interviewed Coleman on Friday. Penney is the ultimate Fiscal Conservative and a former member of the House Agriculture Committee and his first question was, “Why did you vote against this?” After hedging for a bit about how others voted, Coleman answered that there are some farmers with million dollar loans and they needed coverage.

Wow. I thought subsidies were to provide a safety net.
IF someone has a million dollar loan, they must also have the collateral and asset base to support that loan. Why one million … what about the poor farmer with $1,000,001 loan ? What about the $2 million dollar farmer?
Isn’t this argument akin to the Social Security argument concerning means testing ?
What is more important subsidizing mega farms or family farms? When smaller operations are driven out of business that destroys the culture of family farming and undermining rural communities.

What is a reasonable safety net ? According to Coleman, not $250,000 … not $750,000 but One Million Dollars !

That’s not a safety net.
That’s protecting a system that ensures subsidies for special interests.
According to Senator Klobuchar the average income of a Minnesota farmer is $54,000 yet there were only TWO Farm Business receiving Crop Subsidy Payments in Minnesota for 2005 that exceeded $750,000 ( oh by the way, they also exceeded $1 million ) and a total of 71 that exceeded the $250,000 threshold.

The bill will now go to a conference committee at which Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN) wants to get the threshold down to $900,000.

As a Fiscal Conservative, I do not have a lot of hope for Congressman Peterson’s efforts as Republicans Love Farm Subsidies .

Coleman is Fiscal Irresponsibility in Action !

Tom Coburn : Dr. Death aims to kill Congress

Is there a Doctor in the House ?
Forget the House of Representatives, the problem is that there is a Doctor in the Senate.

Mark Kennedy tried to sell Minnesota voters that the Senate had too many attorneys and that it needed a Certified Public Accountant. Well, the problem is not the attorneys in the Senate, but instead it is the Accountant turned Doctor that is causing all the problems.

Polls of the approval of the 110th Congress performance are dismal. But who is to blame? I blame the stubborn Republican Senators who are slowing and stopping legislation. Some may argue that it is sound philosophical differences that prompts their actions. That is understandable, but there is probably a portion that is just political theatre.

The Founding Fathers created six year terms for members of the Senate and as such it is considered the more deliberative legislative body. But now, the Republicans are being more obstinate than deliberative.

First, most legislation is not voted upon until a vote in which 60 members agree to end a filibuster. The current Senate is balanced between Democrats (49) and Republicans (49) and two Independents. In the previous Congress, the threat of filibuster involving judicial appointments was resolved when 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats agreed to advance the confirmation vote on judicial nominees (except in "extraordinary circumstances"). Today, the Republicans do not seem to have the same inclination to overcome the filibuster rule. So often, we now see a handful of Republicans breaking with Party Managers on specific votes, but I suspect some (Norm Coleman, Gordan Smith, and John Sununu) are motivated by the 2008 election while others (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe) were original members of the compromise group. It is reasonable to question whether Coleman / Smith / Sununu votes are really symbolic since they know that the 60 vote threshold will not be met.

But there are other “procedures” that Senators can use. For example, a “hold” can be placed on a piece of legislation. Let’s look at the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Olympia Snowe - a Republican from Maine - initiated this legislation in 2002 and with every session she starts a new bill with hope and optimism. For example, February 17, 2005 the Senate passed the bill 98-0 ... in most instances, that overwhelming support would mean quick passage ... sadly, it went to the Republican-controlled House ... where it never was addressed. Fast forward, to this year , ... now with a Democratic-controlled House ... it was passed with only three dissenting votes ... but when it went to the Senate, Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, put a HOLD on it. Now, why did Coburn vote for this bill in 2005 but now does not want it to be passed .... these are the games the Republicans are playing. Coburn has used the Hold procedure over 80 times.

And even when legislation is moving forward, the Republicans move into delay mode. Coburn frequently offers amendments to bills (over 80 times thus far) as they reach final vote. Some may be valid. And the outcome may even be easily forecasted before the vote. So how can that be delayed … simple require a Roll Call vote. For example, Coburn offered an amendment #2773 and required a recorded vote . Senator Leahy scoffed at the need and pleaded to have a voice vote … but the Republicans wanted a Roll Call. So the process is delayed while all the Senators come to the Clerk to announce their vote. The outcome of this vote – 92 in favor … and ONE opposed … the one Senator who voted against Coburn’s amendment was Richard Lugar – a Republican from Indiana. Reviewing the amendments offered by Coburn, if it is not approved by an overwhelming majority, they are rejected. His actions are largely to delay and impede passage.

It’s time for Norm Coleman and other Republican Senators to address Coburn. These antics are not productive and create voter dissatisfaction that Coleman and others will feel next November.

End this political theatre now !