Monday, March 1, 2010

Bipartisanship

Some lament the current tone in Washington and how the legislative process has been dominated by so much political bickering that it seems impossible to pass even the most simple bills. Filibusters are invoked, cloture votes forced, and harsh 60 vote thresholds that have to be met with strict party line votes are required for bills that often finally pass with near universal support of both parties. Just look at health care, or the jobs bills, or economic packages, or anything really.

But there is hope. There is one area of action where our elected betters come together to pass bills with true bipartisan support, warming our hearts with their commitment to bettering this country: when the legislation involves stripping Americans of privacy protections and giving the government greater surveillance powers. That's right, the Patriot Act!
Democrats have retreated from adding new privacy protections to the primary U.S counterterrorism law, stymied by Senate Republicans who argued the changes would weaken terror investigations.

The proposed protections were cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Dashing the hopes of liberals, the Senate Wednesday night instead passed — by voice vote without debate — a one-year extension of key parts of the USA Patriot Act that would have expired on Sunday.

Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.
That's right, we can't pass an extension to unemployment insurance and transportation funding by a voice vote because of Jim Bunning, but the Patriot Act? No problem. And forget all those little thingy dingies about improving privacy protections and curbing the numerous stories of abuse we've heard about the Patriot Act provisions that were able to get through committee with bipartisan support. No, as Pat Leahy said "some Republican senators objected to passing the carefully crafted national security, oversight and judicial review provisions in this legislation." So, best not try it or force a public fight over something like rights.

So let's recap. If a bill can be marginally seen as to benefit a section of the American public: filibustered to death, partisan gridlock. If a bill gives our lawmakers a freedom boner and allows them to think of themselves as macho manly men waging the war on terror in a manly way: no need to even press a button to vote for it, we'll just pass it based off the loudness of grunts and then move on to post-vote drinks in the coat room. Ain't this country great?

No comments: