The bipartisan floor crossing

[El_Machinae]

Well, we're all watching the American election. Might as well. It's pretty important.

So, now we get to put down which policies we've heard or read that you'd either (if you supported them) "hold their feet to the fire" for, or would actually want to see imposed, even though it was proposed by the person you don't support.

Balanced budget stimulus or debt-paid trickle down?

Rip up the EPA or try to bring the US into 21st century leadership for zero carbon?

Raise the minimum wage, or using tariffs to raise the demand for American labour?

etc. etc.
Are there substantive policies to be found that should be chased?

So, I find the lack of bipartisan support for addressing climate change horrifying. I think it's a terrible, terrible and looming problem. It's a debt being written that is only being built upon.

But, the idea of increasing block grants to the states in order to fund catastrophic medical care for those without insurance strikes me as a really, really good idea. American healthcare is already terrifically subsidized by the government, but I think people being able to take 'catastrophic care' off of their insurance policies would really, really shake up the insurance market. Heck, even opening the borders around states wouldn't matter (and would probably help), since what we most fear about opening the borders is that people would be screwed on their catastrophic care. A Nevada insurance company screws you on your kid's braces? Heck, you'll drop the policy and tell all your friends.

 

[Cutlass]

The problem with block grants is that no matter what the intended program of the grant, the states aren't actually obligated to use if for that. So it would be far better to have the feds spend the money themselves.

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem with block grants is that no matter what the intended program of the grant, the states aren't actually obligated to use if for that. So it would be far better to have the feds spend the money themselves.

Block grants are very similar to what we use in Canada. But, while the states aren't forced to use it a certain way, the legislation can include preconditions (like we have here). As well, y'know, leaving decisions to the actual people is part of the democratic process.

 

[El_Machinae]

I am trying to figure out which stimulus package is more Keynesian.

Trump is proposing a supply-side stimulus from the Top (by lowering tax rates), which is remarkably similar to dropping the Prime Interest rate in its effect. And then, using tariffs and trade restrictions will cause supply-side inflation from the bottom. It's a two-pronged stimulus program.

I can't think of any big-project spending of his that will generate actual returns. It's mostly the modern equivalent of hole-digging and re-filling.

OTOH, Clinton is doing a much more rightwing investment program. Using taxes, but then spending them to buy projects that allow more long-term growth. It's tapping the more classical paradigm for generating economic growth.

 

[tetley]

The U.S. and Canada are apples and oranges when it comes both to healthcare and guns. Canada's policies are better on them both, but the U.S. just can't digest the change. Too many political lobbies on the right, legitimate citizens' concerns, and too much corruption. We see that right now: maybe the U.S. could use some change instead of 4 more years of Clinton and Obama, but the change being served up is Trump. That's like getting tired of your bland beans-and-rice diet, you're ready for a change, so someone offers you a big bowl of dirt.

 

[Cutlass]

Block grants are very similar to what we use in Canada. But, while the states aren't forced to use it a certain way, the legislation can include preconditions (like we have here). As well, y'know, leaving decisions to the actual people is part of the democratic process.

The people who decided to raise the money for a specific purpose are seeing that money taken for other purposes. That's a subversion of the democratic process.

 

[mrt144]

The U.S. and Canada are apples and oranges when it comes both to healthcare and guns. Canada's policies are better on them both, but the U.S. just can't digest the change. Too many political lobbies on the right, legitimate citizens' concerns, and too much corruption. We see that right now: maybe the U.S. could use some change instead of 4 more years of Clinton and Obama, but the change being served up is Trump. That's like getting tired of your bland beans-and-rice diet, you're ready for a change, so someone offers you a big bowl of dirt.

Which indicates who is really holding stuff up in this country.

 

[tetley]

The U.S. can't even place the constitutionally-required 9 justices on the Supreme Court bench.

 

[mrt144]

The U.S. can't even place the constitutionally-required 9 justices on the Supreme Court bench.

Why?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why?

Complete dysfunction in the legislative branch of the federal government seems the obvious answer.

 

[Cutlass]

Justice Denied: McCain Says He'll Block Any and All of Clinton's Supreme Court Nominees
Posted By Jim Nintzel on Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:03 PM

It’s bad enough that earlier this year, Republican senators made up a bogus “tradition” that presidents shouldn’t be able to appoint someone to the bench in the final year of their presidency because “the people” should decide whether a Democrat or a Republican would have the chance to make an appointment. But now it appears that no matter what the people decide, McCain will continue to oppose Democratic nominees.

McCain told a Philadelphia radio station: "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up. I promise you. This is where we need the majority."

McCain later walked back his statement through a spokesperson. (So his vow to be united against any nominee may not have been a promise?) Team McCain clarified that that McCain would at least look at the nominee’s record, but Arizona’s senior senator remained skeptical that Clinton could put forth the name of judge who wasn’t too liberal for his standards. Kind of a distinction without a difference.

If you’re wondering how conservative a justice would have to be to earn McCain’s support: He told The Weekly last month that Obama nominee Merrick Garland was too liberal to earn his support, even though Garland has been described as the ideal kind of nominee by Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch.

McCain’s hardline stance is particularly appalling given that earlier this year, he said that Congress has low approval ratings because lawmakers have abandoned bipartisanship.

“Bipartisanship does not exist,” McCain said. “What we need is a recognition on the part of both parties is that the approval rating of both parties is 14 percent. Why is that approval rating what it is? Because they don’t think we are responding to their hopes and dreams and ambitions and what they want us to do.”

Ann Kirkpatrick, the Democratic congresswoman who is facing McCain this year, pounced on McCain’s comment before he walked it back.

“The unprecedented political obstructionism John McCain is now advocating is not just pure, partisan politics at its worst: it’s downright dangerous,” said Kirkpatrick in a written statement. “John McCain now clearly values his own party’s goals over the good of our country. After endorsing Trump more than 60 times, John McCain is now promising broken government if Trump doesn’t win. This is just one more sad, but clear, example of how much John McCain has changed after 33 years in Washington and why we need new, principled leadership for Arizona.”

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRang...ny-and-all-of-clintons-supreme-court-nominees

 

[mrt144]

Good job McCain! Really proving how committed to a functioning America you are.

 

[El_Machinae]

None? Zero? There are no policies offered that people would be willing to vote outside of partisan lines?

 

[tetley]

I think the President can sue the Senate, and say they are not fulfilling their constitutional obligations by refusing to approve anybody and sit the required 9 justices in the SCOTUS.

 

[uppi]

I think the President can sue the Senate, and say they are not fulfilling their constitutional obligations by refusing to approve anybody and sit the required 9 justices in the SCOTUS.

Does anybody have a guess what would happen? Could the SCOTUS impose rules on the Senate (like: They have to have a vote within 90 days)?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

None? Zero? There are no policies offered that people would be willing to vote outside of partisan lines?

The electorate solely rewarded Bill Clinton when he worked with Republicans to get welfare reform, and solely rewarded Bush when he worked with Ted Kennedy on prescription drugs. Whether people will still be bipartisan is one thing, Congress, most assuredly, will not. And if they are, they get punished for it.

 

[EgonSpengler]

So, I find the lack of bipartisan support for addressing climate change horrifying. I think it's a terrible, terrible and looming problem. It's a debt being written that is only being built upon.

I can't remember who it was now, but several months ago I heard an analyst on the radio say that parts of the U.S. will be "uninsurable" soon, whether it's fires, floods, storm surges, or whatever. I know that many people in North Carolina have lost much or all that they had.

None? Zero? There are no policies offered that people would be willing to vote outside of partisan lines?

One of the things that happens, particularly in an election year, is that our political differences are highlighted. It's the politics version of "if it bleeds, it leads." Honestly, if there were a topic that a lefty like myself and a conservative agree on, it might sail past with barely a whisper. I took a quick Google-glance at Donald Trump's positions on various topics, just to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious, and I can honestly say that I'm not with him on a single thing. I do find some common ground with the libertarians (pro-legalization of marijuana; pro-choice on abortion; opposed to the death penalty), but I don't know if that fits into the scope of your question.

 

[tetley]

Does anybody have a guess what would happen? Could the SCOTUS impose rules on the Senate (like: They have to have a vote within 90 days)?

I'm pretty sure they can. And if they hold the Senate in contempt, guess who runs the Federal police.

 

[Cutlass]

None? Zero? There are no policies offered that people would be willing to vote outside of partisan lines?

It does happen. It just happens far less now than at any time in the past 150 years of American history.

Unfortunately small quality pic:



And that only goes up to 2011. It's gotten worse since then.

People tend to dismiss this as hyperbole, but it's really not: If you read up on the political and social run-up to the Civil War, this is extremely similar to what it was like. The conservatives, those who self-identify as conservative, and many who self-identify as libertarian, but aren't really distinguishable from conservatives, are radicalizing themselves. They are choosing to become ever more radical, and ever more unwilling to compromise. They are painting themselves into a corner.

It is entirely their choice. And entirely their doing. And they are moving steadily towards ripping the country apart. And what are they saying about it? That the liberals have to abandon their values and just let the conservatives win, or they'll be responsible for the violence conservatives use to force their will on us.

How do you compromise on a middle ground with people who are willing to destroy everything if they are not allowed to win everything?

 

[Lexicus]

How do you compromise with a cancerous tumor? At the federal level, that is effectively what the Republican Party is on the body politic.