They’re angry with one another – Claire McCaskill and Josh Hawley, running in the tightly contested U.S. Senate race in Missouri. McCaskill is doggedly pursuing re-election and shows remarkable energy for someone who is 65. Hawley is trying to help Missouri Republicans overcome the stain of their last young knight in shining armor, former Governor Eric Greitens.

Let me suggest ways in which at least one candidate, McCaskill could make her campaign more honest, spend far less money, and do the voters a real service. Here are some proposed talking points for Claire to say:

1. I’m a moderate. Lots of Democratic voters want me to be a progressive. Lots of independents and some Republicans want me to be in the middle. By being in the middle, I will pick up a few conservative Republican votes, but probably less than my previous strategy would indicate.
   • Why am I a moderate? I’m not sure. It’s partly a calculus I have made to maximize my chances of winning re-election. Now there are those on the left who think that I would do better with a more progressive agenda, but I don’t think that’s a formula to win state-wide in Missouri.
   • If I wasn’t running for the U.S. Senate, I’m not quite sure where I’d be. My inclinations are to help those who those who are least enfranchised in our society – women, minorities, differently abled, etc. But I’m somewhat hung up on this “Missouri values” thing, whatever the hell that means. So, I’m not Elizabeth Warren, but I’m certainly not Mitch McConnell.
2. The money I raise. I guess you get inured to it after a while. Really what I do is beg. I know that if anyone outside of politics was asking you for money multiple times a day you would call the Better Business Bureau, or the prosecuting attorney (I once held that job in Jackson County [KCMO]). It’s true that our current laws and the way that they have been interpreted by the Supreme Court allow me to do just about anything that I want to in terms of raising and spending money. But it just seems, well, unseemly. I have a distinct name advantage over my opponent. How much is any advertising going to help me? So, I’m going to stop asking for money, stop accepting money, and stop spending money except for bare necessities and communications that elevate the conversation.
3. About my husband. My instinct is to say “that’s none of your damn business.” But, the fact is that we often live under the same roof and we have shared values, concerns and assets. If I could re-write the script, I would not want my husband in a line of work in which he interacts with the federal government. In fact, I know that the whole idea of nursing homes for profit is somewhat distasteful to many, but there is a need for housing for the eldest and most infirmed among us and he is providing needed facilities and care. As best I know, his facilities are not scandalous like so many that come to our attention.
4. About my opponent. I don’t want to personally attack him. But if I don’t point out certain inconsistencies or curiosities about his views and positions, who will. He says that he supports care for pre-existing conditions, but at Attorney-General of Missouri, he has filed suit to eliminate this protection. And his notion that sex trafficking occurs now because of the sexual revolution of the 1960s makes you wonder about the history classes that he took. In any event, however charming he might be to some, he is so far to the right that he will likely jeopardize the well-being of anyone who needs a government safety net to get over tough times.
5. And about Donald Trump. I know that many Missourians like him and what he is doing. I have to admit that I’m somewhat surprised that he has not done more visible damage to the United States than we have seen. But in insidious ways he is decimating the federal government, particularly the agencies that provide necessary services for all of us, yes, even those of you who think that everything revolves around “Missouri values.” If I was conservative, I might find Trump to be charming. But his humor is mean and so are many of his policies. If it hurts me politically to distance myself from him, so be it. Even I have standards.
6. One final thing. It’s been a good run for me; nearly twelve years in the U.S. Senate. I never claimed that I would term-limit myself (as Susan Collins did), but three terms will be enough, especially since at age 71 my political ambitions are likely done. So, if you re-elect me, I’ll be “one and done.” Fresh blood is a good idea.

I actually think that this might be a good strategy for McCaskill and if she has sleepless nights, this might help reduce them. I won’t remain awake waiting for her to take this strategy. But if she did, what a breath of fresh air it would be to our political process.

The post Trying to cut through the B.S. in Missouri’s U.S. Senate Race appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When 28-year-old, first-time, Latina candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pulled off a stunning primary upset against 10-term Democrat Joe Crowley in New York, it was cause for celebration. At least that’s how I saw it. But, apparently, I had a different reaction than that of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill.

Pelosi downgraded Ocasio-Cortez’s surprise victory calling it a random outlier and saying, “It should not be viewed as something that stands for everything.” And McCaskill, asked what she had in common with Ocasio-Cortez, said, “Not much.”

I view these dismissals of Ocasio-Cortez as both offensive and counter-productive. I can’t understand why leaders of the Democratic party aren’t celebrating the success of a candidate who is doing precisely what the Democratic party should be encouraging: coming off the sidelines, getting engaged in politics, putting herself on the line for progressive ideas—and representing the exact demographic that the party needs to move forward and to regain its mojo.

Well, actually, I think I do understand why Pelosi and McCaskill are distancing themselves from Ocasio-Cortez, but the reasons aren’t  pretty. It’s all about the internal politics of the Democratic establishment. Ocasio-Cortez knocked off a big name, a party insider who was on the short list to replace Pelosi as House Minority Leader [or possibly majority leader, if the blue wave actually hits in November]. The party elite had a succession plan—it was Crowley’s “turn”—and now Ocasio-Cortez has messed up the pre-determined order of things. That’s a no-no.

I’m afraid, too, that Ocasio-Cortez also carries with her—in the narrow view of the Democratic party apparatus—the “taint” of being an organizer in Bernie Sanders’ bid for the Democratic nomination in 2016. His candidacy was viewed by the party power elite as an insurgency, an assault on democratic centrist orthodoxy, and a threat to the prescribed order of things, in which the presidential nomination rightfully belonged to Hillary Clinton. They’re still mad about that, apparently, even though Sanders’ ideas remain popular–as demonstrated by Ocasio-Cortez, who describes herself as a Democratic Socialist, like Sanders. So, while America retreats into the 19^th Century on social and economic issues under Donald Trump, the Democratic party seems to be re-litigating its 2016 internal battle between Bernie-ites and Clinton-ites—and taking it out on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

As the party of Trump increasingly moves to the right, espousing radical, retrograde ideas that were once too extreme to talk about in public, it’s clear to me that the Democratic party must offer a choice as the party of the progressive ideas that have made life in America better for a wide range of people. They should be standing up for the New Deal ideas that Republicans, in their current orgy or power, are assiduously tearing down, day by day, one by one.

Democrats are not going to win by pandering to the right—as McCaskill did in her dismissive comment delivered on a conservative, St. Louis-based talk show. [Question: Would she have said the same thing on MSNBC?] Hasn’t the Democratic party learned that we can’t out-Republican the Republicans?  Democrats need to go left, as Ocasio-Cortez did—and won doing it. Instead of putting Ocasio-Cortez down and downgrading as a “fluke” a victory that should be seen as an energizing event, they should be asking her for advice.

Pelosi, McCaskill and other higher-ups in the party hierarchy are wishing for blue wave in November. They’re desperate to find strategies that will increase voter turnout, especially among younger voters. So, here’s a candidate who has the potential to do exactly that,  who may be a role model for others, and whose improbable victory could offer an object lesson in the perils of complacency. Dissing her is just plain dumb.

The post Pelosi, McCaskill dis Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after she beats entrenched NY Dem. WTF? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Today Claire McCaskill did it. She voted with all Senate Republicans and nine Senate Democrats to pass the House’s Keystone XL authorization. Of course, nine Democrats won’t be enough to override a presidential veto, so maybe she was hoping to get some red Missouri love without having to make anyone pay too big a price.

That line of thought might, though, give McCaskill too much credit. Even most Republicans have to know in their secret hearts that as far as jobs go Keystone XL is very small potatoes indeed.

As Steve Benen writes today:

As for the substance, let’s recap our discussion from a few weeks ago, noting just how straightforward the case against Keystone is. At issue is a proposal to build a pipeline to transport oil, extracted from tar sands, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Critics have said the tar-sands process is environmentally hazardous, which is true. They’ve said the project would have no real impact on already low gas prices, which is also true. And they’ve said Keystone would be largely meaningless to the U.S. unemployment rate, which, once again, is completely true.
And on the other side of the aisle, Republicans have an equally straightforward rejoinder: they really, really, really like this project. Why? Because they really, really, really do

And for some reason, McCaskill, the only Democrat I’ve got representing me in Congress, seems to share the GOP infatuation with the pipeline. She seems to really, really, really like it too. Even pertinent reminders of the problems that plague oil pipelines, events like this month’s disastrous spill into Montana’s Yellowstone River, fail to sway her infatuation with the project – and if you think such spills are rare events, take a look at this list of hundreds of such spills in the United States in the last 14 years alone. And no, engineers can’t really make credible promises to do better. As a USGS engineer observed apropos the problem of protecting pipelines routed beneath rivers, “it’s nature […]. Is it going to follow the equation? I don’t know for sure.”

So does this mean that McCaskill, who seems uber-cautious when it comes to politics, is inclined to be reckless when in the throes of fossil-fuel passion? There must be some explanation for McCaskill thowing her constituents under the bus. And don’t let anyone fool you. The answer can’t be jobs. The Keystone impact will be so small that Chuck Todd and some of his fellow NBC news staff members, deride the entire effort as laughably “small ball politics.”

Steve Benen has a persuasive take on why Republicans keep batting that diminishingly small ball back and forth:

Rather, Keystone has become a totem of sorts. Its actual value has been rendered meaningless, replaced with post-policy symbolic value that ignores pesky details like facts and evidence. Indeed, the more Democrats and environmentalists tell Republicans this is a bad idea, the more Republicans convince themselves this is The Most Important Project In The World. It’s ideologically satisfying.

Taking this one step further, my suspicion is that GOP officials find all of these circumstances quite convenient. Republicans don’t have a jobs agenda, or much an economic vision in general, but they have a Keystone bill that those rascally Democrats won’t accept.

And when pressed for an explanation on why congressional Republicans aren’t working on economic development, they immediately turn to their talking point of choice: “Keystone! Keystone! Keystone!”

So that explains why Republicans are doing what they are doing. It’s just another Benghazi in a long list of Benghazis, symbolically loaded tags that come in handy when you’re asked why you and your political allies can’t do anything worthwhile.

But this still leaves us with the question of Senator McCaskill and her Democratic allies. Surely, their goals aren’t to provide cover for GOP ne’er-do-wells. Surely, they can’t think that siding with idiots who are running for cover will provide them with the same type of cover. Haven’t they noticed the President’s spiking approval numbers now that he’s showing a tendency to stand up for a progressive agenda? Isn’t that proof that there are still people out there who reward leaders who can act the part?

[Republished from Show Me Progress]

The post Claire McCaskill’s doomed love affair with Keystone XL appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I recently received an email from Senator Claire McCaskill, D-MO, asking for my ideas about Congress’ efforts in the months to come.

As Claire says, “some of the best ideas for what to tackle come directly from constituents, and that’s why I’m asking for your help. I want to know what you believe Congress should focus on this year.” Great! I have a chance to get behind my Senator and see that important stuff gets done.

It was a bit of a letdown when I went to take the survey. Here are the options Claire put forth:

• Continuing to expand job and business opportunities
• Holding government accountable by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse
• Protecting consumers
• Making the tax code fairer and simpler
• Continuing to improve care and services for military veterans
• Protecting rural post offices and shoring up the U.S. Postal Service
• Preserving Social Security and Medicare
• Combatting sexual violence on college and university campuses

Really? That’s the best she can do?

Okay, there’s a box labeled “Have something else in mind? Let us know here.” A big box with lots of room. Skipping the proposed checkbox topics, I filled the suggestions box with issues like gun control, campaign finance reform, increasing the minimum wage, greater police accountability and lots more.

There, that should do it. Click submit. Oops, I’m taken back with a message that I must check at least one box.

Okay. Fill out the form again, check at least one box, refill the suggestions box with the important stuff. Click submit. Next screen: FORBIDDEN. What’s THAT mean?

As it turned out, if any “other” suggestions were entered, the survey response was FORBIDDEN. Surely, her staff would have tested the survey site to make sure that other ideas from her constituents would be heard. But then, maybe not.

What happened to the Democratic party of Mario Cuomo at the 1984 Democratic National Convention?

In his eight minute address, he spelled out a vision of the Democratic party and of this country that bears repeating today. Referring to Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill,” Cuomo said,

“But the hard truth is that not everyone is sharing in this city’s splendor and glory. A shining city is perhaps all the President sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well. But there’s another city; there’s another part to the shining the city; the part where some people can’t pay their mortgages, and most young people can’t afford one; where students can’t afford the education they need, and middle-class parents watch the dreams they hold for their children evaporate”

Spend time watching that speech and you will get a vision of what could be.

Full text of Cuomo’s speech here.

Michael Gerson recently wrote for the Washington Post, that Democrats are stuck in the past. He referred to Cuomo’s speech. He said it, “provided progressives with the best version of themselves, as tribunes of the forgotten and excluded.” He goes on to say that Bill Clinton shifted the party’s focus more to the center.

Gerson then complains, “President Obama has now effectively undone everything that Clinton and the New Democrats did in the 1980s and ’90s. Issue by issue, today’s Democratic Party is about where it was in 1979.”

If only that were so.

The post Dancing with Claire and ghosts of Democrats past appeared first on Occasional Planet.

[by Willy Kessler]

So, on the heels of a tax cut for the wealthy that insults every middle and working class person in the state of Missouri, the state legislature has the chutzpah to put a sales tax increase on the fall ballot in order to pay for transportation infrastructure. This tax, in common with sales taxes in general, falls most heavily on those who can least afford it. Rich folks who have the means to subsidize politicians and businesses that depend on our transportation infrastructure to thrive will once again benefit from the poor man’s mite.

And our Democatic Senator, the wealthy Claire McCaskill, is all for taxing the little guy while the fat cats get off. She thinks the sales tax is overdue, should have been enacted last year, although she realizes that, coming as it does on the heels of the rich man’s tax cut, the optics aren’t too great:

Is it my first choice on how to fund transportation? Probably not. But it doesn’t mean that I’m not willing to support it. I will support it. Because we’ve got to get some additional revenue for our roads in Missouri,” McCaskill said. “They want to talk about what makes Missouri an attractive business climate, well funding higher education and having good roads and bridges are way more important than Rex Sinquefield’s plan to do away with everyone’s taxes entirely and make us all into Kansas.

I admit it. McCaskill’s absolutely right about the need for revenue. But since I’ve been in Missouri I’ve seen one serious need after another addressed by proposals to increase the sales taxes that hit the poor man disproportionately – while the top tax rate in the state remained obscenely low. Now it’s even lower. If Missourians take McCaskill’s lead next November, we’ll continue to be stuck with ever more unfair sales taxes every time a new need is identified – desperate need, that is, since the GOP-dominated legislature is more than content to let the social and physical infrastructure of the state slide until the conditions are so dire action is unavoidable. Every time Democrats go along with a sales tax when serious, progressive tax reform is what is called for, we are helping to put finis to the vision of a state that is just and where prosperity is shared by all.

The Missourians who vote for these GOP bozos need to learn what happens when their elected representatives chose to favor wealthy political donors over the working people of the state. The lawmakers that enacted the mindnumbingly stupid tax cut need to be held accountable for their shortsided, ideologically driven behavior. That will only happen if we don’t bail them out by putting the burden on those least able to carry it. Sure, it’ll hurt for a while, but it’s the only way we’ll change the direction of our state.

No on the sales tax may even benefit the state’s economy since those at the bottom end of the economic spectrum tend to spend the money that they manage to keep in their pockets, stimulating growth. Rich folks, on the other hand, tend to sit on their excess moolah.

A headline in yesterday’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch says it all. Describing the recent Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, the headline proclaimed that “Democrats defend party principles at dinner here.” That’s right, not “assert” party principles, but, like sniveling losers, they attempt to “defend” themselves from the bullies who are picking on us all and who, if things continue as they are, will probably get away with it. Claire McCaskill is willing to concede defeat, leaving us worse off in order to deal with only one of the many problems the state faces – a serious problem, but if we endorse her postion, we’re shutting the door to a real solution in the future, a solution that is fair for all. We’re also telling the big baddies in the legislature that there’ll be no price to pay for taking us in the wrong direction. Vote no on the sales tax for the sake of Missouri’s future.

[This article was originally posted on Show Me Progress.]

The post Missouri’s proposed sales tax hike: A question of fairness and progressive identity appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Ask a politician where he or she stands on gun control legislation and it’s likely you will get an answer that involves “mental health.” Many say they support the common notion of second amendment rights, make a slight nod towards some flavor of legislation and then promptly seek safe haven in the call for better treatment of mental illness.

In Missouri, the responses are fairly similar no matter where you look on the political spectrum. From Roy Blunt:

The right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms is an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution and broadly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Our Founders clearly understood that one of the most basic rights of Americans is the ability to defend themselves and their families… I do believe it is important that we have a serious national discussion about preventing these senseless acts of violence and protecting our children in their schools…

Equally important, however, is an effort that more broadly addresses ways to spend federal dollars more wisely when it comes to treating and identifying those who are mentally ill as well as intervening before they tragically impact their own lives and the lives of others.

to Claire McCaskill:

As you know, the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans the fundamental right to bear arms.  I strongly support legal and safe gun ownership by law-abiding citizens and have consistently voted to uphold this constitutional right… At the same time, we have to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of individuals who should not have them… We should have sensible, constitutional controls on gun ownership that address safety in our communities… Recent tragedies, such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrific events in Newtown, Connecticut, have made it clear that our nation’s current gun laws should be reconsidered… Knowing that those responsible for some of the most prominent mass shootings in recent history have suffered from mental illness, it is equally clear that we must also consider mental health services available to our citizens.

It’s a safe dance. Who can argue with better mental health treatment? Dr. Richard Friedman brought a little perspective in a December 17 article in the New York Times:

All the focus on the small number of people with mental illness who are violent serves to make us feel safer by displacing and limiting the threat of violence to a small, well-defined group. But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force.

Then the New York Times took things an important step further in a February 24 editorial. The paper points out that a risk greater than mental illness lies in the mixing of alcohol and firearms.

Focusing on the mentally ill, most of whom are not violent, overlooks people who are at demonstrably increased risk of committing violent crimes but are not barred by federal law from buying and having guns. These would include people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors including assaults, and those who are alcohol abusers. Unless guns are also kept from these high-risk people, preventable gun violence will continue…

The evidence linking alcohol abuse and gun-related violence is compelling. One study found that subjects who had ever been in trouble at work for drinking or were ever hospitalized for alcohol abuse were at increased risk of committing homicide and suicide. Other studies also suggest that alcohol abuse is a factor in the association between gun ownership and the criminal justice system.

Politicians may claim they are dealing with gun violence by focusing on mental illness, but they do so at our peril. There’s a lot at stake and so much more that can be done.

The post Mental health gun-control dodge misses the bigger point appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I’m knocking on doors for Claire McCaskill’s GOTV effort, in suburban St. Louis [an impressively well-organized and energetic effort, I must say], and here are some things I’m noticing as I walk/drive/jump out/talk/leave literature. Totally unscientific and anecdotal, of course:

1. A vote for McCaskill does not seem to necessarily mean a vote for Obama here in suburban St. Louis. We’re asking the McCaskill question first, and following with the Obama question. I’ve had several voters say they definitely would vote for Claire, but “still thinking about” Obama. That’s disappointing. But there’s such a slim-to-none chance that Obama would win Missouri that it’s not all that significant locally. If Missouri can simply help hold onto the Senate by re-electing Claire, we will have done an important job.

2. The people we’re focusing on [self-identified Democrats, of course] get that Todd Akin isn’t just a neanderthal, but that he doesn’t deserve to hold office. People I’ve talked to have spontaneously used the word “idiot,” “moron” and “awful” to describe him, even though I haven’t asked for their opinion of him. That’s encouraging.

3. Voter suppression takes many forms, some of which are very subtle, yet very dangerous. Case in point: I knocked on a door yesterday, looking for an 18-year-old voter named Brett. A 50-ish-year-old man opened the door. I told him that I was campaigningfor Claire McCaskill, and asked if Brett was around. The man–his Dad, I assume–said, “He’s right here. But what’s this about?”  I told him again, and at that moment, a skinny kid–obviously Brett–appeared behind his Dad, looking like he wanted to talk. Dad said, “Brett hasn’t made up his mind about who he’s voting for.”  “Well, could I talk to Brett about that?” I asked. “No,” said Dad emphatically, and shut the door in my face. Yikes.

Similarly, I approached a man on a riding lawn mower, showing him my McCaskill sticker, telling him what I was doing, and asking if “Julie” was home. “She doesn’t want to talk to you,” he said. “Can I talk to her about it,” I persisted. “No,” he said, and revved up the lawn mower to drown me out.

4. We’re up against some very hostile, unreasonable people: We got booted out of a pretty ritzy subdivision when a very angry guy, claiming that he was the president of the subdivision told us that he wouldn’t vote for “that bitch” Claire McCaskill if she were the last person on earth, yelled at us to “get the hell out of my subdivision,” and threatened to call the police. I tried to say that political canvassing is not soliciting–according to US courts–but he looked like he was about to take a swing at one of us, so we got in the car and left.

5. GOTV is labor-intensive and requires perseverance when the specific voters you’re trying to reach live in non-grid, curvy suburban subdivisions, where address numbering is virtually unfathomable. It also doesn’t help that the cutesy names given to the streets only add to the confusion: When every street name starts with “River,” and all of them intersect via traffic circles and twisty non-linear design, you can get turned around and totally lost rather quickly, even when the campaign provides a very good map.  Yesterday, it was “Riverbend,” Riverridge,” “Riverview.” It could be a “Court,” a “Drive,” or a “Circle.”

I’m complaining about this, but I’m not quitting. And my main point is this: I have a hard time imagining that supporters of our opponents have a ground game as good as ours and volunteers as willing to do this work as we have. And that’s what [finger crossed, rosary beads counted, pinky-swear] should pay off in a very close election that boils down to who gets their voters to turn out on Nov. 6.

See you on the streets?

The post GOTV for Claire McCaskill: Scenes from the [strangely numbered] streets of suburbia appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As annoying as robo-pollsters can be, it’s often worth picking up the phone, answering the questions, and sticking with it until the end, because you can never be sure exactly where they’re going, and the end can be quite intriguing. Case in point, the Public Policy Poll I answered tonight.

It started with a series of boilerplate political questions:

Do you have a positive or negative opinion of Mitt Romney? President Obama?

Do you have a positive or negative opinion of Paul Ryan? Joe Biden?

Do you approve or disapprove  of President Obama’s performance?

Etc.

Note that I got this call at 7:15 pm on Monday, August 20, while I was sitting in front of my TV, watching MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” the subject of which was, of course, the Todd Akin “legitimate rape” debacle.

I was tempted to bail on the call, but I’m glad I didn’t, because the final set of questions started with…”If Todd Akin dropped out…”   Wow.

So, less than 36 hours after Akin made his imbecilic remark on The Jaco Report, somebody—is trying to figure the next move by trying to determine who the best or worst opponent would be for Claire McCaskill.

And the choices were fascinating. The poll floated a plethora of Missouri Republicans who might get the nod from the MO GOP, if Akin takes the dive that every Republican leader in America wants him to.

Here’s the question, with the various  [less horrifying to Repubs than Akin] options, and my comments in ital.

“If Todd Akin dropped out, and the Republican candidate was…[option here], would you vote for the Republican or for Claire McCaskill?”

Sarah Steelman  [former Missouri State Treasurer. She finished third in the August 7 primary]

John Bruenner [wealthy businessman who spent $7 million of his own money on the primary. He finished second.]

John Ashcroft  [They’re trotting out former Bush-administration Attorney General Ashcroft?.]

Jim Talent [The incumbent US Senator that McCaskill beat in 2006.]

Jo Ann Emerson [Current US Congressman from Missouri’s 8^th District]

Personally, I’m hoping that this poll is rendered moot by an Akin decision to forge ahead, listen to God’s voice in his ear, and stay on the ticket.

The post Pollster asks: “If Todd Akin dropped out…” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Outside of the arcane world of the U.S. Senate,  a “secret hold” sounds like something one learns either as a member of  a clandestine Ivy League fraternity or as a trainee in the World Wrestling Association. Of course, under the rules of the Senate, it’s neither. But the Senate’s version of the secret hold is, in many ways, equally mysterious and possibly more nefarious. And after many years of tolerating secret holds, two U.S. Senators, Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Charles Grassley (R-IA), are trying to release the Senate from their grip and make the legislative process more transparent. That’s why the two Senators have introduced the Secret Hold Elimination Act.

What’s a secret hold?

For those of us not steeped in the intricacies of Senate rules, the notion of a secret hold may need some explanation.  Under Senate rules, any motion to proceed on a bill has to have unanimous consent. So, if a Senator objects to the motion to move forward, the motion fails to get unanimous consent, and it’s stopped indefinitely. In practice, the mechanism for preventing a motion from reaching a vote is to put a hold on it. One way to hold a motion is by objecting to it openly on the Senate floor. But the rules also allow Senators to privately notify party leadership of their objection, and remain anonymous. That’s a secret hold.

The original intent of holds was to protect a Senator’s right to be consulted on legislation that affected the Senator’s state or that he/she had a great interest in. The ability to place a hold would allow that Senator an opportunity to study the legislation and to reflect on what it means before moving forward with further debate and voting.

So, what’s the problem?

The only way to override a hold is by cloture, which requires 60 votes. And anyone who follows politics in 2010 knows that getting 60 votes is far from a slam-dunk. So, in effect, any Senator—acting anonymously through a secret hold—can hold up any piece of legislation indefinitely—whether of monumental importance or trivial—for any reason, which does not have to be disclosed.  It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how, in the extreme partisanship of the 111th Congress, secret holds can be powerful weapons that allow Senators to do damage to the legislative agenda without taking public responsibility for their actions.

Secret holds have been around since the mid-19^th Century, and both Democrats and Republicans have used them. In recent years, however, abuses of the procedure have multiplied, crippling the Senate’s ability to do its work,  and blocking many Presidential appointments that require Senate approval. Often, Senators impose secret holds as a bargaining tactic to extract concessions from party leadership or from the opposition.

Most recently, secret holds have held up a number of critical nominations and bills, including, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW):

• Hilda Solis’s nomination hearing to become President Obama’s Secretary of Labor
• The passage of a veterans health care bill
• The confirmation of two of President Obama’s science-related nominees – who were apparently held by a senator protesting (of all things) the Obama administration’s Cuba policy.

Banning secret holds

Over the years, Senators and government-transparency advocates have made many attempts to abolish the secret hold, with little success. In 1997, the Senate passed a ban, but legislators found a way around it.  Ironically, even a 2006 bill designed to create more transparency in government was itself detoured by secret holds. A more hopeful development was the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA), which passed in 2007. Unfortunately, critics say that the well-intentioned act passed in a watered-down state, with little in the way of real enforcement, and its provisions have been notoriously ignored.

Now, Senators Wyden and Grassley are trying again. Both have been known to place holds on legislation, but theirs are done in the open. Both have a long-standing practice of making all of their holds public by placing formal statements announcing and explaining their holds in the Congressional Record. In a joint press release about their new bill, Wyden said:

This is about fundamental accountability and fairness. If Senators feel strongly enough about an issue that they are going to take the extreme step of blocking a nomination or a piece of legislation, then they should have the courage to take responsibility for their actions and explain why. The bottom line is that if you can’t make a good public case for why you are doing something, you shouldn’t be doing it. It’s far past time that the Senate stop operating in the shadows and let sunlight do its job.  This legislation ensures that no amount of procedural stalling will stop Senate holds from being made public quickly.

If past is predictor, this piece of legislation faces an uphill battle, and we can expect to see the usual behind-the-scenes maneuvering to block it or weaken it. However, recent actions by some Senators may offer some hope. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), for example, recently stepped up to the Senate podium and called out the names of 18 of President Obama’s judicial nominees, calling for unanimous consent and basically demanding that the Senator keeping the holds admit that they were doing so. (Jon Kyl (R-AZ) took responsibility for them.) McCaskill promised to do this for every outstanding Obama Administration nominee. Perhaps her actions, and those of others, will help to erode traditional complicity in the secret ways of the US, and some sunlight may be allowed to enter the chamber.

The post What are secret holds, and why ban them? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a recent posting in ShowMeProgress, a blogger going by the name of Willy K, residing in  southwest Missouri reports on an exchange of ideas that he had with the office of Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO).  Willy is concerned that Senator McCaskill is placing so much emphasis on the government maintaining financial accountability that she has put aside addressing the pressing social issues that confront us.

Senator McCaskill is one of those enigmatic Democratic senators who supports the public option for health care one day and abandons it the next day.  In the vernacular, she flip-flops.  While this is speculation, it seems that as an empathetic individual she knows that the public option is a viable way to provide universal, reasonably-priced health care for all Americans and keep the insurance companies in check.  That’s the flip.  But the flop is either her concern for re-election in 2012 or just a natural desire to please her Missouri constituents.  At a town hall last August in Hillsboro (Jefferson County), she said that she would base her position on health care on the “beliefs of the citizens of Missouri.”

We elect our leaders to lead.  And to be blunt, if I was going to “follow” I’d find an individual or group with better judgment than “the citizens of Missouri.”  It’s not politically correct to say this, but as we’ve stated before, the American people just aren’t that smart when it comes to public policy.

In his letter, Willy states:

Stop reading polls and listen to people like me. Educated people who watch the Sunday morning shows, read blogs, have hundreds of friends on Facebook, and have some idea of what the American public really thinks….

Watch John Stewart. He’s rude and crude, but he’s got it right about 95% of the time. Especially recently with regard to your total impotence about being able to accomplish anything in Healthcare. Visit his comments about what you might be doing while the Republicans are playing chess.

Either Senator McCaskill or someone in her office had the courtesy to respond to Willy’s letter.  Willy was not satisfied because of what he considered her “one-note response.”  That note was that fiscal responsibility trumps everything.  She said:

I know that Missourians are especially concerned about the size of the federal government and the size of our national debt. I share these concerns. We do spend too much in Washington, and our deficit is dangerously high. I want you to know that I have consistently voted to hold down spending.

As an isolated statement, this is fine.  However, we don’t live in a vacuum.  Forty-seven million Americans do not have health care coverage; nearly 17% of our population is either unemployed or under-employed, and to quote the great philosopher, Mike Shannon, “this list goes on and on.”

Why do so many politicians become fiscal conservatives on domestic programs that provide direct benefit to citizens?  Why are wars, often without clear purpose, exempt from fiscal restraint?  I think that Senator McCaskill provided the answer in August; she relies on the good judgment of the people of Missouri.  That’s a non-starter and certainly not leadership.  Senator McCaskill, we need more from you and your colleagues in Congress and the White House if we are to address our problems.   Which epitaph would you prefer, “She championed human rights and the welfare of the people” or “She pleased the people of Missouri.”  They’re not the same, and so far, your choice is not terribly impressive to those who advocate for the needs of the disenfranchised.  As is the case with President Obama, it’s not too late for Change 2.0.

The post Senator McCaskill: Please Lead! appeared first on Occasional Planet.