Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.
1-A. What is a Senate filibuster?

1-B. How did a Senate filibuster operate historically?

1-C. Why were Senate filibusters used historically?

1-D. How does a Senate filibuster operate today?

1-E. Why are Senate filibusters used today?

2. What is an "ear mark"?

3. What is a "hold"?

4. What is a "closed rule"?

5. What is a "self-executing rule"?

6. Has there been any real improvement in Congressional ethics over the years?

7. Why are committee chairmanships based on seniority inherently polarizing?

8. Why are open primaries inherently polarizing?

9. Although party caucuses can be used to check the power of the party leadership in either chamber, why are party caucuses inherently polarizing?

10. How did Nixon's severing the Southern (aka segregation) wing of the Democratic Party which had been carefully constructed by Southerner Woodrow Wilson and carefully nurtured by F.D.R., and Nixon's grafting the Southern (aka segregation) wing onto the Republican Party further polarization?

11. When a Democratic Congress and Democratic Senate in 2007 and 2008 refused to report appropriations bills to the floor that already reflected the position of the Democratic Party caucuses on funding (or lack thereof) for the Iraq War and, instead, proposed a series of floor amendments that they knew would fail to garner 60 votes in the Senate - were they guilty of a mendacious charade to fool the public or merely guilty of catering to their "Blue Dogs"?

12. Even if all of the foregoing problems could be solved, would anything likely change until outright bribes (aka campaign contributions) are eliminated? (After all, for our Feb. 2008 meeting 30 months ago, we focused on (1) "The Squandering of America" by Robert Kuttner, long-time columnist for Business Week, and (2) "Homo Politicus" by Dana Milbank, long-time columnist for the Washington Post - both of whom dedicated their books to the thesis that "campaign contributions" dictate everything that happens in Washington and that "campaign contributions" are just as likely to comprise extortion by our politicians as bribery of them.)

13. As "Exhibit A" for "extortion" by politicians (Dana Milbank's terms), he cited the shakedown of the financial community by Barack Obama at the beginning of his Presidential campaign - what was Barack Obama threatening to do to them?

14. Does Hollywood, like the hedge-fund managers Dana Milbank describes as being shaken down by Barack Obama, also lavish "campaign contributions" on candidates likely to be elected in order to protect the capital gains rates for their compensation?

15. How does a "carried interest" (a concept borrowed from the oil industry) convert ordinary compensation into capital gains for both hedge fund managers and Hollywood stars/directors/producers/whatever?

16. Are all candidates who are virtually guaranteed a huge base due to ethnicity or gender likely to be prodigious "fund raisers"?

17. Mann and Ornstein begin their book with a description of the House vote on prescription drugs that took place on November 23, 2003, and lasted for nearly 3 hours. Obviously, they intended their description to be shocking. Was it shocking for the reason they intended?

18. Mann and Ornstein describe quite a few “problems” in addition to those listed above (and several of those listed above, such as “campaign contributions” in particular which are the ultimate problem, they don’t even mention at all). However, the additional “problems” (such as how much power is concentrated in a chamber’s presiding officer or its committee chairs) seems to hinge on whether Mann and Ornstein approve of the result –- too much power for a person of whom they don’t approve but too little power for a person of whom they do. Which raises the question of whether, aside from the real problems listed above which are clearly undemocratic 100% of the time, it is ever possible to design an institutional solution that will work despite the human beings that come to be involved? Is a better solution to these “problems” something Mann and Ornstein don’t even suggest because they don’t recognize that these “problems” depend on personalities –- to lodge ultimate power in frequently-meeting caucuses (common-interest caucuses many of which are ad hoc -- in addition to party caucuses) and isn’t this solution, to the extent it’s practical, really “getting back to the basics” of true democracy wielded by the members themselves?