A History and Explanation of the Filibuster
Garry Gamber asked:
The filibuster has been a tool available to U.S. Senators during Senate floor discussions on legislation and appointments since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have valued the filibuster as a means to bring compromise and bipartisanship to bitter and divisive debates.
The word, filibuster, as it applies to the American political process refers to a political delaying tactic such as a long speech used by politicians to delay or prevent the passage of legislation. The older meaning of filibuster refers to the illegal act of plundering or piracy; of capturing a ship and its cargo and holding it for ransom.
The etymology of the word, filibuster, seems to date back to about 1560-1570 when the English anglicized the Dutch word, vrijbutier, into freebooter. A freebooter is understood to be a person who goes in search of plunder; a pirate, a buccaneer. Shortly thereafter, the French adopted filibustier and the Spanish adopted filibustero to mean the same thing. In the 17th century the English transformed the Spanish word into filibuster to describe the actions of the pirates who attacked the Spanish explorers of the New World. In the 1800’s the Americans popularized the word filibuster, referring to the activities of famous pirates operating in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Filibuster as Piracy
From 1830 to 1860 the countries of Cuba, Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua were all victims of various filibuster campaigns. The filibusters were led by groups of adventurers who, without the consent of the American Government, but with the aid of private American finance, tried to seize political power in these Latin American and Caribbean countries. Part of the aim of the filibuster campaigns was to empower the population of these countries and bring forth a revolution that would be beneficial to American interests, mainly the slave trade.
Financial support for the filibusters came largely from the southern states where parades of celebration were held in their honor and songs were written about their adventures. Officially, the U.S. did not support the filibuster campaigns because the military was spread too thin to be able to provide adequate enforcement of the laws against the involvement. Many citizens saw the campaigns as an aspect of “manifest destiny,” the idea that America had a right to unlimited expansion.
A couple of famous filibusterers include Narciso Lopez and William Walker. Lopez liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule and attempted three times to liberate Cuba. Walker, from Tennessee, annexed parts of Mexico, including Lower California, and declared himself to be president. The U.S. government did not support Walker and eventually brought him to trial.
The era of the Filibuster Movement ended when the U.S. Civil War started. Attention and resources were given to the defense of the North and the South, ending the efforts of the filibuster campaigns.
Filibuster as a Political Tool
During the period from 1840 to 1860, numerous Southern politicians made long speeches during Senate floor debates on legislation bills for the purpose of delaying the bill or preventing a vote on the bill. The word filibuster was borrowed to describe these speeches, which were thought of as piracy of time and opportunity. Henry Clay, in 1841, gave what is considered to be the first filibuster speech.
As the debate over the slavery issue became more important in Congress, southern politicians used the tactic of long dilatory speeches to block all civil rights legislation. The word filibuster became popularized during this pre-Civil War period.
Legislative Rules
The U.S. Constitution did not give direction to the House of Representatives or to the Senate regarding how to conduct everyday business and how to conduct debates on the floor. Each body was expected to create and adopt their own rules.
On day 2 of the first Senate meeting a special committee was created to “prepare a system of rules for conducting business.” A few days later, on April 7, 1789, the special committee filed their first rules report and on April 16, 1789, the Senate adopted their first set of rules. The first set contained 19 rules and on April 18 number 20 was adopted. At this point the special committee was disbanded.
The rules committee was recreated on several occasions during succeeding years for the purpose of creating new rules or revising existing rules. Since 1789 there have been 7 adoptions of new or revised rules; in 1806, 1820, 1828, 1877, 1884, and 1979. Some rules have been amended and passed by the Senate without going to a committee. The change to Rule XXII in 1917 to provide for a cloture procedure is a good example. There currently are a total of 43 Standing Rules of the Senate.
The House Rules and Manual of the U.S. House of Representatives does not allow for filibuster speeches. Each Representative is allowed to hold the floor to debate a question for one hour and may only speak once on each question. The House is a large body and the members thought it wise to limit the amount of time that a Representative may speak.
The Senate is an entirely different situation, however.
Senate Rule XIX
Rule XIX is the key rule that provides a structure for debate on the Senate floor. A key provision of the rule states that when a Senator rises to seek recognition during floor debate, he or she is guaranteed a chance to speak on the question for as long as he or she wishes. The presiding officer is not given discretion in this matter and must recognize each Senator in order. During the period of time that a recognized Senator is speaking the question before the Senate cannot come to a vote. The Senator cannot be interrupted or be forced to stop their speech without their consent.
Debate Rule XIX does not limit the number of Senators who may speak on an issue. The rule does, however, limit each Senator to two speeches per legislative day on each issue. During a filibuster period the presiding officer will typically call a recess rather than an adjournment at the end of the calendar day, keeping the legislative day alive when the Senate reconvenes. This tactic effectively limits each Senator to a maximum of two speeches on each issue. It is possible, however, for a Senator to offer an amendment in order to create a new debatable question, on which the Senators may make two more speeches.
A relatively recent provision in Rule XIX, called the “Pastore Rule” in honor of Senator John Pastore of Rhode Island, requires that debate on a question must be germane to the question. During filibuster periods this rule is enforced to prevent Senators from making meaningless, off-topic speeches. During the 1930’s through the 1950’s several Senators, such as Huey Long and Strom Thurmond made long filibusters which included readings of recipes, the Congressional Record, the Declaration of Independence, and other non-germane topics.
While a Senator is speaking on an issue he or she must remain standing and must speak more or less continuously. During a filibuster-length speech this requirement creates fatigue in the speaker. However, the speaker may yield to a question from another Senator without losing the floor. The other Senator can provide relief by asking a very long question followed by a short answer, followed by more long questions. In this manner a group of Senators can work together to extend the length of a Senator’s speaking period.
Senate Rule XXII
The procedures for invoking cloture for purposes of wrapping up the floor debate and bringing the question to a vote are contained in Rule XXII. The process requires a motion that is signed by at least 16 Senators and presented to the presiding officer while the question is being debated. The rule requires that the cloture motion must be seasoned, meaning that it cannot be acted upon until the second day after it is presented.
One hour after the cloture motion has matured on the third day the presiding officer interrupts the Senate proceedings and presents the cloture motion to the Senate for a vote. At this point an automatic roll call vote is required.
In 1975 the Senate voted to change the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to 60% from the previous 67%. A compromise was struck, however, because some Senators feared that if changing the Rule was too easy that the majority needed to invoke cloture might be reduced further in the future. Therefore, the Senate agreed that to make future rule changes, including changing the cloture rule itself, would require the traditional 67% majority vote.
If the motion to invoke cloture is defeated the Senators can reconsider the vote or file a new motion to invoke cloture. For example, in 1988 there were eight cloture motions on a campaign finance reform bill and all eight motions were defeated.
If a motion to invoke cloture is successful, then the effect of invoking cloture only guarantees that a vote on the question will take place eventually, but not immediately. After the successful cloture motion has passed the Senate is said to be working under cloture. Rule XXII imposes a maximum cap of 30 additional hours for debate, quorum calls, parliamentary inquiries, and other proceedings prior to an actual vote on the question. During this cloture period each Senator is entitled to speak for a total of not more than one hour.
Once cloture has been invoked under Rule XXII, the point of a filibuster is largely lost. Without exception, proceedings are wrapped up in less than 30 hours and the question is brought to a vote.
Conclusion
The filibuster speech in the Senate has enjoyed a long tradition and has been used for several purposes. On one hand the filibuster has been used to persuade others of the validity of the minority position on a question. Open and unlimited debate can change minds and sway opinion. The filibuster speech process may help to defeat an issue once a vote is taken.
On the other hand, the filibuster has been used to stall or prevent a vote on an issue. The filibuster speech or the threat of a filibuster may cause the issue to be tabled or withdrawn and not brought to a vote on the floor.
The minority party in the Senate counts on the use of the filibuster as a means to prevent the majority party from wielding too much influence. Such a tool encourages the two major parties in the Senate to work in nonpartisan ways to resolve differences. The filibuster creates a need for compromise. It has been suggested that without the filibuster tool the Senate would be much less productive in producing legislation.
The filibuster has been a tool available to U.S. Senators during Senate floor discussions on legislation and appointments since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have valued the filibuster as a means to bring compromise and bipartisanship to bitter and divisive debates.
The word, filibuster, as it applies to the American political process refers to a political delaying tactic such as a long speech used by politicians to delay or prevent the passage of legislation. The older meaning of filibuster refers to the illegal act of plundering or piracy; of capturing a ship and its cargo and holding it for ransom.
The etymology of the word, filibuster, seems to date back to about 1560-1570 when the English anglicized the Dutch word, vrijbutier, into freebooter. A freebooter is understood to be a person who goes in search of plunder; a pirate, a buccaneer. Shortly thereafter, the French adopted filibustier and the Spanish adopted filibustero to mean the same thing. In the 17th century the English transformed the Spanish word into filibuster to describe the actions of the pirates who attacked the Spanish explorers of the New World. In the 1800’s the Americans popularized the word filibuster, referring to the activities of famous pirates operating in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Filibuster as Piracy
From 1830 to 1860 the countries of Cuba, Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua were all victims of various filibuster campaigns. The filibusters were led by groups of adventurers who, without the consent of the American Government, but with the aid of private American finance, tried to seize political power in these Latin American and Caribbean countries. Part of the aim of the filibuster campaigns was to empower the population of these countries and bring forth a revolution that would be beneficial to American interests, mainly the slave trade.
Financial support for the filibusters came largely from the southern states where parades of celebration were held in their honor and songs were written about their adventures. Officially, the U.S. did not support the filibuster campaigns because the military was spread too thin to be able to provide adequate enforcement of the laws against the involvement. Many citizens saw the campaigns as an aspect of “manifest destiny,” the idea that America had a right to unlimited expansion.
A couple of famous filibusterers include Narciso Lopez and William Walker. Lopez liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule and attempted three times to liberate Cuba. Walker, from Tennessee, annexed parts of Mexico, including Lower California, and declared himself to be president. The U.S. government did not support Walker and eventually brought him to trial.
The era of the Filibuster Movement ended when the U.S. Civil War started. Attention and resources were given to the defense of the North and the South, ending the efforts of the filibuster campaigns.
Filibuster as a Political Tool
During the period from 1840 to 1860, numerous Southern politicians made long speeches during Senate floor debates on legislation bills for the purpose of delaying the bill or preventing a vote on the bill. The word filibuster was borrowed to describe these speeches, which were thought of as piracy of time and opportunity. Henry Clay, in 1841, gave what is considered to be the first filibuster speech.
As the debate over the slavery issue became more important in Congress, southern politicians used the tactic of long dilatory speeches to block all civil rights legislation. The word filibuster became popularized during this pre-Civil War period.
Legislative Rules
The U.S. Constitution did not give direction to the House of Representatives or to the Senate regarding how to conduct everyday business and how to conduct debates on the floor. Each body was expected to create and adopt their own rules.
On day 2 of the first Senate meeting a special committee was created to “prepare a system of rules for conducting business.” A few days later, on April 7, 1789, the special committee filed their first rules report and on April 16, 1789, the Senate adopted their first set of rules. The first set contained 19 rules and on April 18 number 20 was adopted. At this point the special committee was disbanded.
The rules committee was recreated on several occasions during succeeding years for the purpose of creating new rules or revising existing rules. Since 1789 there have been 7 adoptions of new or revised rules; in 1806, 1820, 1828, 1877, 1884, and 1979. Some rules have been amended and passed by the Senate without going to a committee. The change to Rule XXII in 1917 to provide for a cloture procedure is a good example. There currently are a total of 43 Standing Rules of the Senate.
The House Rules and Manual of the U.S. House of Representatives does not allow for filibuster speeches. Each Representative is allowed to hold the floor to debate a question for one hour and may only speak once on each question. The House is a large body and the members thought it wise to limit the amount of time that a Representative may speak.
The Senate is an entirely different situation, however.
Senate Rule XIX
Rule XIX is the key rule that provides a structure for debate on the Senate floor. A key provision of the rule states that when a Senator rises to seek recognition during floor debate, he or she is guaranteed a chance to speak on the question for as long as he or she wishes. The presiding officer is not given discretion in this matter and must recognize each Senator in order. During the period of time that a recognized Senator is speaking the question before the Senate cannot come to a vote. The Senator cannot be interrupted or be forced to stop their speech without their consent.
Debate Rule XIX does not limit the number of Senators who may speak on an issue. The rule does, however, limit each Senator to two speeches per legislative day on each issue. During a filibuster period the presiding officer will typically call a recess rather than an adjournment at the end of the calendar day, keeping the legislative day alive when the Senate reconvenes. This tactic effectively limits each Senator to a maximum of two speeches on each issue. It is possible, however, for a Senator to offer an amendment in order to create a new debatable question, on which the Senators may make two more speeches.
A relatively recent provision in Rule XIX, called the “Pastore Rule” in honor of Senator John Pastore of Rhode Island, requires that debate on a question must be germane to the question. During filibuster periods this rule is enforced to prevent Senators from making meaningless, off-topic speeches. During the 1930’s through the 1950’s several Senators, such as Huey Long and Strom Thurmond made long filibusters which included readings of recipes, the Congressional Record, the Declaration of Independence, and other non-germane topics.
While a Senator is speaking on an issue he or she must remain standing and must speak more or less continuously. During a filibuster-length speech this requirement creates fatigue in the speaker. However, the speaker may yield to a question from another Senator without losing the floor. The other Senator can provide relief by asking a very long question followed by a short answer, followed by more long questions. In this manner a group of Senators can work together to extend the length of a Senator’s speaking period.
Senate Rule XXII
The procedures for invoking cloture for purposes of wrapping up the floor debate and bringing the question to a vote are contained in Rule XXII. The process requires a motion that is signed by at least 16 Senators and presented to the presiding officer while the question is being debated. The rule requires that the cloture motion must be seasoned, meaning that it cannot be acted upon until the second day after it is presented.
One hour after the cloture motion has matured on the third day the presiding officer interrupts the Senate proceedings and presents the cloture motion to the Senate for a vote. At this point an automatic roll call vote is required.
In 1975 the Senate voted to change the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to 60% from the previous 67%. A compromise was struck, however, because some Senators feared that if changing the Rule was too easy that the majority needed to invoke cloture might be reduced further in the future. Therefore, the Senate agreed that to make future rule changes, including changing the cloture rule itself, would require the traditional 67% majority vote.
If the motion to invoke cloture is defeated the Senators can reconsider the vote or file a new motion to invoke cloture. For example, in 1988 there were eight cloture motions on a campaign finance reform bill and all eight motions were defeated.
If a motion to invoke cloture is successful, then the effect of invoking cloture only guarantees that a vote on the question will take place eventually, but not immediately. After the successful cloture motion has passed the Senate is said to be working under cloture. Rule XXII imposes a maximum cap of 30 additional hours for debate, quorum calls, parliamentary inquiries, and other proceedings prior to an actual vote on the question. During this cloture period each Senator is entitled to speak for a total of not more than one hour.
Once cloture has been invoked under Rule XXII, the point of a filibuster is largely lost. Without exception, proceedings are wrapped up in less than 30 hours and the question is brought to a vote.
Conclusion
The filibuster speech in the Senate has enjoyed a long tradition and has been used for several purposes. On one hand the filibuster has been used to persuade others of the validity of the minority position on a question. Open and unlimited debate can change minds and sway opinion. The filibuster speech process may help to defeat an issue once a vote is taken.
On the other hand, the filibuster has been used to stall or prevent a vote on an issue. The filibuster speech or the threat of a filibuster may cause the issue to be tabled or withdrawn and not brought to a vote on the floor.
The minority party in the Senate counts on the use of the filibuster as a means to prevent the majority party from wielding too much influence. Such a tool encourages the two major parties in the Senate to work in nonpartisan ways to resolve differences. The filibuster creates a need for compromise. It has been suggested that without the filibuster tool the Senate would be much less productive in producing legislation.
Have Liberals Finally Stretched the Constitution Too Far?
J.J. Jackson asked:
Baseball may be America’s favorite pastime, but liberals have a favorite pastime of their own; stretching and warping the Constitution. They’ve been at it so long that it has become a sport which they excel at and one at which daily practice is strongly encouraged, if not already mandated, for any aspiring leftist.
Of course, they only succeed in this pursuit when discussing the Constitution amongst themselves. When they journey out into the real world they run into people like myself who have spent a lot of time discussing how they distort and down right lie about what is in the document that established our current government. When they try to engage in their favorite sport with normal Americans who are not willfully blind as to what the Constitution says and have a grasp of the English language beyond that of a first grader, they fail miserably with their spin which always leads to interesting, if not ignorant, slogans, rants and shout-fests.
Rep. John “Cut and Run” Murtha may just be finding out that he and his liberal brethren have stretched the Constitution as far as the Constitution is willing to stretch even with a healthy suspension of logic, history and basic English however. Last week, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ordered Rep. Murtha to give a sworn deposition in the case brought against him by Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich relating to his unwise, ignorant and self-serving comments about the marines in Haditha participating in “cold-blooded murder and war crimes”. It is important to note that the case against these Marines has fallen apart.
Murtha’s defense, which was rejected so far by the judge, was that Murtha was immune from prosecution and even questioning about the incident because those comments were made while acting in his official role as a United States Representative. This is an apparent reference to Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution and his “interpretation” of what it says which might get by people unable to actually read the Constitution. But since I actually can, it isn’t going to fly with me and apparently not with the judge either.
For the record, Article I, Section 6 states in it’s entirety: “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
The long and the short of this section is that if you are an elected representative of the United States in either house of Congress you cannot be arrested while the Congress is in session, nor can you be arrested while traveling to or from said session. It also grants immunity from prosecution for any “speech” or “debate” that takes place on the floor by saying that they “shall not be questioned in any other Place”. Which would include a court of law. The exceptions to this are of course given as when the Representative or Senator commits a Felony, Treason or “Breach of the Peace”.
Notice there is no exemption for acting in your “official role” beyond these limited descriptions. It is important to note at this time that John “Our Troops Are Murderers” Murtha made the statements with regards to our soldiers and promulgated his charges at places other than during a “speech” or “debate” in the House such as at press conferences and on Chris Matthew’s television program.
So is he immune? Should he not be questioned? Should he just be free to continue to make these assertions? Not unless you really, really stretch the meaning of the Constitution and read between the lines by inserting language that isn’t there. Making such statements during Speeches and Debates in the House may be deplorable and anti-American in as much that they were made without evidence and to prejudice the case against the Marines to promote John Murtha’s delusions, but his despicable acts would be protected. However once he steps out of the Halls of Congress he has no more protection.
He is not being arrested either. This is a civil suit, not a criminal matter. So again, Article I, Section 6 does not apply. Now, if he refuses the order to comply he could be faced with an arrestable offense such as contempt of court. In such a case, he had better convince the House to remain in permanent session and always be in a constant state of travel to and from the Capitol when it is to avoid arrest.
You could also make a strong case that his words provided aid and comfort to the enemy since the Haditha incident was used by our enemies against America and freedom seeking Iraqis. And since Treason is a clear exemption to this clause as well as the first amendment I certainly would be looking over my shoulder if I were Mr. Murtha.
But it’s just the Constitution. Right? And since when do liberals actually care about what the Constitution actually says? Since when do Congressmen care that their power is not unlimited? So I am sure that John “Where’s My White Flag?” Murtha will continue to whine and twist and squirm in an attempt to avoid the truth.
All the while his fellow members of Congress can continue to their smoke screen to cover their own failures. They can run cover for him and promulgate abuses of their power by waging a dog and pony show over things Rush Limbaugh didn’t even say with regards to our troops who are serving bravely over in Iraq and slamming General Patraeus and calling our troops NAZIs, stupid and anything else that they can think of. All for what? In order to try and further convince moonbats who naively believe that the troops really do agree with their stance on the war? Despite the fact that they are continually signing up and even re-upping to serve in a time of war for a mission the liberals detest so much?
Perhaps we are finally getting to a point where the Constitution has been stretched as far as it can be by the left to support their ideas and goals. But even if it has, I doubt they will stop trying to stretch it even further. At which point it is only a matter of whether it will snap back like a rubber band and leave a massive welt or completely break.
God help us if it is that latter
Baseball may be America’s favorite pastime, but liberals have a favorite pastime of their own; stretching and warping the Constitution. They’ve been at it so long that it has become a sport which they excel at and one at which daily practice is strongly encouraged, if not already mandated, for any aspiring leftist.
Of course, they only succeed in this pursuit when discussing the Constitution amongst themselves. When they journey out into the real world they run into people like myself who have spent a lot of time discussing how they distort and down right lie about what is in the document that established our current government. When they try to engage in their favorite sport with normal Americans who are not willfully blind as to what the Constitution says and have a grasp of the English language beyond that of a first grader, they fail miserably with their spin which always leads to interesting, if not ignorant, slogans, rants and shout-fests.
Rep. John “Cut and Run” Murtha may just be finding out that he and his liberal brethren have stretched the Constitution as far as the Constitution is willing to stretch even with a healthy suspension of logic, history and basic English however. Last week, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ordered Rep. Murtha to give a sworn deposition in the case brought against him by Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich relating to his unwise, ignorant and self-serving comments about the marines in Haditha participating in “cold-blooded murder and war crimes”. It is important to note that the case against these Marines has fallen apart.
Murtha’s defense, which was rejected so far by the judge, was that Murtha was immune from prosecution and even questioning about the incident because those comments were made while acting in his official role as a United States Representative. This is an apparent reference to Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution and his “interpretation” of what it says which might get by people unable to actually read the Constitution. But since I actually can, it isn’t going to fly with me and apparently not with the judge either.
For the record, Article I, Section 6 states in it’s entirety: “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
The long and the short of this section is that if you are an elected representative of the United States in either house of Congress you cannot be arrested while the Congress is in session, nor can you be arrested while traveling to or from said session. It also grants immunity from prosecution for any “speech” or “debate” that takes place on the floor by saying that they “shall not be questioned in any other Place”. Which would include a court of law. The exceptions to this are of course given as when the Representative or Senator commits a Felony, Treason or “Breach of the Peace”.
Notice there is no exemption for acting in your “official role” beyond these limited descriptions. It is important to note at this time that John “Our Troops Are Murderers” Murtha made the statements with regards to our soldiers and promulgated his charges at places other than during a “speech” or “debate” in the House such as at press conferences and on Chris Matthew’s television program.
So is he immune? Should he not be questioned? Should he just be free to continue to make these assertions? Not unless you really, really stretch the meaning of the Constitution and read between the lines by inserting language that isn’t there. Making such statements during Speeches and Debates in the House may be deplorable and anti-American in as much that they were made without evidence and to prejudice the case against the Marines to promote John Murtha’s delusions, but his despicable acts would be protected. However once he steps out of the Halls of Congress he has no more protection.
He is not being arrested either. This is a civil suit, not a criminal matter. So again, Article I, Section 6 does not apply. Now, if he refuses the order to comply he could be faced with an arrestable offense such as contempt of court. In such a case, he had better convince the House to remain in permanent session and always be in a constant state of travel to and from the Capitol when it is to avoid arrest.
You could also make a strong case that his words provided aid and comfort to the enemy since the Haditha incident was used by our enemies against America and freedom seeking Iraqis. And since Treason is a clear exemption to this clause as well as the first amendment I certainly would be looking over my shoulder if I were Mr. Murtha.
But it’s just the Constitution. Right? And since when do liberals actually care about what the Constitution actually says? Since when do Congressmen care that their power is not unlimited? So I am sure that John “Where’s My White Flag?” Murtha will continue to whine and twist and squirm in an attempt to avoid the truth.
All the while his fellow members of Congress can continue to their smoke screen to cover their own failures. They can run cover for him and promulgate abuses of their power by waging a dog and pony show over things Rush Limbaugh didn’t even say with regards to our troops who are serving bravely over in Iraq and slamming General Patraeus and calling our troops NAZIs, stupid and anything else that they can think of. All for what? In order to try and further convince moonbats who naively believe that the troops really do agree with their stance on the war? Despite the fact that they are continually signing up and even re-upping to serve in a time of war for a mission the liberals detest so much?
Perhaps we are finally getting to a point where the Constitution has been stretched as far as it can be by the left to support their ideas and goals. But even if it has, I doubt they will stop trying to stretch it even further. At which point it is only a matter of whether it will snap back like a rubber band and leave a massive welt or completely break.
God help us if it is that latter
Famous Filibusters in American Political History
Garry Gamber asked:
The filibuster as a political delaying tactic has been a part of the American political process since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Though it was not used in the early years of the nation, the filibuster has been used hundreds of times since the 1840’s. Here are a few of the famous filibusters from our political history.
The U.S. Constitution does not limit the length or nature of debate on the floors of the Senate or the House of Representatives. The House has since adopted rules which limit the length of debate since the House has a very large number of Representatives. But the smaller Senate has always upheld the right of a recognized Senator to debate an issue for as long as he or she wishes to hold the floor. Senate Rule 19 and Rule 22, the cloture rule adopted in 1917, create some guidelines for conducting a debate and for closing the debate when it becomes lengthy.
Senator Henry Clay
In 1841 Senator Henry Clay proposed a bank bill that was opposed by Senator John C. Calhoun who began a lengthy, seemingly unending, rebuttal. Calhoun basically created the modern filibuster. Clay threatened to change the Senate rules in order to close debate on the issue. Clay’s colleague, Thomas Hart Benton, rebuked Clay and accused him of trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate.
Through the next few turbulent decades and into the 1960’s the filibuster was used often by Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. The filibuster had been seen by the minority party as a tool to combat the potential “tyranny of the majority,” but the frequent usage of the filibuster by the Southern Democrats became characterized as the “tyranny of the minority.”
Senate Rule 22
President Woodrow Wilson suggested that some limits be placed on the unlimited debate concept. In 1917 the Senate adopted Senate Rule 22, now known as the “cloture” rule. The new Rule 22 provided the mechanism to close out debate on a legislative bill and bring the bill up for a vote if cloture was approved by 67% of the Senate. The 67% requirement remained in effect until 1975 when Rule 22 was amended to allow a 60% agreement to invoke cloture.
Cloture Rule 22 was tested in 1919 when the Senate was asked to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I. The treaty was debated and filibustered, but a 67% majority voted to end the filibuster and to bring the treaty to a vote.
Senator Huey Long
Senator Huey Long, the fiery and colorful senator from Louisiana, made the filibuster famous between 1932 and 1935 when he utilized it several times to stall legislation that he considered unfair to the poor. Long frustrated his opponents and entertained the Senate gallery by reading Shakespeare, reciting shrimp and oyster recipes and talking about “pot-likkers.” An amendment to Senate Rule 19 later required that debate on legislation be germane to the issue being debated.
On June 12, 1935, Senator Long engaged in his most famous filibuster. A bill was before the Senate to eliminate the provision for the Senate to confirm senior National Recovery Act employees. Senator Long opposed the bill because he didn’t want his political adversaries in Louisiana to obtain lucrative N.R.A. jobs. Senator Long spoke for 15 hours and 30 minutes running well into the evening and early morning hours with senators dozing at their desks. Long read and analyzed each section of the Constitution, a document which he claimed had become “ancient and forgotten lore” under President Roosevelt’s New Deal.
After the reading of the Constitution Senator Long offered to give advice to the remaining senators on any subject of their choosing. No senator took Long up on his offer but the gallery patrons began sending notes to the floor for Senator Long to extemporize on. That kept Long going into the early hours of the morning. At 4 a.m. Long yielded the floor in order to use the restroom and his proposal was defeated.
James Stewart brought more fame to the filibuster when he played the role of Senator Jefferson Smith in the 1939 film, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Stewart’s character launched into a filibuster in response to an attempt to ridicule him.
Senator Wayne Morse
Senator Wayne Morse from Oregon was called “The Tiger of the Senate” and served in the Senate under 5 Presidents. In 1952 Senator Morse left the Republican Party, claiming independent status, when he objected to sections of the party platform and Dwight Eisenhower’s choice of Richard Nixon as his vice presidential running mate. Senator Morse claimed that the Republican Party had left him.
On April 24, 1953, Senator Morse began to filibuster against Tidelands Oil legislation. He kept the floor for 22 hours and 26 minutes, breaking the filibuster record of 18 hours held by his mentor, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette.
Senator Morse is remembered through numerous colorful stories. For example, Clare Booth Luce, former U.S. Senator and Ambassador to Italy had to resign her appointment when she made the insulting but funny remark that her problems with Senator Morse began when he was kicked in the head by a horse.
Senator Strom Thurmond
About 9 p.m. on August 28, 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond rose before the Senate and announced, “Mr. President, I rise to speak against the so-called voting rights bill, H.R. 6127.” His own staff had not been informed about Senator Thurmond’s intentions to filibuster the bill, but they knew something was up when they saw Thurmond gathering considerable reading material.
Senator Thurmond had prepared himself for a long filibuster on the Senate floor. Earlier in the day he had spent time in the Senate steam room, dehydrating himself so that he would absorb all the water he drank without having to visit the restroom. His wife packed a steak sandwich lunch for him and she stayed in the family gallery throughout the night. Thurmond brought a quantity of malted milk tablets and throat lozenges from his office.
Senator Thurmond began his filibuster by reading each state’s election statutes. He later read and discussed an opinion by Chief Justice Taft. He also read and discussed the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Washington’s Farewell Address. His staff, concerned for Senator Thurmond’s health, was finally successful in getting him to leave the floor.
After 24 hours and 18 minutes, a record that still stands, Senator Thurmond concluded his remarks with, “I expect to vote against the bill.” The bill was defeated.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
On June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia finished his address begun on the previous day, slightly more than 14 hours earlier. He filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an act which was debated by Byrd and others for 57 working days, including 6 Saturdays.
Senate President Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota needed 67 votes to be able to carry the motion for cloture. Minority Leader Senator Everett Dirksen, the always eloquent senator from Illinois procured the Republican votes necessary to pass the cloture motion. “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come,” he said. “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”
The final roll call vote on cloture resulted in 71 votes in favor and 29 votes opposed. It was the first time in history that cloture had been invoked on civil rights legislation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the most sweeping of its kind in our history.
Justice Abe Fortas
In June of 1968 Chief Justice Earl Warren notified President Lyndon Johnson that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court. This move gave President Johnson time to nominate a successor since he was not planning to seek re-election as President. Johnson nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to replace Warren. At the same time Johnson nominated Texas Appeals Court Justice Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas, a move that was designed to satisfy southern senators.
President Johnson counted on Senators Everett Dirksen and Richard Russell for their support of the nomination. When Abe Fortas testified at his own confirmation hearing, an unprecedented occurrence, it was revealed that Fortas worked uncomfortably closely with the White House staff and the President. Later it was learned that Fortas was being paid a large sum, privately, to teach an American University summer course. At this point Dirksen, Russell, and other senators withdrew their support.
Though the committee recommended confirmation of Justice Abe Fortas, a filibuster ensued on the Senate floor to block his confirmation, the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination. On October 1, 1968, the Senate was unable to tally the 67 votes needed to invoke cloture and President Johnson withdrew the nomination.
The use of the filibuster has increased from 16 filibusters in the 19th century to 66 in the first half of the 20th century to 195 in the period from 1970 to 1995. It is likely that the filibuster will continue to play an important role in the American political process.
The filibuster as a political delaying tactic has been a part of the American political process since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Though it was not used in the early years of the nation, the filibuster has been used hundreds of times since the 1840’s. Here are a few of the famous filibusters from our political history.
The U.S. Constitution does not limit the length or nature of debate on the floors of the Senate or the House of Representatives. The House has since adopted rules which limit the length of debate since the House has a very large number of Representatives. But the smaller Senate has always upheld the right of a recognized Senator to debate an issue for as long as he or she wishes to hold the floor. Senate Rule 19 and Rule 22, the cloture rule adopted in 1917, create some guidelines for conducting a debate and for closing the debate when it becomes lengthy.
Senator Henry Clay
In 1841 Senator Henry Clay proposed a bank bill that was opposed by Senator John C. Calhoun who began a lengthy, seemingly unending, rebuttal. Calhoun basically created the modern filibuster. Clay threatened to change the Senate rules in order to close debate on the issue. Clay’s colleague, Thomas Hart Benton, rebuked Clay and accused him of trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate.
Through the next few turbulent decades and into the 1960’s the filibuster was used often by Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. The filibuster had been seen by the minority party as a tool to combat the potential “tyranny of the majority,” but the frequent usage of the filibuster by the Southern Democrats became characterized as the “tyranny of the minority.”
Senate Rule 22
President Woodrow Wilson suggested that some limits be placed on the unlimited debate concept. In 1917 the Senate adopted Senate Rule 22, now known as the “cloture” rule. The new Rule 22 provided the mechanism to close out debate on a legislative bill and bring the bill up for a vote if cloture was approved by 67% of the Senate. The 67% requirement remained in effect until 1975 when Rule 22 was amended to allow a 60% agreement to invoke cloture.
Cloture Rule 22 was tested in 1919 when the Senate was asked to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I. The treaty was debated and filibustered, but a 67% majority voted to end the filibuster and to bring the treaty to a vote.
Senator Huey Long
Senator Huey Long, the fiery and colorful senator from Louisiana, made the filibuster famous between 1932 and 1935 when he utilized it several times to stall legislation that he considered unfair to the poor. Long frustrated his opponents and entertained the Senate gallery by reading Shakespeare, reciting shrimp and oyster recipes and talking about “pot-likkers.” An amendment to Senate Rule 19 later required that debate on legislation be germane to the issue being debated.
On June 12, 1935, Senator Long engaged in his most famous filibuster. A bill was before the Senate to eliminate the provision for the Senate to confirm senior National Recovery Act employees. Senator Long opposed the bill because he didn’t want his political adversaries in Louisiana to obtain lucrative N.R.A. jobs. Senator Long spoke for 15 hours and 30 minutes running well into the evening and early morning hours with senators dozing at their desks. Long read and analyzed each section of the Constitution, a document which he claimed had become “ancient and forgotten lore” under President Roosevelt’s New Deal.
After the reading of the Constitution Senator Long offered to give advice to the remaining senators on any subject of their choosing. No senator took Long up on his offer but the gallery patrons began sending notes to the floor for Senator Long to extemporize on. That kept Long going into the early hours of the morning. At 4 a.m. Long yielded the floor in order to use the restroom and his proposal was defeated.
James Stewart brought more fame to the filibuster when he played the role of Senator Jefferson Smith in the 1939 film, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Stewart’s character launched into a filibuster in response to an attempt to ridicule him.
Senator Wayne Morse
Senator Wayne Morse from Oregon was called “The Tiger of the Senate” and served in the Senate under 5 Presidents. In 1952 Senator Morse left the Republican Party, claiming independent status, when he objected to sections of the party platform and Dwight Eisenhower’s choice of Richard Nixon as his vice presidential running mate. Senator Morse claimed that the Republican Party had left him.
On April 24, 1953, Senator Morse began to filibuster against Tidelands Oil legislation. He kept the floor for 22 hours and 26 minutes, breaking the filibuster record of 18 hours held by his mentor, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette.
Senator Morse is remembered through numerous colorful stories. For example, Clare Booth Luce, former U.S. Senator and Ambassador to Italy had to resign her appointment when she made the insulting but funny remark that her problems with Senator Morse began when he was kicked in the head by a horse.
Senator Strom Thurmond
About 9 p.m. on August 28, 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond rose before the Senate and announced, “Mr. President, I rise to speak against the so-called voting rights bill, H.R. 6127.” His own staff had not been informed about Senator Thurmond’s intentions to filibuster the bill, but they knew something was up when they saw Thurmond gathering considerable reading material.
Senator Thurmond had prepared himself for a long filibuster on the Senate floor. Earlier in the day he had spent time in the Senate steam room, dehydrating himself so that he would absorb all the water he drank without having to visit the restroom. His wife packed a steak sandwich lunch for him and she stayed in the family gallery throughout the night. Thurmond brought a quantity of malted milk tablets and throat lozenges from his office.
Senator Thurmond began his filibuster by reading each state’s election statutes. He later read and discussed an opinion by Chief Justice Taft. He also read and discussed the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Washington’s Farewell Address. His staff, concerned for Senator Thurmond’s health, was finally successful in getting him to leave the floor.
After 24 hours and 18 minutes, a record that still stands, Senator Thurmond concluded his remarks with, “I expect to vote against the bill.” The bill was defeated.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
On June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia finished his address begun on the previous day, slightly more than 14 hours earlier. He filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an act which was debated by Byrd and others for 57 working days, including 6 Saturdays.
Senate President Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota needed 67 votes to be able to carry the motion for cloture. Minority Leader Senator Everett Dirksen, the always eloquent senator from Illinois procured the Republican votes necessary to pass the cloture motion. “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come,” he said. “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”
The final roll call vote on cloture resulted in 71 votes in favor and 29 votes opposed. It was the first time in history that cloture had been invoked on civil rights legislation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the most sweeping of its kind in our history.
Justice Abe Fortas
In June of 1968 Chief Justice Earl Warren notified President Lyndon Johnson that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court. This move gave President Johnson time to nominate a successor since he was not planning to seek re-election as President. Johnson nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to replace Warren. At the same time Johnson nominated Texas Appeals Court Justice Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas, a move that was designed to satisfy southern senators.
President Johnson counted on Senators Everett Dirksen and Richard Russell for their support of the nomination. When Abe Fortas testified at his own confirmation hearing, an unprecedented occurrence, it was revealed that Fortas worked uncomfortably closely with the White House staff and the President. Later it was learned that Fortas was being paid a large sum, privately, to teach an American University summer course. At this point Dirksen, Russell, and other senators withdrew their support.
Though the committee recommended confirmation of Justice Abe Fortas, a filibuster ensued on the Senate floor to block his confirmation, the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination. On October 1, 1968, the Senate was unable to tally the 67 votes needed to invoke cloture and President Johnson withdrew the nomination.
The use of the filibuster has increased from 16 filibusters in the 19th century to 66 in the first half of the 20th century to 195 in the period from 1970 to 1995. It is likely that the filibuster will continue to play an important role in the American political process.
The Executive Compensation Debate
November 23, 2009 by admin
Filed under Management
Alain Tanugi asked:
I think it was the Financier Leo J. Hindery Jr who once said: ‘I think there are people, including myself at certain times in my career, who because of their uniqueness warrant whatever the market will bear.’ But the questions beg HOW much is too much? and Should macroeconomic woes slow CEO pay growth?
I recently read in the Associated Press that even as the economy slowed down in America “CEO pay still chugged to yet more dizzying heights last year.’ The top 10 highest paid CEOs took home a total of more than $500 million, but half of those companies saw huge drops in profitability at their companies.
One of the most exasperating things to shareholders and the public is when a CEO receives millions or tens of millions of dollars of compensation regardless of performance. This practice goes fundamentally against the culture of rewarding on the basis of ability and merit that underpins the free market system. Recent examples include: Marriott International chief J Willard Marriott Jr – his 2007 pay was $44m, up 22%, just six percentage points lower than Marriott’s stock price drop or Stan O’Neal, Merrill Lynch’s former boss, left with $159m after losing $8 billion.
Shareholders and politicians are advocating bringing in rules for companies that would allow shareholders to vote on executive pay. Executives in Europe have home far less compensation than their American counterparts in the past. But with leadership compensation in Europe on the rise, these pay increases have citizens in European nations deeply unsettled. The public indignation on both sides of the Atlantic has contributed to a unique political debate over what to do about excessive executive pay. Executive pay figures in Asia are still not as widely accessible as in Europe and America and it is difficult to compare. A recent study conducted by the CFA Institute Centre for Financial Market Integrity said that reporting compensation of executives on an individual basis is the practice in the United States, Britain and Australia and is advocated by institutional investors worldwide. Prevailing regulations and practices in Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore however leave much to be desired.
Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission’s “Eurogroup” of finance ministers, recently called excessive pay a “social scourge” and demanded action. When L’Expansion, a French business magazine, calculated that pay for the country’s bosses went up 58% in 2007, the finance minister, Christine Lagarde, said it was “scandalous” and threatened regulation. Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, and Horst Köhler, president of Germany, have also denounced high pay.
New legislation the Netherlands will see the law setting EU500,000 as the level of annual salary or severance payment at which extra taxes must be paid. Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for legislation to curb pay, though its partner in government, Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, has so far resisted. At the same time the European Commission is working on a response to the Eurogroup’s complaint.
Just how extreme IS executive pay in Europe? As European firms compete for global talent it certainly has risen substantially in the last 10 years. Foreign executives now run seven of the firms in France’s CAC 40 index and five of Germany’s DAX 30. American-style bonuses and long-term incentive plans are now commonplace.
However European firms still pay a fraction of what is paid to their counter parts in America. According to Hay Group, a management consultancy, the median European executive earns just 40% as much as his equivalent in America. It’s also notable that both American presidential candidates – John McCain and Barack Obama – have been making compensation a campaign issue.
There is an important difference though companies in Europe seem to be more determined than American ones to link compensation to performance. In America share grants are often not tied to performance, whereas European firms usually attach performance criteria to any share grants, typically depending on a comparison with a peer group. Dan Vasella, boss of Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical giant, and a favourite target of pay activists, earned SFr17m ($14m) in 2007, down 33% from 2006, because he missed his targets.
The extreme rise in European executive pay has sparked an intense debate in countries that have been characterised by a relatively strong sense of economic solidarity and impartiality in the past several decades. A July 2007 Financial Times/Harris public opinion poll found that over 60 percent of those surveyed in the UK, France, Italy, and Spain would like to see their government set caps on top business executive pay. In Germany, a 47 percent plurality supports pay caps.
In America, only 32 percent of the public supports an outright pay cap on executive earnings a recent poll shows. However 77 percent of Americans say corporate executives ‘earn too much.’ Some members of Congress have responded by introducing legislation to curb excessive pay through tax reform and giving shareholders the right to vote on pay packages.
I recently saw an interview with Sarah Anderson, who compiles the Executive Excess report on CEO pay on a yearly basis. She discusses some of the issues raised in this column in her interview and I recommend that you take some time to view it. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lKfRFhG0M.)
From what I have read and heard in the last year signs point to a strong possibility that meaningful reforms to rein in excessive executive compensation could be a prospect, as many political leaders in Europe and the United States seem to be finally catching up to the public uproar. It has to be said though that compensation is a complex issue. Different circumstances and industries dictate different packages and even severance pay may be justified if a change of control is the end goal. One would hope though that politicians would reject laws about pay, which are too widespread to be useful. Strict legislation might well compel leaders away from listed companies and create compensation packages even more complex-and so much more difficult to monitor.
I think it was the Financier Leo J. Hindery Jr who once said: ‘I think there are people, including myself at certain times in my career, who because of their uniqueness warrant whatever the market will bear.’ But the questions beg HOW much is too much? and Should macroeconomic woes slow CEO pay growth?
I recently read in the Associated Press that even as the economy slowed down in America “CEO pay still chugged to yet more dizzying heights last year.’ The top 10 highest paid CEOs took home a total of more than $500 million, but half of those companies saw huge drops in profitability at their companies.
One of the most exasperating things to shareholders and the public is when a CEO receives millions or tens of millions of dollars of compensation regardless of performance. This practice goes fundamentally against the culture of rewarding on the basis of ability and merit that underpins the free market system. Recent examples include: Marriott International chief J Willard Marriott Jr – his 2007 pay was $44m, up 22%, just six percentage points lower than Marriott’s stock price drop or Stan O’Neal, Merrill Lynch’s former boss, left with $159m after losing $8 billion.
Shareholders and politicians are advocating bringing in rules for companies that would allow shareholders to vote on executive pay. Executives in Europe have home far less compensation than their American counterparts in the past. But with leadership compensation in Europe on the rise, these pay increases have citizens in European nations deeply unsettled. The public indignation on both sides of the Atlantic has contributed to a unique political debate over what to do about excessive executive pay. Executive pay figures in Asia are still not as widely accessible as in Europe and America and it is difficult to compare. A recent study conducted by the CFA Institute Centre for Financial Market Integrity said that reporting compensation of executives on an individual basis is the practice in the United States, Britain and Australia and is advocated by institutional investors worldwide. Prevailing regulations and practices in Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore however leave much to be desired.
Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission’s “Eurogroup” of finance ministers, recently called excessive pay a “social scourge” and demanded action. When L’Expansion, a French business magazine, calculated that pay for the country’s bosses went up 58% in 2007, the finance minister, Christine Lagarde, said it was “scandalous” and threatened regulation. Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, and Horst Köhler, president of Germany, have also denounced high pay.
New legislation the Netherlands will see the law setting EU500,000 as the level of annual salary or severance payment at which extra taxes must be paid. Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for legislation to curb pay, though its partner in government, Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, has so far resisted. At the same time the European Commission is working on a response to the Eurogroup’s complaint.
Just how extreme IS executive pay in Europe? As European firms compete for global talent it certainly has risen substantially in the last 10 years. Foreign executives now run seven of the firms in France’s CAC 40 index and five of Germany’s DAX 30. American-style bonuses and long-term incentive plans are now commonplace.
However European firms still pay a fraction of what is paid to their counter parts in America. According to Hay Group, a management consultancy, the median European executive earns just 40% as much as his equivalent in America. It’s also notable that both American presidential candidates – John McCain and Barack Obama – have been making compensation a campaign issue.
There is an important difference though companies in Europe seem to be more determined than American ones to link compensation to performance. In America share grants are often not tied to performance, whereas European firms usually attach performance criteria to any share grants, typically depending on a comparison with a peer group. Dan Vasella, boss of Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical giant, and a favourite target of pay activists, earned SFr17m ($14m) in 2007, down 33% from 2006, because he missed his targets.
The extreme rise in European executive pay has sparked an intense debate in countries that have been characterised by a relatively strong sense of economic solidarity and impartiality in the past several decades. A July 2007 Financial Times/Harris public opinion poll found that over 60 percent of those surveyed in the UK, France, Italy, and Spain would like to see their government set caps on top business executive pay. In Germany, a 47 percent plurality supports pay caps.
In America, only 32 percent of the public supports an outright pay cap on executive earnings a recent poll shows. However 77 percent of Americans say corporate executives ‘earn too much.’ Some members of Congress have responded by introducing legislation to curb excessive pay through tax reform and giving shareholders the right to vote on pay packages.
I recently saw an interview with Sarah Anderson, who compiles the Executive Excess report on CEO pay on a yearly basis. She discusses some of the issues raised in this column in her interview and I recommend that you take some time to view it. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lKfRFhG0M.)
From what I have read and heard in the last year signs point to a strong possibility that meaningful reforms to rein in excessive executive compensation could be a prospect, as many political leaders in Europe and the United States seem to be finally catching up to the public uproar. It has to be said though that compensation is a complex issue. Different circumstances and industries dictate different packages and even severance pay may be justified if a change of control is the end goal. One would hope though that politicians would reject laws about pay, which are too widespread to be useful. Strict legislation might well compel leaders away from listed companies and create compensation packages even more complex-and so much more difficult to monitor.
The Winners and Losers in the Indian Debate of the India-us Nuclear Agreement
Gurumurthy Kalyanaram asked:
The India-US Nuclear agreement (123) debate is furious in India. The coaltion government led by Congress party, and the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh are finally determined to have a go at the nuclear agreement. The communist parties with about 60 parliamentary (Lok Sabha) members are about to withdraw their support to the coalition government but the Samajwadi Party led by Mulayam Singh with about 39 parliament members are all set to support the government.
There is ferocious finger-pointing and heated rhetoric in the Indian debate. Without considering the substance or merit of the agreement, I rate as follows the winners and losers of this debate. I rate on a 1-10 scale, 1 being a perfect loser, 10 being a perfect winner and 5 being no-loss and no-gain.
(1) Congress Party: I give a 5. By pushing aggressively for the consummation of the 123 agreement, the Congress party reinforces its standing as a national party which protects and furthers the country’s interests above its own party interests. But the near-collapse of the political alignments for (governance) now and for the forthcoming elections, and the great uncertainty about the final approval of the agreement by the U.S. Congress in good time, and the eventuality that even if the agreement is consummated the United States invokes the Hyde Amendment are too many potential negatives that it make it a 5 for the Congress party.
(2) Mrs. Sonia Gandhi: I give a 5 for the same reasons. The political downsides are too many. But I do laud her ability to put the national interest above the partisan interest.
(3) Prime Minister Manmohan Singh: I give him an 8. Even if the Congress party and its allies were to form the next government after the parliamentary elections, it is most likely that Manmohan Singh will be nominated/elected to be the Prime Minister again. Manmohan Singh is, most likely, concluding his serendipitous political life — first as much hailed reformist Finance Minister and now as the Prime Minister. Given these facts, how can there be a more lasting and memorable legacy than the consummation of this extra-ordinary nuclear agreement?
(4) The political allies of the Congress party: I give them a 5. What are their choices — be with the Congress party or with the other political party — BJP.
(5) Bharatiya Janata Party: I give an 8. The Congress party and its political allies won the 2004 parliamentary elections simply because their collection of parties was larger than that of the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies. Take, for example, the state of Maharashtra. The coalition Congress party, the National Congress party led by Sharad Pawar and the Communist parties clearly outdid the combine of Bharatiya Janata Party and Shiv Sena. And so went the story in state after state.
But now the opposition to BJP and its political friends is now fragmented — most states are likely to witness a triangular contest with Congress and its friends as one contestant, the BJP and its friends as the other contestant, and the Communist parties and other small regional groupings as the third contestant. In such a fragmented contest, BJP is likely to benefit very substantially.
Add to this, the opportunity to woo the Muslim voters who are deeply suspicious of the United States — not unlike the Muslims all over the world after 9/11.
(6) Lal Krishna Advani: I give him a 9. For a man who is 80 years old and who is not seen as a statesman, and who was almost cast away by his own party after his favorable remarks about Jinnah in 2005, there is a remarkable turn-around in fortunes.
N.C. creates own health insurance plan for high-risk patients : ROB C
Chad asked:
When Cary Hicks lost his group health insurance earlier this year, he was floored by how much an individual policy could cost him because he is a diabetic.
“I was looking for anything,” said Hicks, who runs a small construction company. “I didn’t have insurance. I couldn’t afford any.”
That’s when Hicks discovered a new public health insurance program created by the North Carolina legislature. He now pays $550 a month in premiums — not cheap, but one-third of what a similar policy would have cost him in the private market.
As Congress debates how to overhaul the nation’s health-care system, North Carolina has dipped its toe into the public-option debate. Those who can’t find affordable health insurance from private companies because they have cancer, heart disease or other ailments now have the option of buying insurance from a high-risk pool set up by the state.
The program, called Inclusive Health, is little known. It has enrolled 2,050, only half of the number expected. But an estimated 1.4 million North Carolinians don’t have health insurance.
Inclusive Health is aimed largely at helping middle-class people who wake up one morning and find themselves without health insurance. Enrollees have either been turned down by private insurance companies, have lost their jobs or don’t have access to Medicare or Medicaid.
Hicks, 54, of Garner, said he had never given much thought to health insurance before this year. He was covered under his wife’s policy until January, when her employer, Corporate Press, a 40-year-old Raleigh printing company, went out of business. His construction company, which mainly builds fences, was too small to afford health insurance.
Bad luck sometimes comes in bunches. Hicks, who had not been hospitalized in 12 years, got an infected elbow in March, and the infection spread to his bloodstream. It put him the hospital for a week — a $12,000 out-of-pocket expense.
After a taste of being uninsured, Hicks went shopping for a health insurance policy. But because he is a severe diabetic, and therefore viewed as a high risk, the cost was prohibitive. Hicks said the state’s biggest insurer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, which has 86 percent of individual health insurance policies in the state, offered a policy with a $1,648 monthly premium. Hicks said that was unaffordable at a time when his household had gone from two incomes to one.
“We’ve got to eat, and we’ve got a house payment,” Hicks said. “It was just too much to handle.”
He saw a brief item in The News & Observer about the start of a new state health insurance program. Within a month, he had enrolled in Inclusive Health. His premium is $550 per month, and it covers his three daily shots of insulin, his blood pressure medicine and other medical costs.
North Carolina became the 35th state to create a high-risk health insurance plan in 2007, after a decade of debate in the legislature. It began offering insurance policies in January.
The measure had the backing of health groups, physicians, hospitals and insurance agents.
Adam Searing, a health-care consumer expert, said North Carolina’s high-risk pool is relatively industry friendly compared with those in other states. It includes a restriction that the risk pool charge premiums 175 percent of what private insurers charge, so as not to compete with private markets. And it provides no subsidies for the poor.
While it helps middle-class people without insurance, it is of little use
The story with the single lender rule
Amelie Mag asked:
What is the single lender rule and why is there so much talk about it in the press nowadays? Is the US congress a single lender congress or is it concerned with the best interests of the disadvantaged students, as it claims to be? The following single lender update will try to settle some of these questions and place the debate on the single lender rule in the larger context of its impact on the financial well-being of American students and also in the even larger framework of the direction of American education. Will it become more people-oriented or more-business oriented?
First of all, what does the single lender rule mean? When we talk about student loans and student loan consolidation, the single lender rule immediately comes to mind as a limitation placed on the benefits that the students and their families can derive from consolidation. Under the single lender rule, the students do not have the freedom to choose among different schemes of loan consolidation provided by different financial agents. With the single lender rule in effect, the students can only consolidate if they have contracted all their loans from the same company or governmental agency. The existence of the single lender rule actually affects the decisions about which companies to contact college loans from in the first place. If a student has contracted a loan with “X” for example, knowing that the single lender rule is in place will make him or her contract any additional loans from the same company, so as to keep open the option of loan consolidation.
In fact, this scenario is quite common because a young college student is very likely to take up their first college loan from a large corporation. These companies control the market for student loans, they invest considerably in advertising their financial packages and they keep close ties to the colleges where they often make presentations of their offers. A young college student does not usually have the capacity to understand all the implications of contracting a first loan with a specific company. He or she may not even be aware of the existence of the single lender rule in the first place. Or, even if he is aware of it, he will not be able to understand all the implications of the single lender rule. Moreover, the student is likely to get most of his information on student loans precisely from the presentations organized by a large company. Thus, while the student will be told about the existence of the single lender rule, he will probably not be explained all its implications.
Single lender updates, such as this, are meant to bring to the fore both sides of the debate on the single lender rule. In this single lender update, we also raise the question of whether the US congress proved to be a single lender congress, as it was expected, given the domination of the Republicans and of the strong lobby coming from the financial corporations which have business in education. A single lender congress would not have changed the original text of the bill on the issue of the single lender rule. The original text of the bill would have left this rule in place, but the congress accepted an amendment proposed by a Democrat which argues for the cancellation of the rule. It was not only that the Democrats fought so hard for the cancellation of the rule that they won over the Republicans in the congressional debate. This would not have been possible in the first place, given that the distribution of the seats in both houses favors the Republicans. It is just that both parties managed to agree the cancellation of the single lender rule is unavoidable.
While the US congress cannot be called a single lender congress, it is the conclusion of this single lender update that the congress can be considered to be sensitive to the interests of the corporations. On the one hand, while the cancellation of the rule does affect the interests of the big financial institutions, on many other aspects of the bill (such as flexibility of interest rates or charges for contracting a student loan), the corporations have made important gains. In addition, regarding the cancellation of the single lender rule, the congress decided that it will come into effect only after a specific grace period. In this period, the companies can give a big last push to sell as many consolidation packages as possible. This final push is likely to be extremely profitable as students are being encouraged to consolidate from all sides now, given the low interest rates for student loans.
What is the single lender rule and why is there so much talk about it in the press nowadays? Is the US congress a single lender congress or is it concerned with the best interests of the disadvantaged students, as it claims to be? The following single lender update will try to settle some of these questions and place the debate on the single lender rule in the larger context of its impact on the financial well-being of American students and also in the even larger framework of the direction of American education. Will it become more people-oriented or more-business oriented?
First of all, what does the single lender rule mean? When we talk about student loans and student loan consolidation, the single lender rule immediately comes to mind as a limitation placed on the benefits that the students and their families can derive from consolidation. Under the single lender rule, the students do not have the freedom to choose among different schemes of loan consolidation provided by different financial agents. With the single lender rule in effect, the students can only consolidate if they have contracted all their loans from the same company or governmental agency. The existence of the single lender rule actually affects the decisions about which companies to contact college loans from in the first place. If a student has contracted a loan with “X” for example, knowing that the single lender rule is in place will make him or her contract any additional loans from the same company, so as to keep open the option of loan consolidation.
In fact, this scenario is quite common because a young college student is very likely to take up their first college loan from a large corporation. These companies control the market for student loans, they invest considerably in advertising their financial packages and they keep close ties to the colleges where they often make presentations of their offers. A young college student does not usually have the capacity to understand all the implications of contracting a first loan with a specific company. He or she may not even be aware of the existence of the single lender rule in the first place. Or, even if he is aware of it, he will not be able to understand all the implications of the single lender rule. Moreover, the student is likely to get most of his information on student loans precisely from the presentations organized by a large company. Thus, while the student will be told about the existence of the single lender rule, he will probably not be explained all its implications.
Single lender updates, such as this, are meant to bring to the fore both sides of the debate on the single lender rule. In this single lender update, we also raise the question of whether the US congress proved to be a single lender congress, as it was expected, given the domination of the Republicans and of the strong lobby coming from the financial corporations which have business in education. A single lender congress would not have changed the original text of the bill on the issue of the single lender rule. The original text of the bill would have left this rule in place, but the congress accepted an amendment proposed by a Democrat which argues for the cancellation of the rule. It was not only that the Democrats fought so hard for the cancellation of the rule that they won over the Republicans in the congressional debate. This would not have been possible in the first place, given that the distribution of the seats in both houses favors the Republicans. It is just that both parties managed to agree the cancellation of the single lender rule is unavoidable.
While the US congress cannot be called a single lender congress, it is the conclusion of this single lender update that the congress can be considered to be sensitive to the interests of the corporations. On the one hand, while the cancellation of the rule does affect the interests of the big financial institutions, on many other aspects of the bill (such as flexibility of interest rates or charges for contracting a student loan), the corporations have made important gains. In addition, regarding the cancellation of the single lender rule, the congress decided that it will come into effect only after a specific grace period. In this period, the companies can give a big last push to sell as many consolidation packages as possible. This final push is likely to be extremely profitable as students are being encouraged to consolidate from all sides now, given the low interest rates for student loans.
