Filibustering

 I don't think it should come as a surprise to anybody that I'm politically liberal.  That's how most of my friends describe me, but then again they're liberals too.  The general population?  I'm super liberal.  Liberal Freak.  Libtard.  This isn't something, however, that I choose or have chosen in the past and just go with.  Instead, I look at every new issue and gauge its merits and practically always end up on the far left of the spectrum.  

So, I kind of want to cover several political issues.  Filibusters, student loan forgiveness, green new deal... but let's start with the most obvious thing.  Conservatism.  

I'm a fan of the new.  Yes, I do like rhythms and steadiness, but I also like experiencing new things.  Once we've absorbed something, we can often go further and make it better.  Just picture a technological example; the cell phone.   They were huge.  Then they got small.  Then they got graphics.  Then they got color graphics.  Then they got unified systems (Android/iOS).  Then they spent years iterating and getting better and better.  This type of example doesn't always work in social or fiscal situations, but conservatism seems to always want to stop at the current 'good' or even step back to when something was considered better.  Are they just afraid of the new?  

Consider marriage.  A white man can marry a white woman.  That was the only way for marriage for a long long time.  Then they let other races marry.  Native Americans (once they were 'civilized') or blacks.  Then people of mixed races could marry.  That's been the standard for a long time, but I imagine back before the civil war there were conservatives arguing that other races couldn't marry.  Then there were conservatives arguing that you couldn't mix the races.  In my lifetime it's been gay marriage.  And yes, conservatives still argue against it even though its been backed by the supreme court.  As gay rights extend beyond marriage, it's bringing with them rights of 'other' sexual identities.  Here in Michigan just this week our attorney general (the first openly gay attorney general in state's history) has declared its unconstitutional to demand a transgendered person to have to go through a sexual reassignment surgery before allowing them to change their birth certificate.  Oh my dear lord, the outrage of the right is immense.  

I mean, just look at abortion!  It was supposedly settled with Roe v. Wade in 1973, but they're still working on denying women the right to have an abortion.  Look at voting rights!  They're making it harder and harder to vote with the 'excuse' of voter fraud.  No concrete examples of massive voter fraud have been found, but they'll always claim its there.  They'll demand investigations and those investigations always (quietly) come up empty.  Then there will be new claims.  The law held up in the supreme court now says its okay that some Native Americans, who live hours from the nearest mail box, cannot give their ballot to someone else for delivery.  They have to do it themselves.  

Gerrymandering, immigration, and other voting issues come up as ways for them to hold on to power while the country as a whole continues to move forward.  It moves FAR slower than I'm happy with, but maybe that's just because they're acting as a brake.  They're slowing us down and struggling to keep enough power to slow it down further.  

Another example is judges.  During President Obama's term senate republicans all but stopped the process of approving judges at any level.  You of course know about Merrick Garland and his denial.  I won't get into hypocrisy (*cough* *cough* Amy Coney Barrett), but the conservative side plays one way while the liberal side plays another.  When justice Antonin Scalia passed away he was one of the most conservative members of the bench.  President Obama nominated Merrick Garland as his replacement partially because he was moderate instead of overly liberal.  It just didn't feel right to replace a conservative jurist with a liberal.  That way the court would remain in balance.  We know how that turned out.  When Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away she was THE most liberal member of the bench.  President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett.  Only time will tell how conservative justice Barrett will be, but there's no doubt she's somewhere between Very Conservative and OH MY GOD Conservative.  

Two sides, playing different games.  

So... what do liberals want?  Well, I find it difficult to lump all liberals into one category.  I've met self declared liberals that feel differently on the environment, fiscal policy, military, and social issues.  For the most part they seem to want to acknowledge global climate change and so 'something'.  They want to increase tax revenue and do 'things' with that money.  I know a few that want to reduce the military, but most agree with keeping a very strong military... just not throwing good money after bad into that system.  And maybe taking a look at the current system to see how it's screwed up and fix it.  And social issues?  Let people be.  Admit that systemic racism for hundreds of years has made it so that there isn't a level playing field.  Admit that sexual preferences and sexual identity are equally important to protect and preserve as biological sex.  Continue to push women's issues because they're still behind men in almost everything.  

Now of course there are plenty of details I'm leaving out, like the 'something' in climate change and the 'things' with taxes.  I'll get to what *I* want later, but I think that's the gist.  Liberals want to make us all better.  They want society to be better for everybody, even if it means someone that's classically has power and advantage have to give up some of that power and/or advantage.  

So... what do conservatives want?  They seem to want to turn back the clock.  They're eliminating the civil rights voting act.  They're eliminating the right to an abortion.  They're fighting tooth and nail against trans rights and trying to push back gay rights.  They want to stop all the 'bad' immigration, with bad being defined as poor and/or non-white.  They want to cut taxes.   They want to cut regulations and make the government (local, city, state, federal) smaller.  

For most social issues, I have a be and let be mentality.  I don't mind that my neighbor is highly, almost fanatically, religious.  I live across the street from a church and have no problem with them.  Our family has watched over that property for decades as its the neighborly thing to do.  None of that bothers me because THEY don't bother me.  They, both my neighbor and the church across the street, know that I'm agnostic.  My brother is athiest, and my mother is a private Christian.  They don't come at me/us trying to push their religion.  So far as I know, they don't expect/want/desire me to live by their ideals.  So long as it stays that way, I don't have a problem with them.  Its when religion tries to push their values onto and into my life through political moves that I have a problem.  

If I want to marry a man, it should have no bearing on them.  Yes, they can believe I'm going to their hell all they want.  They can shun me from their house of worship.  But they shouldn't be able to deny my right to express my sexuality through my choice of marriage partner through laws.  I don't want to deny their religion just because I don't believe in it.  

For immigration, they sure do put a lot of work into focusing the discussion on the southern border and the 'wall'.  But if we just sat down and focused our attention on making our immigration process better and faster, we could eliminate that problem almost entirely.  With modern technology, why should it take a year?  Why does it take some yearS?  I'd say it's clear that the conservatives just don't want immigrants.  It's funny because they consider is free... I mean, everybody knows the statue of liberty quote; "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.."  but have you ever read the whole plaque?  

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We should WANT the 'wretched refuse' from other countries that want to be here.  I'm not saying every single immigrant is going to improve our country, but as a whole immigrants perform better than natural born citizens in almost every respect.  They commit less crime, they pay more in taxes, they send their children to college who then go on to also commit less crime and pay even more in taxes.  We should be welcoming in as many as we can hold... and you know, I've seen Montana and we can hold A LOT of immigrants.  

And then there's taxes.  I'll freely admit that when the highest tax bracket is paying 90% on their top earnings, it's too much.  But in 1963 Kennedy wanted to cut that down to 65%.  Johnson ended up cutting it to 70%.  Then Regan took it down to 50%.  Bush took it to 35%.  Trump reduced it down to 20%.  I find it incredibly ironic that a man whose motto is "Make America Great Again" doesn't see that 'great again' might need more in tax revenue.  I mean, I get it.  The theory is that by paying less in taxes, the top 'earners' will either spend more or increase the size of their businesses and therefore end up increasing revenue.  And if you look at just pure unadulterated numbers, that would seem to hold out.  Here's the US tax revenue in all those years:

1965  $117 Billion
1980  $517 Billion
2001  $1.99 Trillion
2017  $3.27 Trillion

2021 $3.86 Trillion (estimated)

But let's look at all of those in today's dollars

1965  $999 Billion
1980  $1.6  Trillion
2001  $3.02 Trillion
2017  $3.59 Trillion

That trend of us making more and more and more money by tax cuts loses a lot of steam.  Especially when you consider what we've lost.  Remember making the interstate highway system?  Can you imagine us taking on such a large project today?  We find it difficult to give natural disaster areas the billions they need and the highway system cost between 500 and 1000 billion dollars (yes, estimates of its cost go upward of a trillion dollars).  Imagine pushing legislation to do a "Big Thing" that will cost us a trillion dollars.  The space program.  Medicare.  Social Security.  We used to do big things because we had a budget that allowed for it.  Now practically everything is brought to a stop because we "can't afford it".  And still, they want to cut taxes.  Consider how much push back President Biden is getting for wanting to raise the corporate tax rate from 21.6% to 28%.  While just a few years ago President Trump cut it from 35%.  It was 35% and we were doing just fine, but damn it we'll destroy America if we 'raise' it to 28%.  

My brother, who wants to call himself liberal but comes down as conservative on just about every issue we debate, and I recently talked about the $300 a week extra unemployment benefit.  I'm sure everybody now knows what I'm talking about, but to make sure future readers know, during the pandemic an extra unemployment benefit was given out to keep people afloat.  First it was $600 extra a week, then it went away because of 'reasons', then President Biden brought it back at a reduced $300 a week.  It was extended through September of 2021.  Well, here we are in July of 2021 and most of the economy is open.  Businesses are saying they're having trouble finding enough workers, with some still limiting their hours of business.  So naturally republicans are trying to get rid of the extra unemployment to 'force' workers to get back into the work force.  My own state legislature passed a budget that included pulling back the extra unemployment even though they knew the Governor wouldn't sign it.  

Could this help businesses?  Yes.  Of course it would.  But let's look at this through the workers timeline and not the immediate benefit of the businesses (and yes, the benefits of their customers like me!).  The pandemic rolls down and businesses are closed to keep us all safe and healthy.  People unexpectedly and suddenly lose their jobs.  They struggle and get by, helped out tremendously by the extra unemployment money, from early 2020 when they lost their jobs to mid 2021 when their job opens back up.  They still have enough unemployment benefits that it's actually more money to stay unemployed and they've been planning on this through September.  Now, because it benefits the business, we pull the rug out from under them and 'push' them back to work.  How many won't find their job again?  How many planned on things like home renovations, education, and family time that will now be pushed aside so that I can get my Panera Bread order after 7 PM.  

I'm not opposed to getting rid of the extra unemployment benefit.  I just think we should let it run its course.  Congress could have passed the benefit in a way that said when the economy was opened back up, the benefit would expire in three weeks, but they didn't do that.  They gave it a hard time frame of September.  Let it go until September!  I boiled my argument down to this... Help People and let Businesses figure it out.  To take away the credit would be to Help Businesses and let People figure it out.  I'm pro People.  

I mentioned the green new deal.  I find it absolutely (and yet sadly) hilarious that it's become this big thing in conservative media.  A big liberal devil idea that will kill off cows because they fart, land planes forever, and take cars away from people leaving people to live like they did in the middle ages.  Have you ever read the green new deal?  Not the pipe dream Fox News and Info Wars talks about, but the actual Green New Deal?  It's a resolution, a proposal, with goals and not steps.  It's designed to give us a direction and not a map on how we get there.  So any time someone says that "The Green New Deal will..." and inserts some action, they're wrong.  It sets a goal of being 100$ renewable energy in 10 years.  It calls for universal health care, an increased minimum wage, a job and training for those affected by moving away from old energy, and a big investment in infrastructure.  If you look at it, its less a GREEN new deal and more a NEW DEAL that happens to be green.  But it's already been demonized and will now be held up as a baby killing, job destroying, liberal fantasy.  

And finally, the part where I can't decide where I stand.  Forgiving student loan debt.  I will obviously benefit if this happens.  I owe, I believe, just over $40,000 in student loan debt.  So just about every figure I've heard has had a basement of forgiving $50,000... wiping out my student loan debt.  Now, I haven't paid my student loans since the pandemic started.  That's saved me about $480 a month.  That's been DAMN nice and let me put that money out into the economy.  I've heard a lot of different reasons to forgive student loan debt, but none of them seem to fix a problem.   

Is higher education more expensive?  Yes.  Is student loan debt impossible to get rid of?  Yes.  Are student loans worth it?  Only if you graduate and can afford them.  Does forgiving student loan debt fix any of those problems?  No.  The only problem it addresses is keeping people out of the economy because of those problems.  People coming up behind those with the forgiven student loan debt will still be burdened.  So, do I want it forgiven?  Yes.  Do I think this is a solution worth the money?  No.  

(please still forgive my student loan debt!).

And lastly, the reason I've been thinking about all of this and the title of this post.  The Filibuster.  In as short a manner as possible; Fuck The Filibuster.  

Seriously.  Get rid of it.  It's holding on to a piece of history that's not historic and that has been changed a LOT over time.  It's too easy for a minority to stop a majority from doing anything.  Right now, with the vice president, the majority of Americans have voted for the democratic party.  Let the democratic party do what it wants.  You'll get results and then we can vote on those results.  Eventually, the public will vote in a republican house, senate, and president, and they'll get to pass what they want. Then we'll get those results and get to vote on them.  Right now people are getting pissed off because they vote democratic but nothing gets done, so they vote in republicans but nothing gets done so they vote... on and on.  I believe in a heads up contest, in most areas of the country, democrats will win because they are the more liberal party.  They're not perfect by any means, and you'll please note that I didn't once say anybody should vote democrat.  If the republicans were as liberal as they were in Lincoln's time, I'd vote republican.  

I haven't heard any good reason for a filibuster except one.  It 'forces' more debate.  Well, if we want that, then lets put in reasonable protections.  Keep the filibuster as is, but it simply pushes the vote down by a month. That's a month of debate.  Then if they filibuster again, they have to meet a higher requirement.  If htey meet that, more debate.  Eventually, if they keep filibustering things, it comes down to a majority vote wins.   So if the republicans want that tax cut bad enough and the dems keep filibustering, they just have to keep it up for several months and they get their tax cuts.  If the dems want that infrastructure program they just need to keep going and they'll eventually get it.  In the meantime we can hopefully hear from someone that might sway a vote or two.  

I guess that's all I have for now.  A lot of the time when I write like this, I find something new in my thoughts.  This time, I haven't.  Its still worth it to put it out in pixels though.  Hopefully tomorrow I'll write out an update.  

Ta Ta!