texshelters

The Senate is the most Democratic legislative body in the World (Update for linking)

In Election Politics on March 31, 2011 at 23:41

I love the Senate, as should all you red-blooded American men and some of you ladies too. The Senate has defended democracy in America in so many ways it’s hard to count them. That’s what accountants are for anyway.

It starts with the filibuster. That’s when one Senator can talk a lot, with the help of Tex Shelters Industries 72 Hour Power Boost, and stop legislation in the United States. It is a great way to stop the majority of America from getting what they want and need.

Only 34 Senators represent 69.15% of the U.S. population. The other 66 Senators represent only 30% of the America. So you can get a Senator from the Alaska, Sarah Palin for example, that represents about 700,000 people, stopping legislation for the rest of America, over 300 million people. Now that’s Democracy! Granted, if you get 60 Senators, 60% of the Senate I think, gang up on the poor Senator from Alaska, Sarah Palin for example, then the mob could take away her first Amendment rights to free speech and end the “debate” and call for a vote. Thankfully, the end of a filet buster almost never happens, and that makes the Senate very democratic.

It’s wonderful how a vote by a Senator in Montana is worth the same as a Senator from California. And since Montana is REAL America, that makes me REAL happy.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/democracy-in-america.php

You can be elected U.S. Senator in Montana with about 250,000 votes. Montana leans the right direction even though it’s near the left coast. http://sos.mt.gov/elections/Voter_Turnout.asp You needed about 6.5 million votes to get elected to the Senate in California 2008. Voter turnout was 13.7 million in 2008. http://cbs5.com/local/election.voter.turnout.2.886945.html

Since liberals are all lazy, and California is 100% liberals, they need extra voters to get the job done of electing people. The hard working folk of Montana need fewer people to get the job done. It’s true all over America. Hard working people in Alaska can do it with only 686,000 people. They deserve two Senators because like Sarah Palin, they are REAL hardworking Americans. The unreal Americans in California, lazy hippies, pot smokers and Apple Executives, ONLY deserve two Senators for their 36,756,000 people. If they ran things (having more than 12% of the population), we’d all be gay married and eating tacos. The only REAL state that has a big population is Texas, and people mostly move there to live close to the Bush family.

The Senate can shut up debate in another way too. Back in 2000 when Bush won the election, some black members of the house (Alcee Hastings of Florida) were getting all uppity because Al Gore lost the election in Florida.

Members of the black caucus in the House (no black folks in the Senate that year) had a lawsuit to stop the selection of the duly elected George W. Bush (cause black folks are undemocratic; just look at Sudan!). So those uppity members of Congress brought their suit against the honest hard working white folk and needed to get a Senator to sign on to try to reinstate their votes in Florida.

“…they were all ruled out of order by outgoing Vice President Al Gore because no Democratic Senator would co-sponsor.” So Al Gore did not support their motion to call the vote illegitimate in Florida just cause a few (175,000) blacks were disenfranchised. Thank God there was a white man in charge of the Senate, Vice President Al Gore, and that none of them white Democratic Senators wanted to defend black people and their right to vote. You see, whites are so afraid of the black vote, rightfully so, that not even the man who would be king, Al Gore, would stand up to defend blacks who probably voted for the white man himself.

That led the election of Bush by the Supreme Court and the greatest presidency in the history of American corporations! And when I say American corporations, y’all know how much that helped everybody the last ten  years.

So again, the Senate was on the side of democracy when they refused to consider disenfranchised blacks in Florida. That meant that each white vote was worth more, and thus, it enhanced democracy.

The latest example of the Senate’s love and support of democracy, though there are so many, is health care reform. By its very nature, the Senators in the Finance committee are democratic. They represent a small part of the country, and they can stop health care for everyone. At least they make it almost useless before they send it out of committee. Speaking of UNdemocritc, Ezra Klein writes about this:

“Or take the “Coalition of the Willing” that Max Baucus, the senior senator from Montana, has formed to handle health reform. The first meeting was attended by Baucus, Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, New Mexico’s Jeff Bingaman, North Dakota’s Kent Conrad, Utah’s Orrin Hatch, Maine’s Olympia Snow, and Wyoming’s Mike Enzi. As Harold Pollack, a professor of public health at the University of Chicago e-mails, “these 7 states have a combined population of 11.18 million, markedly less than greater LA. They include zero major metropolitan areas. Yet they may be correct in asserting that they are positioned to make or break what can get through the Senate.”” See, only democratic people would be willing to take on health care and stop it despite representing about .3% of the country’s population.

Montana’s senior Senator Baucus is the most democratic:

But Baucus, a senator from a sparsely populated and conservative Western state who is serving his sixth term, stands out for the rising tide of health-care contributions to his campaign committee, Friends of Max Baucus, and his political-action committee, Glacier PAC. Baucus collected $3 million from the health and insurance sectors from 2003 to 2008, about 20 percent of the total, data show. Less than 10 percent of the money came from Montana. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072003363.html

You can see how democratic Baucus is; he let’s corporations and people from ALL states influence how he votes instead of just limiting it to the people in the state he “serves” in Montana. Good for him!

Continued…
But Jerry Flanagan, a health-care analyst with Consumer Watchdog, a California-based advocacy group, said the tide of campaign contributions amounts to “a huge down payment” by companies that expect favorable policies in return. “That is the cold reality of big-money politics,” he said. (ibid)

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. You would think that Californians would learn by now; you can’t beat a hardworking Montanan like Baucus.

So you see, a Senator from one of the least populated states in the United States can stop, or water down, legislation that might hurt one of his patrons in the health care industry. And that 3 million dollars in donations from the health industry for Baucus goes a long way in a sparsely populated state like Montana where advertising costs are low and there are few people to target with calls and mailings.

The Senate is also democratic because they spend more money on campaigns for election, and money increases democracy. Because each state has equal power in the Senate, it keeps military spending high. Every state has military contracts, and if you just had a House of Representatives, there may be districts not in the pockets of the military contractors. But states are all involved in the military; therefore, so are the Senators that represent whole states. So that $711 billion spent on the military a year, not counting additional spending for our two glorious wars, is protected. I hope they democratically keep health care from the people. That might cost $75 billion next year. That would cut the military spending UNDER $700 billion. And who can afford that when you have people to kill.

People who want to get rid of the Senate are as crazy as those that believe Obama was born in the United States. There is no way we could give the Senate functions to the house, or increase House membership to give less populated states more House members. Besides, the Senate is one of the only institutions left between us and the maddening crowds, between us and chaos.

Links

http://www.democrats.com/the-black-hole-option-abolish-the-senate

Abolish the Senate

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/reminder_the_senate_hates_demo.html

Another?

http://onthehustings.blogspot.com/2005/03/how-undemocratic-is-senate.html

http://thehill.com/markos-moulitsas/undemocratic-process-2009-01-27.html

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/hasen-nuke.doc

The Senate Democrats are worthless

http://www.democrats.com/the-black-hole-option-abolish-the-senate

Democracy in America

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/democracy-in-america.php

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~perspy/2009/04/bicameral-blunder-destroying-the-senate/

Convicted Felon Senator Stevens given an ovation

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/20/stevens-ovation/

Yours,
Tex Shelters

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Yes and yes. And sigh. We need a government. Oh, wait, we’re supposed to have one…

    P.S.

    Re: Our Offense Budget, it’s actually more than a Trillion per year if all the hidden offense-related spending–across all departments–is actually put into the total. That doesn’t include many of the other costs of war that aren’t so easily captured or quantified.

    One breakdown:

    http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=5827

    A long but interesting article on the subject that came out a couple of days ago…

    http://www.alternet.org/economy/150401/we_spend_more_than_1_trillion_on_defense_–_it%27s_time_to_take_aim_at_our_military_budget

    • Thanks for the link Little Sun. The two budgets I saw put the military at 1.2 and 1.8 billion dollars. Ugh.

      We have a government, by the few, for the few, for the rich.

      Peace,
      Tex Shelters

      • Did you mean trillion instead of billion? It’s a hard figure to fathom… let alone swallow.

  2. “So that $711 billion spent on the military a year, not counting additional spending for our two glorious wars, is protected.”

    It’s now three wars Tex. I know Obama says it’s not a war, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck. I also liked how we turned the Libyan action over to NATO so we could say we are not in charge. Problem is though, we are NATO… Without the US, NATO would be as effective as the UN.

    • Jake,

      I thought that pretty clever to say, “It’s in the hand of NATO” when we founded it and basically control it like our lap dog. When we say roll over and bomb libya, NATO will.

      Peace,
      Tex Shelters

  3. […] 7. The Senate The Senate is a “representative” legislative body that gives inordinate power to less populated states that skews toward a more traditionalist, conservative politics. Because they are over represented, less populated states take more resources per capita than more populous states and can block policies that would help the more urban states. It is counter to our stated ideology of one person, one vote. One vote in Montana for Senator is equal to the value of 70 votes in California. It also skews the Electoral College, based on the number of representatives in Congress, toward the less populated states. Before rejecting this unusual idea of banning the Senate, read my complete criticism here. (link) […]

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 121 other followers

%d bloggers like this: