Somewhere in the great elaborate clock of our government, a single gear has stopped working. And, in typical bureaucratic fashion, the entire machine has ground to a screeching halt.
In what was supposed to be a quick, painless and largely technical issue — a rarity in the contemporary polarized political process — Senate Democrats raced to extend cash and health insurance benefits to unemployed citizens. The vote, labeled an emergency measure by the Democrats, required a unanimous vote of approval, but, given theimmediate impacts its passage would have on the millions of unemployed Americans trying to recover from the recent recession, the vote was expected to go through.
Until Sen. Jim Bunning, D-Ky., stood up and challenged the vote. One can only imagine the immediate responses of congressional staff all over Washington when news of Bunning’s blockade swept across the Capitol. Both Republicans and Democrats alike stopped in their tracks and issued a collective, “Wait — what?”
Bunning claims he is obstructing the process because Democrats have not matchedsufficent funds to pay for the $10 billion measure, which conflicts with recently-passed “pay as you go” rules preventing legislators from adding to the budget.
Democrats argue that because of the gravity of the situation — the colossal recession from which the country is only now beginning to emerge has created a staggering 10 percent unemployment, and governmental leaders are scrambling to remedy the situation— the bill is an emergency measure that deserves a pass from the “pay-go” rules.
While the simple fact that Bunning is the only member of the 100-person body that hasany objections to the measure is a strong indicator that he’s wrong on policy grounds;the move is undeniably unwise from a practical political perspective.
While it may be unfair to say Democrats are accepting Bunning’s actions with glee, the ramifications of his obstructionism are heavily in their favor. The move plays perfectly into the Republican’s biggest negative stereotype as the “party of no” — the party content to stymie Democratic efforts at every opportunity rather than coming to the table and dealing.This concept is not lost on Republican leaders, who have hardly been able to conceal their rage.
But perhaps the most perplexing part of the problem is Bunning’s status — he’s retiring at the end of this term. His motivations can’t be tied to some backwards attempt to court his constituency at home, and they can’t be a result of some unknown political pressure.Bunning’s a lame duck. He’s beholden to no one. So we can only assume he’s doing all this because he thinks it’s the right thing to do.
In the end, it’s entirely possible that Bunning is right, though I doubt it. And there’s even room to applaud him for standing up to his convictions, if that’s in fact his motivation here.But it’s a forehead-slappingly annoying example of one of the many structural flaws in our governmental operations.
What in the hell kind of democracy allows one old man with nothing to lose politicallyto hamstring much-needed aid to countless Americans left burnt by the recession?
Our representaties should probably investigate whatever rules require a unanimous vote.There should be a system in which Bunning is allowed to voice his dissent without thepower to collapse the whole process.
But, more importantly, powerful men like Bunning need to know when is the time to fightideological battles and when is the time to compromise. We can make all the structural changes we want, but if politicians don’t learn to compromise, well, it won’t do any good.
Matthew Albright is a 21-year old mass communication junior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_malbright.
– – – -Contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]