Sen. Coburn's Floor Speech 7/21

[Conan71]

Excerpts from Senator Coburn's speech on the Senate floor yesterday.

"Mr. Coburn: And I wanted to spend some time talking about what is coming before us saturday morning. As a member of the gang of six, I'm wanting us to solve our problem.

But the best way to solve that problem would be the bill that's going to be voted on on saturday morning. And why is that? You know, we're borrowing $4 billion a day.

And I've got enough gray hair to know that regardless of all the good intentions and regardless of all the statements of the members on the floor that we'll never live within our means in Washington until we are forced to live within our means.

And just because a constitutional amendment would take probably four years to pass, given what the American people think about it, isn't a reason not to go on and do it regardless of what we do about our short-term problem coming up august 2.

So the very fact that people would say, we're not gonna pass the cut, cap and balance because it won't happen in a period of time is exactly the same approach that got us 3 trillion in debt, that has our credit rating at risk and puts us in the kind of problems that we have today. So I've offered a plan I think is even better.

I know not many of my colleagues will, but here's a plan to cut $9 trillion over the next ten years, but it's the only plan that specifically states what you would cut, where you would cut it and why you would cut it. It's backed up with the facts. Nobody else can claim that.

You don't have to like a of them, but what we do know is if something doesn't come out of this body between now and august 2 that cuts a $4 trillion, this country's going to see significantly increased interest rates as a cost of that."

Some other comments which caught my eye:

"When I came to the senate, the idea was not to block legislation but to discuss legislation. To have the courage and the backbone to vote against something and go home and tell your constituents why you voted against it.

To offer amendments that you thought would improve legislation and defend those amendments. And to vote for a bill that you thought was in the best interest of the country and be able to defend that.

What's happened the last 3 1/2 years in the senate is we just don't vote because the politicians of the senate don't want to go home and explain their positions. So if you're not voting, you're not accountable and you're not responsible. That type of behavior is exactly the opposite behavior we need to have today"

And not to allow a vote to proceed -- not to allow proceeding to that debate, whether you agree with it or not, you can change it through amendments. You have the votes to change it through amendments.

But to not allow it to proceed so that the american people can see their elected senators and their real positions and what they know has to be done, you know, what really happens around here is we say things so we can protect our political ceers. And you know what?

What that does is we're not only bankrupting our financial, we're bankrupting our country's history and heritage. The heritage of this country was sacrificed and that means even sacrifice of a political career to do the right thing right now for the country.

Read the rest here, it's well worth it.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floorstatements?ContentRecord_id=f8194a68-18bd-4d04-a80a-be34eb03a427

Say what you will about his involvement with negotiating a settlement in Ensign's affair, Madcow's rantings on "C-Streeters", or his devout Christianity.  Senator Coburn seems to be one of the few people in D.C. these days with the balls to simply put out there the real reasons why Washington is broken and isn't afraid of tipping the sacred cows.

This is what Presidential leadership should look like, too bad he wouldn't be capable enough to win what's turned into a popularity contest.  I'd like to think his more moderate fiscal views would be a winner with everyone.  Sounds a whole lot better than "hope and change" to me.

[swake]

Excerpts from Senator Coburn's speech on the Senate floor yesterday.

Some other comments which caught my eye:

Read the rest here, it's well worth it.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floorstatements?ContentRecord_id=f8194a68-18bd-4d04-a80a-be34eb03a427

Say what you will about his involvement with negotiating a settlement in Ensign's affair, Madcow's rantings on "C-Streeters", or his devout Christianity.  Senator Coburn seems to be one of the few people in D.C. these days with the balls to simply put out there the real reasons why Washington is broken and isn't afraid of tipping the sacred cows.

This is what Presidential leadership should look like, too bad he wouldn't be capable enough to win what's turned into a popularity contest.  I'd like to think his more moderate fiscal views would be a winner with everyone.  Sounds a whole lot better than "hope and change" to me.

And also why he's such a complete and utter hypocrite. You forget he was the king of the pocket hold and the main reason that Senate rule was changed. His words and his actions yet again don't match.

[Conan71]

And also why he's such a complete and utter hypocrite. You forget he was the king of the pocket hold and the main reason that Senate rule was changed. His words and his actions yet again don't match.

He held bills in committee which had egregious pork attached to them, completely unrelated provisions, or created yet more duplicity in government.  Helps to know why he held them in the first place.  That was based on sound principle, not out of being afraid of how a vote would affect his chances at re-election.

What he's referring to is the tabling of bills like cut, cap, and balance rather than to have the balls to vote on it and to have to face constituents back home.

[swake]

The use of a pocket hold by a senator gave that single member the ability to hold a bill, in secret, without debate and keeping it a vote.

Explain this quote in light of his using that Senate rules trick more than anyone else:

"When I came to the senate, the idea was not to block legislation but to discuss legislation. To have the courage and the backbone to vote against something and go home and tell your constituents why you voted against it.

To offer amendments that you thought would improve legislation and defend those amendments. And to vote for a bill that you thought was in the best interest of the country and be able to defend that.

What's happened the last 3 1/2 years in the senate is we just don't vote because the politicians of the senate don't want to go home and explain their positions. So if you're not voting, you're not accountable and you're not responsible. That type of behavior is exactly the opposite behavior we need to have today"

[Conan71]

The use of a pocket hold by a senator gave that single member the ability to hold a bill, in secret, without debate and keeping it a vote.

Explain this quote in light of his using that Senate rules trick more than anyone else:

I've found nothing in the common nor senatorial vernacular which refers to a "pocket hold".  There are holds and there are pocket vetos.

Again Swake, he's used the procedure on bills he viewed as unconstitutional or egregiously wasteful.  Would you rather have a Senator who is a sheeple and lets schlock get through to a vote when 1/2 the Senate has not bothered to read the full bill, or someone who has held up legislation until the usual ticks and fleas have been removed?  As far as anything he held up anonymously, must not have been that anonymous since everyone knows about it, eh?

He's used blocks to get discussion and offer amendments.  I fail to see the hypocrisy.

[swake]

I've found nothing in the common nor senatorial vernacular which refers to a "pocket hold".  There are holds and there are pocket vetos.

Again Swake, he's used the procedure on bills he viewed as unconstitutional or egregiously wasteful.  Would you rather have a Senator who is a sheeple and lets schlock get through to a vote when 1/2 the Senate has not bothered to read the full bill, or someone who has held up legislation until the usual ticks and fleas have been removed?  As far as anything he held up anonymously, must not have been that anonymous since everyone knows about it, eh?

He's used blocks to get discussion and offer amendments.  I fail to see the hypocrisy.

The technical term is senatorial hold privilege.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_hold

Tom Coburn placed so many of them that his nickname is Dr No in the Senate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119820693514244309.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7310.html

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/01/25/filibuster-reform-near/

[Gaspar]

The easiest way to get a bill by Sen. Coburn is not to put any smile in it.

Easy!

[Conan71]

The technical term is senatorial hold privilege.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_hold

Tom Coburn placed so many of them that his nickname is Dr No in the Senate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119820693514244309.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7310.html

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/01/25/filibuster-reform-near

Did you really think I was unaware of the "Dr. No" moniker?

Read the links, they explain in great detail why he's employed that procedure.  You can also thank him for either getting bills amended which have saved you, as a taxpayer, money or scrapped a bill which would have given the government more personal information about you than they really need.

[guido911]

I have read that a majority of Americans support some version of cut/cap/balance. Don't know if it was a poll or survey though. And incidentally, I am still waiting for the dems plan to solve this problem (apart of course from "soak the rich")

[Gaspar]

I have read that a majority of Americans support some version of cut/cap/balance. Don't know if it was a poll or survey though. And incidentally, I am still waiting for the dems plan to solve this problem (apart of course from "soak the rich")

CNN Poll

CNN and Opinion Research Corporation, 66 percent of Americans would support a plan that would raise the debt ceiling "only if a balanced budget amendment were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending were approved."

We find ourselves in a similar position to Obamacare where our government intends to legislate against the will of the people. 

Another shellacking is in order.

[Townsend]

CNN Poll

CNN and Opinion Research Corporation, 66 percent of Americans would support a plan that would raise the debt ceiling "only if a balanced budget amendment were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending were approved."

We find ourselves in a similar position to Obamacare where our government intends to legislate against the will of the people. 

Another shellacking is in order.

Link to CNN for the poll?  CNN is linking to other polls.  Just want to make sure it's not another "CNN poll" made up by some conservative website trying to fake the slow witted out again.

[swake]

CNN Poll

CNN and Opinion Research Corporation, 66 percent of Americans would support a plan that would raise the debt ceiling "only if a balanced budget amendment were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending were approved."

We find ourselves in a similar position to Obamacare where our government intends to legislate against the will of the people.  

Another shellacking is in order.

Really?

2.  Do you think the policies being proposed by the Republican leaders in the U.S. House and Senate
would move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?
Right direction - 37%
Wrong direction - 58%

(a note, Obama was at 45/54 so his numbers are better then Republicans)


4. We'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news.  As I read each name, please say
if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of
them

The Democratic Party
Favorable 45%  Unfavorable 49% Never Heard of 1% No Opinion 5%

The Republican Party
Favorable 41%  Unfavorable 55% Never Heard of 1% No Opinion 4%

The Tea Party movement
Favorable 37%  Unfavorable 47% Never Heard of 4% No Opinion 12%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/22/obama.aproval.pdf

[Gaspar]

Really?

2.  Do you think the policies being proposed by the Republican leaders in the U.S. House and Senate
would move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?
Right direction - 37%
Wrong direction - 58%

(a note, Obama was at 45/54 so his numbers are better then Republicans)


4. We'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news.  As I read each name, please say
if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of
them

The Democratic Party
Favorable 45%  Unfavorable 49% Never Heard of 1% No Opinion 5%

The Republican Party
Favorable 41%  Unfavorable 55% Never Heard of 1% No Opinion 4%

The Tea Party movement
Favorable 37%  Unfavorable 47% Never Heard of 4% No Opinion 12%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/22/obama.aproval.pdf

If you read the published poll, questions:

23. In another proposal, Congress would raise the debt ceiling only if a balanced budget amendment were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending were approved. Would you favor or oppose this proposal? July 18-20 2011

Favor 66%
Oppose 33%
No opinion 1%

Wow! Almost two-thirds of respondents favor "Cut, Cap and Balance."

But that's not all:

25. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget? July 18-20 2011

Favor 74%
Oppose 24%
No opinion 1%

In the reported results on their website and broadcasts they skipped all sections that did not reflect Democrat talking points.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/21/rel11b.pdf

[Conan71]

Gaspar, that's pretty fascinating, I noticed they glossed over that in their poll cover story as well.

[Townsend]

856 interviews among landline respondents
and 153 interviews among cell phone respondents.

So they asked 856 people angry because their prune juice hadn't taken effect yet.