Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 | Hacker News Reader

Who do we vote for? The only standout here is Rep Thomas Massie who tried to force a recorded vote by requiring people to return to the capital. He was dragged by both sides and the president. Google his name and look how the media treated him.

View on HN

Massie's stunt was an obvious and dangerous troll. You want all of Congress to come down with COVID? What nonsense is that. Massie was rightfully pilloried. THe obvious answer is to vote for the party that actually believes in sound government. The one that is not constantly dismantling important institutions. I have a lot of issues with the Democratic party positions on a number of matters, but they would not have been so entirely inept at every step of the way as team trump and his corrupt cronies. I mean, what the heck is Mnuchin even doing? Kudlow? THese are the people in the executive branch who should be working day and night to craft the regulations as Congress passes the law. The law states the rule, the regulations state how those rules will be implemented. That is how it is supposed to work. This administration is completely incapable of anything requiring competence. These crooks need to get voted out. They are literally killing us and destroying lives and careers.

These bailout bills have been passed with broad bipartisan support, of which you will never see who voted for or against the bill because it was only a voice vote.

So how is voting for either party going to help a problem that both parties equally passed?

> These bailout bills have been passed with broad bipartisan support...

> So how is voting for either party going to help a problem that both parties equally passed?

I think that's misunderstanding politics. Broad bipartisan support doesn't mean both parties were happy with each and every provision, it means that they found the overall compromise acceptable enough to vote for (given the circumstances).

For instance: IIRC, the Democrats actually wanted to add a permanent, general paid sick-leave benefit to one of these relief bills, but after Republican objections they compromised and settled for a temporary COVID-specific benefit to achieve "broad bipartisan support" for the overall bill. That doesn't mean they changed their position, and if more people had voted for Democrats in the last election, the outcome would have been different.

I think that's misunderstanding politics. The Democrats actually wanted to talk about adding a permanent, general laid sick leave benefit, but blame Republicans for it being unfeasible. This result gives the Democrats the best of both worlds - they earn more votes in November but don't actually have to figure out how to pay for such policies.

I disagree. While what you say is technically true, but I'm not so cynical to think the Democrats would have backed off on a permanent paid sick leave benefit in this situation if they'd been in a more powerful position. I think it's a policy they actually want, and the pandemic makes the need clear enough to neutralize most conservative-inspired unease with it in the minds of centrists and swing voters.

The proof is that they only advocate these things when they can't pass them. When the Democrats control Congress, it suddenly isn't a priority again.

The Dems haven't had a veto proof majority in House and Senate since the the 111th (2009 to 2011) and before that the 95th ( 1977 to 1979). I'm not going to go into the 95th too much because it was a very long time ago. Our country is very different. Obama spent basically all his political capital getting ObamaCare Dodd-Frank and CFPB passed. All of which were MASSIVE steps to dramatically increase access to health care and for the first time in decades bend the cost curve, dramatically reign in the banks, and give consumers actual protection from predatory big business. So, I don't really understand what you are talking about.

> it means that they found the overall compromise acceptable enough to vote for (given the circumstances).

For every $1 going to a good cause, our politicians add $2 of pork in order to find a “compromise”

> For every $1 going to a good cause, our politicians add $2 of pork in order to find a “compromise”

That's pretty obviously false unless you consider only 0.17% to 0.6% of federal government spending to be "going to a good cause." [1] [2]

[1] https://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/pork-barrel-spending/: "In 2005, CAGW identified 13,997 projects costing $27.3 billion that met its definition of pork spending; as in 2006, that was about 1.1 percent of total spending."

[2] https://www.cagw.org/reporting/pig-book: "The cost of earmarks in FY 2019 is $15.3 billion..." https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2019-federal-budget-summary-of...: "The budget office estimates the federal government will spend $4.536 trillion in FY 2019." That works out to 0.337% of the federal budget.

I don’t know why you’re downvoted. I am a solid social democratic left person. But whatever his motivations, the fact is Massie was the only one that wanted to force a record of the vote. Good on him.

For those that claim it was dangerous, take that up with Nancy Pelosi the speaker who has refused calls to allow remote voting and video conferences so congress can work. She has refused this because she doesn’t want committees to do anything and she doesn’t want votes recorded. It makes a mockery of any suggestions of oversight. Your beef really is with her not Massie.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com