Several weeks ago the Senate held a “vote-a-rama” related to amends to the federal budget. This is the first of a three part series of reactions to this event by Widener University students studying Congress this semester.
by Jocelyn Reinecke
Widener University Political Science Major
After four years, the first vote-a-rama on a Senate budget resolution is being set to begin later this week. A vote-a-rama is special section of the Senate rules allowing amendments related to the annual Budget Resolution. All of the amendments must be relevant and are voted on consecutively without real debate since The Budget is not subject to filibuster. Each amendment is considered and voted on within about ten to fifteen minutes until all of the amendments are completed.
The GOP is has a list of priority amendments. The Democrats are pairing Republican amendments with Democratic alternatives. Both parties have strategic game plans on how they are going to spend their debate time limit of 25 hours. Democrats are focusing on amendments that target pieces of House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan’s fiscal plan. Republicans, on the other hand, are targeting amendments that address provisions of the health care overhaul (PL 111-148, PL 111-152), restrict the Environmental Protection Agency, and insist on a revenue-neutral tax overhaul.
All of this really makes one think about how much this sounds like a big card game. Both teams are going back and forth, putting down their different cards, coming up with strategies and game plans for different scenarios that may plan out. I think that it is great that there seems to be some urgency to votes on legislation actually occur. However, it also seems like they are trying to prolong things, that they are trying to see how long they can keep pushing this back without having to have a final decision. It seems like when there is a solution created to help move legislation along faster and more efficiently, a new excuse arises on why decisions cannot be made yet or agreed upon. The next few days are going to be interesting to watch and see who played what card, how long both parties put up their fights, and what the budget resolution will be.
The following are three views of Widener University Political Science majors concerning Ohio Senator Rob Portman’s statement of support for gay marriage.
A Bold Move
by Tara Connolly
Widener University Political Science Major
A bold move was made by Senator Robert Portman (R-Ohio) this week. After two years of being aware of his son’s sexual orientation, the Senator has come out saying he is in support of gay marriage. While this isn’t how he’s always felt on the topic, especially as a conservative Republican Senator, he claims he has come to believe “that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.” This is coming from the senator who was on the list of potential running mates for Romney in the 2012 election and who was also in support of the DOMA act, which he now says he would like to see (Section 3) repealed.
While it was pleasing to hear that the Senator was able to bring himself to support gay marriage, one has to question whether or not the Senator would’ve reached this conclusion on gay marriage if his son had been straight. It is easy to come forth and strip him of any credit because it took his son being gay to see how important the right to marriage is for the gay community. However, he still came forward and I believe that is what should be stressed. It did take him a bit, but I believe that shows that he gave careful consideration to the matter. It is not easy to sway any adult of their beliefs, especially men who are employed and elected based from them. By coming forward the senator risks losing the support of his fellow GOP members, the constituents who participate in elections and ultimately his position. That alone warrants credit.
It is Possible for Change
By Melanie Asdourian
Widener University Political Science Major
Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) recently decided to support gay marriage based on his son’s sexual orientation. His son came out to him roughly two years ago and Portman believes his son should have the same marriage rights as his other two children. This is not a popular decision for most conservatives and only two Republican house members signed the brief trying to get the Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage. Rob Portman stated that he wanted to change the Marriage Act and let the states decide how to go about gay marriage. I think this was a very brave decision for Portman to make and it is important for him to support his son. However, would he have even thought about changing the Defense of Marriage Act if his son was not gay? I think it is interesting how long it took for the Senator to show his support for gay marriage, but the important thing is he did come around to the idea for the sake of his son. If the majority of conservatives could see gay marriage in the same light as Senator Portman there would no longer be a dilemma. This shows that it is possible for people in Congress to change their beliefs and they are able to evolve and compromise for the better of the people. They don’t always have to be partisan and stick to their party lines and the way I see it more legislation would get passed.
Senator Reverses Stance on Gay Marriage
By Greg Grossman
Widener University Political Science Major
Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) has recently reversed his stance on gay marriage. Two years ago his son came out and told him that he was gay. In 1996 the prominent Senator co-sponsored the bill in the House that lead to the barring of gay marriage. This directly shows the stereotype of Congress in which they do what is best for themselves before that of the people. Senator Portman once has no compassion for gays but his son being gay suddenly changed his opinion. I think of this as why couldn’t a senator who is supposed to reflect his constituents preferences change sides on an issue do to a family members story, but not a constituents. It seems irrational to bar gay marriage as it only effects gays. I would be more impressed with the Senator if a constituent changed his opinion more than merely his son. Senators need to be open and be able to put themselves in their constituents shoes. If only Senator Portman could have put himself in the position of another father of a gay son, and was able to realize that that son will not be able to enjoy the type of marriage that he himself has enjoyed for over 26 years. That, to me, would immeasurably change the opinion of Congress to the country, and would give more welfare to our people.
by Erica Szpynda
Widener University Economics Major
The American Conservative Union ranks members of Congress on how their votes on key measure relate to the Republican Party. Keeping the stereotype that congress does not get anything in mind, let’s look at the numbers for 2012:
- 38 members of the House and 8 members of the Senate voted with the GOP 100% of the time. These members include Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Marco Rubio, Florida, Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania and Tea Party leader Michelle Bachmann, Minnesota.
- 20 Senators and 88 Representatives did not vote with the GOP on any measures.
Of the 535 members of Congress, 154 or 28.8% voted straight with their parties. This makes it seem that 28% of Congress is unwilling to negotiate from their party lines. 2012 was seen as a year of a highly partisan Congress that couldn’t get anything passed. The fiscal cliff came and Congress did not actually pass anything until after the January 1st deadline. Since 2013 is not an election year it will be fun to see if members of Congress are willing to cross lines and negotiate across party lines.
Congress not getting anything done is a problem and gives them an approval rating lower than cockroaches. With the numbers shown, it is interesting that 28% vote with their party all of the time and hopefully their reasoning is that this is what their constituency believes in.
by Katrina Kelly
Widener University Political Science Major
There has been much talk in Congress about Obama’s latest plan to expand pre-school education at the federal level. The President wants to use federal money to support state-based pre-school programs around the country by hiring higher paying teachers that undergo yearly evaluations and making it more affordable and accessible to people. The new early education plan by the President seeks to increase the number of children in pre-school, especially from low income households. This plan could cost up to ten billion dollars a year, which is almost a tenth of the entire current federal education budget. There is a major split in the House on this issue between Democrats and Republicans.
House GOP conservatives are worried that expanding an already large entitlement program is a slippery-slop towards even bigger government. One of the arguments against expanding this program is that there are already numerous early education programs at the state level as well as the federal level. Many in Congress want to know what exactly this proposed program will do differently than the ones that already exist. Another House GOP fear, justifiably so, is an increase in the ever expanding deficit by this program. Many feel that there is not enough evidence that large-scale pre-school programs like the one Obama proposes will even be of much significance for children in the long run.
On the other side of the aisle, many House Democrats are supportive of Obama’s early education expansion program. Many agree with the President that high quality pre-school education makes a distinct and significant difference in children’s lives over the long run. Many feel that children are our future and we need to cultivate them starting at the earliest age possible. There have been numerous tests and studies shown that the earlier a child starts school, the more acclimated he or she in society as well an overall improvement in the long-run in terms of education and progressive development.
This comes down to the age old question in Congress between the Democrats and the GOP: how much or how little should government be involved? This program will be one of the biggest expansions of education at the federal level in over a decade. The conservative members of the House Republicans feel that this is a matter for the states to decide coupled with the fact that there are already many early education programs offered at the state and local level. Whereas, House Democrats feel that this is not an over-step by the federal government, more of a partnership with the states on an important issue. Federalism arguments at its best!
by Matthew Dugan
Widener University Political Science Major
What’s next on the executives list of ways to limit our rights in the name of national security? Under Bush we got the Patriot Act which allowed the government to tap the phones of suspected terrorists. Obama renewed this act by using an Autopen. Now under President Obama we have drone strikes on American citizens. He has completely ignored due process in the defense of national security, much to the worry of Democrats and Republicans. Senator Rand Paul, son of 3 time presidential nominee Ron Paul, has spoken out against Obama’s use of drones. He has been quoted saying that the use of drones on US citizens is opening “Pandora’s box” and is a slippery slope to something potentially much worse.
Republican leaders in Congress are taking a stand against the increasing use of these drones on US soil, not just for national security either. The EPA has proposed using unmanned drones to survey farms in order to ensure that they are adhering to clean water procedures. This over reach of government power is worrying congressional Republicans. And they should be worried. These proposals should be worrying any American who is concerned with their privacy. Years ago Democrats were very concerned with the Patriot Act. This is something far more intrusive and should receive more opposition from both sides. I’m not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, and I dont believe for a second that Obama’s or the EPA’s intention is to spy on the American people or to erode our rights as citizens. However, this is a very slippery slope that could potentially lead to a severe decline of privacy in American society.
