Widener Students on Politics

by

Vote-a-Rama Part II: “You can’t always get what you want”

Several weeks ago the Senate held a “vote-a-rama” related  to amends to the federal budget. This is the second of a three part series of reactions to this event by Widener University students studying Congress this semester.

 by Erica Szpynda

Widener University Economics Major

The Rolling Stones sang:

“You can’t always get what you want

But if you try sometimes well you just might find

You get what you need “

These few lyrics speak much about compromise.  Congress’s job is to WORK TOGETHER, to debate and to figure out what is needed for our country.  However, a series of nonbinding votes, just for the sake of voting is not what our country needs.

The Senate took part in a Vote-a-Rama.  This means that each party is limited to 25 hours of debate, to propose amendments to each of the budget proposals.  At least we know there will not be filibusters in an attempt to stop legislation, since debate is limited.  On the other hand, this means that the Senate will spend 50 hours in session to get nothing accomplished.  This can be viewed the same as going to a typical 9-5 job for OVER a week, and not being able to show your boss anything you accomplished.  Wait, I am wrong, Congress can show their bosses (also known as the voters) that they did accomplish something: Blocking many “bad” budget proposals.

Instead of this cut throat competition to make everyone vote on issues that can be used against them in the next election, Congress should be working on actually passing a budget.  This circus needs to stop for the sake of the nation’s credit score and the faith their bosses have in them.  This is just another reason for why pests have a better approval rating than Congress.  Hopefully, they can realize “You can’t always get what you want, BUT if you try… You get what you need.”

by

And the Vote-a-Rama is On

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.

by

Gun Control, the Filibuster & Deliberation

by Matthew Dugan
Widener University Political Science Major
So the filibuster on the discussion on gun control has been avoided. Now debate can actually begin. Whether you agree with gun control or are adamantly against it, a must at least be a conversation. To continue to ignore the issue is foolish. To completely block a discussion at all is an injustice to the citizens who deserve to have their voice heard.
16 Senate Republicans voted to allow the debate on gun control to begin and one of them gave this reason behind his bipartisan vote, “I might not vote the way they wanted me to vote, but giving them the chance to be heard, giving them a chance to tell their story meant a lot to them and it meant a lot to me,” Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., said Tuesday after he met with the families. “I’m not going to vote for a filibuster. I think they deserve an up or down vote.” (MSN.com). I 100% agree with Senator Isakson. Even if he voted against gun control at least he gave the loved ones of victims of gun violence a chance to be heard. This is an important issue that cannot be continually pushed to the side.
This is a country that is supposedly set up by the people for the people, and if people want to have a conversation about guns then we should have one. To deny the people this by using congressional tricks is an affront to one of the basic tenets of the American system of government.   
by

Intervene or Turn Inward?

by Valair Porter
Widener University Political Science Major
Our economy has suffered from the spending during George Bush’s costly wars and the expansion of the war on terrorism under President Barack Obama. The Republican party is divided on what steps to take on foreign policy. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky thinks it is time to turn inward. This thought questions the approach that reached its fullest expression after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and signals a willingness  to pare back the military budget that made it all possible. This thought threatens the two major foreign policy factions within the GOP: the internationalists who held sway under President Georgr Bush Senior and the neoconservatives who led the country to costly wars under George W. Bush.
“Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida and a possible presidential candidate in 2016, expressed concern about a return to isolationism.” I understand that the U.S. can not solve every problem abroad but the country has become s0 involved in the world that it can not suddenly switch gears. That way of thinking did not help in the first two World Wars. In order for our country and other countries to grow and tolerate each other we must be open to one another. Any country that turns inward risks depriving themselves and turning into another North Korea. Turning inward would do more harm than good for our country.
by

Three Views on Senator Rob Portman and Gay Marriage

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

The Perfect Score

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.