Real World Event Discussions

The Anonymous Secret Hold

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Saturday, September 25, 2010 16:26
VIEWED: 2084
PAGE 1 of 3

NIKI2

Saturday, May 15, 2010 7:19 PM

Most of us probably know about the Anonymous Secret Hold which can stop the government in its tracks by only one Senator putting it on just about anything. This is one of the more insane aspects of our Senate, and it disgusts me (among others!).

Quote:
OF ALL THE maddening practices that clog the arteries of the national legislature, the most infuriating may be the Senate institution known as the "secret hold." As has been vividly demonstrated this year (when Jim Bunning put a hold on extension of unemployment benefits), a single senator can stop action -- on a piece of legislation or a pending nomination -- by placing a "hold." No reason needs to be given, though generally one is, often having nothing to do with the merits of the underlying issue.

This exercise is troubling enough, although some defend it as an important attention-getting device. Even more troubling, though, is the practice of the secret or anonymous hold. This is a 100-member game of Clue in which some unknown senator is holding up action but is unwilling to take the heat of doing so publicly or explaining why.

This is unacceptable in a democratic body -- as even the Senate has agreed time and time again. In 1999, for example, we lauded Senate leaders for ending "an indefensible and odious practice." In 2007, we reported the happy news that, with the new ethics and lobbying law, "those who place holds on legislation must come forward within six days." But the secret hold has somehow managed to live on -- despite the valiant efforts of Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) to kill it.

Well, now two Senators ARE trying to do something about it. May 10, 2010:

Quote:
Now, the relentless duo -- they've been at this since 1996 -- is trying again, with an amendment to the pending financial reform bill. Senators have apparently managed to evade the requirement to come forward within six days or drop the hold by simply handing off the anonymous hold to an anonymous colleague. Sen Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) aptly calls this "hold laundering." In addition, the six-day period is triggered only when the measure is formally brought to the floor. And the punishment for violating the rule against secret holds is . . . well, no one knows what it is.

The new Wyden-Grassley proposal, still taking shape, would require senators who want to place a hold on legislation to do so in writing to their party leader. This hold statement would be published two days after the hold is placed, whether or not the measure is on the floor. The Senate should adopt the amendment and, finally, end the secrecy. As Mr. Grassley said, if senators have a problem with a particular proposal or nominee, "they ought to have the guts to go public."

http://grassley.senate.gov/about/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&
pageid=26518

I say go for it! Filibusters are bad enough, but if they actually HELD them, maybe they'd have some validity. But this? This is pure stupidity.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, May 16, 2010 12:56 AM

I supported minority opposition when it was the democrats, and I support it now that it is the republicans.

Think very long and hard before removing checks and balances from the govt. Senators need the right to testify anonymously as to a skeleton in the closet of a nominee, which is what I assume this is about.

I was very distressed at the use of reconciliation during the passage of the healthcare bill. Have some respect for process. The core to this respect is the realization first and foremost that if government does nothing at all, the world doesn't end. There are no issues of a pressing nature that require immediate action that have been placed in the hands of congress. If there is a disaster or the nation is attacked, congresses deliberation is not required. The people who have collectively set the system up have thought of that.

Let congress function in its opposition, not just the passage of new laws. remember, this country was far more competitive in the world when it had many fewer laws.

NIKI2

Sunday, May 16, 2010 3:18 PM

My problem is how both are being used NOW. They weren't intended to be used unilaterally and foolishly, and I see no reason why anyone putting a hold on something should be anonymous. To me, that goes against everything our government was created for.

Has nothing to do with testifying anonymously. Anyone can do so and get another member of their party to put the hold on, if they want to stay anonymous. Besides, THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A REASON to put a hold on...that's what troubles me most. It's pure obstructionism the way it's used now, and/or blackmail. Senators frequently put anonymous holds on in order to gain something they want, for their own state sometimes, which again isn't what it's intended for. That's pork by blackmail. No thanx.

I don't mind the filibuster except, again, as it's being used now. Both are tools the Republicans are using for no other reason than to stop the government in its tracks. I know some approve of that, but things like holding up extension of unemployment benefits is unconscionable, and there's much more. Many of Obama's appointees to head departments have been held up by anonymous holds, which means departments aren't being head up by anyone, over a year after he took office. This happens, but not to this extent that I'm aware of.

The government moves so slowly and so cumbersome now that I see no reason for this additional method of stopping it entirely. Either make it not anonymous, or do away with it entirely. The filibuster is quite sufficient, given it's rare for any party to get a 60-seat majority.

Just my opinion.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, May 16, 2010 6:25 PM

Pffth, that's always been the congressional way, when the rules become inconvenient, they get ignored, and yes, it is a mockery of the process that the american people cannot vote their interests to begin with since they don't know, are kept in the dark about, so very much that goes on there - how do you tear a strip off your representative about something if you're not even allowed to know about it ?
(Black budget stuff usually, but this kinda thing too!)

If I were to come up with a solution, I think that the ethics committee should be removed as a congressional responsibility and given over to the judiciary branch, and the members thereof should be selected by the states.

Asking congress to investigate congressional behavior is just stupid.

-F

NIKI2

Sunday, May 16, 2010 6:38 PM

Quote:
it is a mockery of the process that the american people cannot vote their interests to begin with since they don't know, are kept in the dark about, so very much that goes on there

Damn straight!

Quote:
the ethics committee should be removed as a congressional responsibility and given over to the judiciary branch, and the members thereof should be selected by the states.

Okay, how do we go about getting that done?

I mean, don't I WISH!!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, May 16, 2010 7:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Okay, how do we go about getting that done?

Same way they do it, word it all in heavily obfuscated legalese and political doublespeak, then sneak it in as a rider on some longass appropriations bill the dumb shits ain't gonna bother to read anyway.

And then present them with a Fait Accompli when it passes, cause you know, more spending always does.

-F

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, May 16, 2010 9:40 PM

This all puts me in mind of the strange revolution of WHAT IS POSSIBLE in warfare that occurred somewhere in the mid 19th century: y'know, how armies in Europe for eons would line up on a field of battle in lovely rows while civilians could watch from the sidelines politely sipping tea and then everything changed and now we have total war. I'm sure folk in the transition were pretty confused and outraged by these new developments--I'm sure it felt like the end of the civilized world.

So here we are at, I think, a similar psychological disillusionment. I mean, why HASN'T the filibuster ALWAYS been used the way it's being used now? Why have these heretofore obscure Senate rules not been broadly exploited the way they are now? I'm sure back before "total war" became the norm, soldiers occasionally "cheated" and won battles that way, but for whatever reason, it just didn't catch on as SOP for hundreds of years.

Or the "God is dead" thing. Surely, throughout history there have been individuals who thought the thought: "Human beings don't need a 'God' to live happy, productive lives," but it never really caught on until the last century. That idea was simply not available to a vast, critical mass of folk, so it wasn't ever taken seriously on the level of culture.

I think folks a hundred years from now will look back at these days as the transition out of what we think is the norm, to something that folk think is the norm 50 years hence.

So what is it? Here's my guess: the ability to lie successfully and often in every arena--personal, political, sexual, psychological--is in the process of being radically reduced. Instantaneous availability of information through the internet and the mainstreaming of current research in "deception detection" are creating a new culture. In 50 years the way we live now will be seen as "The Culture of Deception." Video of present day court cases, our most popular film and television will be seen by future humans with shock and dismay at the amount of bold-face lying and mutual emotional blindness on display. "How did they live like that?" they'll ask themselves, just as we wonder how folk a hundred and fifty years ago could own slaves.

I guess what I'm saying is that a revolution in science is changing the mechanism of denial from a cultural norm to a culturally acknowledged pathology. Hijinks ensue!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, May 17, 2010 1:48 AM

Cue: Extended clip of melodramatic maniacal laughter.

Nice to see someone comprehends the eventual intent, HKCav.

-F

DREAMTROVE

Monday, May 17, 2010 10:52 AM

Hk

Assuming that people are intelligent and creational. The nonexistence of god as a human has been evident for millennia to the casual observer, the hypocrisy of the church has been wide-open for centuries since the invention of the printing press.

I would like to belief in your future, but for some reason I keep seeing this as a brief renaissance, and future humans being pulled back into a corporate controlled media world, when giant multinational conglomerates own the ultimate information sources and modify the search results etc so that the non-critical thinker can lookup a dubious statement and find erroneously that it is true because a controlled information source says so.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, May 17, 2010 4:55 PM

Nope.

We're gonna win this, and the stupid bastards on the other end are gonna hand us everything we need to do so on a plate, without even realizing it.

Why ?

Because they are *NOT* intelligent, creative, or empathic, and we are - it's just that simple.

-F