Monday, October 27, 2003

Reverse Colors

Kiss My ….

-by Leslie Johnson, Phoenix, AZ USA

Only in politics could you go to work each day with the intent of obstructing any progress, verbalize it loud and clear, carry it out, and retain your job. Only in politics could you be seeking another job, take lots of time off from your present job to go job hunting and not do your work, and continue to collect your salary as if you have been working. Must be nice for them and we have the privilege of paying for it.

There has been a long history of threatening or practicing filibustering in Washington and it seems that within those hallowed halls it’s done so with a sense of pride. I believe that Senator Byrd reading poetry for 24 hours holds the record. The House and Senate possess a lot of cockamamie rules under which they operate. A supermajority of at least 60 votes in the Senate is required to move a nominee or legislation out of committee and force a vote without the opportunity to filibuster it. What kind of horse pockey is this? If 51% of the vote can get you into office, then 51% is good enough to demand a vote and earn your pay. By your rules, we should nullify any election resulting in less than 60% of the vote and send you back out on the campaign trail until you achieve it.

The democratic minority in the Senate has threatened to filibuster yet another judicial nominee. I would love to see Bill Frisk lock down the chamber, let them wane for a couple of days, and force a vote to put an end to this practice. The problem is that both parties have used the supermajority rule to their advantage in the past and don’t want to lose that future ability. As far as I am concerned, lose it. If I went to work each day with the intent of obstructing progress and perfecting procrastination, I would quickly be in the unemployment lines. So should those who practice and tolerate this counterproductive nonsense.

Perhaps another rule change is in order to improve the efficiency of our tax dollar usage. Resign your current, publicly financed position before you can seek another one. Why should we pay full time wages for what you have chosen to make a part time position? If you can effectively do your job part time then it must be a part time job. If it’s a part time job, lets decrease all of your wages to reflect that. If you’re as great a candidate as you say you are, you won’t need that fallback position anyway.

Of course this will never happen because they have a vested interest in the outcome and are empowered to write the law. The judiciary at least has the decency to recuse themselves from cases when their interests are suspect. So should the legislature. How about we put all salary and benefit decisions and any other decisions in which they have a vested interest in place only by propositions voted on by the public?

Enough said, I’m off to work now to tell my boss how much salary and benefits I will take, set up a nifty little retirement for myself, and procrastinate through the day while I figure out what positions best suite me, be damned with the companies interests. I also plan to tell him that in four to six years, we’ll review my job performance and he can decide if I still have a job then. Until then it should be a pretty good gig to have!