What the GOP is doing to us

Via Balkinization: Parliarmentary parties in a Presidential System:

In a parliamentary system, the party out of power has no obligation to govern, since the majority party (or coalition of parties) controls the levers of power. Instead, the main goal of the party out of power is to destroy the party in power's coalition and take over control of the government. The party out of power hopes to win a vote of no confidence or force the majority to call for an election in a disadvantageous political climate.

In the American system, with fixed terms for the president, it is not possible to call for a vote of no confidence. As a result, a parliamentary party in a presidential system will do the next best thing. It will attempt to force the wheels of government to grind to a halt and make the populace sick of the president's party, reasoning that if the voters become disgusted with government, they will take out their anger on the party associated with the current Administration.

The key point is that even though cooperation from the minority party may be necessary to govern effectively in a presidential system, the minority party does not have sufficient incentives to cooperate if voters will not punish them--and may even reward them at the next election--for making things worse instead of better. An opposition parliamentary-style party in the Senate can also seek to prevent the president from staffing his Administration or appointing new judges. An opposition party in control of either House can use the appropriations process to defund policy initiatives, undermine efficient administration, and hinder legal enforcement. Finally, an opposition parliamentary-style party can attempt to harass the President through investigative hearings and (as in 1998) through impeachment.

Via Daily Kos: John Barrasso blocks help for unemployed, seniors:

WHITEHOUSE: "This past year, for the first time since 1975, Social Security recipients in Rhode Island and in New York and else where did not receive a cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA. And it appears they will not receive a cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA in 2011 either."

"I rise in support of the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act introduced by my colleague, Senator Sanders of Vermont. This will would help ease the strain on the budgets of our seniors by providing a special one-time payment in 2011 of $240 to all Social Security recipients. In effect, it would be a COLA replacement...."

"I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged of S. 3976....and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration."

PRESIDING OFFICER: "Is there objection?"

BARASSO: "...Would the Senator agree to include an amendment that would offset the cost of the bill with unspent federal funds, the text of which I have at the desk?"

WHITEHOUSE: "I am happy to discuss with colleagues on the other side how this can be paid for, but I cannot help but note that colleagues on the other side do not share their concern for the payment and paygo side of the equation when it comes to the tax cuts for people making many, many millions of dollars a year that we are trying to get exempted as we try to get tax relief to the middle class. It would be hard for me to hold seniors getting a $250 one-time benefit in a time when...they're not getting [a] COLA benefit despite their costs going up AND at the same time be asked to agree to hundreds of thousands of dollars per millionaire in some cases in tax relief."

BARASSO: "...I object"