Should We Thank Jim Bunning For His Knuckleball To The Senate?Dysfunction in the Capitol has a new face this week, or at least a different old face. Say hello to Jim Bunning, the Republican senator from Kentucky who is retiring this year. He's chosen to go out in a blaze of what he surely regards as glory.
Bunning, 78, is best known as a Hall of Fame pitcher who left baseball after 17 seasons with a Major League reputation for being competitive and cantankerous. Departing the Capitol later this year after 12 seasons, Bunning is likely to leave a similar legacy.
Just now, the man is engaged in a lonely crusade to become a fiscal hero, using tactics likely to attract national attention. That he can do so all by himself, with the rest of Congress nearly powerless to stop him, is a reality few in the Senate want to talk about. It is a reality most Americans find hard to believe, when they become aware of it.
Right now, Bunning is making millions of Americans aware of it for the first time.
<SNIP>
Acting in the style of a lone wolf that characterized both his pitching and political careers, the Kentuckian went to the Senate floor on his own and blocked passage of an "extenders" package on Feb. 25. Because the Senate requires unanimous consent to proceed to a bill, Bunning's posture locked the package in limbo -- even though it is acknowledged to have the support of an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both Senate and House.
Bunning admits this is so. But he says he is holding the Senate's feet to the fire because the cost of this bill, approximately $10 billion, is not offset by cuts to other programs. If the Senate is going to pride itself on passing "pay-as-you-go" legislation one day and then approve unfunded spending the next, the hypocrisy needs to be exposed.
No argument there. Bunning has caught his colleagues in the kind of have-it-both-ways charade both parties have indulged in for decades.
But Bunning's gambit here is objectionable in two significant ways.
First, on the substance, his crusade reduces to a demand that others yield their priorities to his. His call for sacrifice would have more meaning if he were coming forward with one of his own. Instead, his prescription for lowering the deficit is to stop spending on programs he personally opposes (such as the economic stimulus program) to pay for others he supports.
What senator wouldn't want the power to impose his or her own trade-offs by fiat? And why wouldn't another senator who hates the deficit and believes in fair share taxation take to the floor, Bunning-style, hold up the jobless benefits and insist the Senate vote a tax increase on Wall Street (or another popular target) to pay for them?
The second objection is Bunning's presumption, shared by Shelby and many others, that he can throw the ultimate wrench into the works and literally walk away. Thinking the Senate would fold its tent once he had threatened to filibuster, Bunning was expecting to go home at the usual time. He was shocked when Democrats -- led by Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin -- confronted him, coming to the floor to recite statistics about unemployment in Kentucky. Bunning seethed and said he'd been made a the victim of an ambush.
He may have felt that way because he did not have a corresponding posse of Republicans on hand at first to help him hold the floor. This week, he may. But what Bunning has done poses a dilemma for McConnell, who has had his share of travails with his fellow Kentucky senator over the years (and played no small role in easing him toward the exit). Will the leader line up the GOP behind Bunning's right to derail a bipartisan bill? It won't make his own caucus happy to be seen in this light, just now but McConnell must also defend the minority's sacred right to filibuster.
Without that, 41 senators might not be able to go on pushing 59 senators around.http://www.npr.org/watchingwashington/2010/03/should_we_thank_jim_bunning_fo.html 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
