Saying No To Dr. No? Not Yet
"The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power ... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."-U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn quoted in Salon.com
Oklahoma’s famous U.S. Senator “Dr. No” is making news again for not playing well with others.
U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, a physician and one of Oklahoma’s radical right-wing politicians, was featured in The New York Times over the weekend for blocking unanimous consent votes on dozens of proposed Senate measures.
Under arcane and decisively undemocratic Senate rules, one Senator can place a hold on any given legislation, thus preventing routine unanimous consent votes. Coburn, playing the obstructionist for political expediency back home, has placed holds on 80 pieces of legislation, which he argues cost too much. Democrats, according to the story, say Coburn exaggerates. Many of the bills have broad bi-partisan support and will not break the budget. All of this has earned Coburn the nickname "Dr. No."
Democrats have now rolled together 35 of the Coburn-held measures in a bill known as the Tomnibus Bill and the official title Advancing America’s Priorities Act. They tried to pass the bill Monday, but it failed even though a clear majority of Senators voted for it. This, again, is because of the arcane rules of the Senate. At the very least, the bill called attention to the fact that Coburn’s belief in democracy seems tenuous at best.
According to The Times story, "Democrats say that by thwarting unanimous consent with his aggressive application of holds, Mr. Coburn is practicing a procedural tyranny of one, blocking popular legislation that has bipartisan Senate support, has easily cleared the House and has received committee review."
In The Times story, readers also learn this nifty fact about Coburn: “He was a top anti-abortion crusader who conducted regular workshops for young staff members on sexually transmitted diseases, complete with graphic slideshows.” Coburn also made an outrageous and untrue comment about lesbians in his 2004 campaign. (Check out this article about Coburn and his earlier comments on the gay community.) He won election to the Senate with strong support from conservative energy company executives in the Oklahoma City area.
The Oklahoman, of course, loves Dr. No, but here are two problems with his agenda: (1) Coburn brings a lot of bad publicity to the state. His radical gay-bashing and ultra-conservative agenda makes Oklahoma seem like a place of intolerance and hate. (This has been the emerging Oklahoma story in the last few years, and Coburn validates it.) Virtually every time Coburn is mentioned in the national media we learn how “radical” he is or what a “rogue” he is or how “far right” he is. (2) His actions could potentially hurt Oklahoma, a relatively poor state with low per capita income levels, from receiving federal dollars for projects and programs. His holds might make good political theater here for certain segments of the population, but ultimately they could hurt the state in tangible financial ways. Why doesn’t Coburn work to do something on the federal level to help Oklahoma?
Ultimately, Coburn shows us how the American political system needs massive change. How can one Senator from a poor state with a terrible history of providing health care and decent wages to its citizens hold up legislation that would benefit the entire country? Does the rogue Coburn want California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts to become just like Oklahoma? Is this what the Republican Party wants? Does Coburn really think no one except him should get to vote? Does he even believe in democracy?
- dochoc's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Not entirely accurate...Title very missleading
Please take the time to read what is on Coburn's Web Site. I think that you are missleading people by implying that 1) a bill can never be brought to a vote once a hold is placed (cloture can be used) and 2) that it is healthy for all our bills to be pass unanimously without debate and 3) that Coburn is the only one using it.
You called the "tool" very undemocratic... why is forcing a vote and not allowing UC (unanimous consent) undemocratic? I wish every bill was voted on. According to Coburn's site 94% of all bills are "hotlined" and not voted on individually by your elected officials.
During the 109th Congress (2005-2006), 341 bills and joint resolutions were passed by the Senate. According to the Congressional Research Service, only 21 of those bills received a roll call vote on the Senate floor.
To quote Daily Kos "Holds are not uncommon; in fact, they were used to great effect recently by Clinton and Murray, who held up approval on Bush's new FDA nominee until Plan B was okayed."
It sounds to me like you are quite wrong... Coburn does believe in voting... very strongly. In fact he is willing to take the flack from is fellow Senators and from bloggers like you to ensure that we think before we vote
Here is what his rules are for placing a hold.
To this end, before Senator Coburn gives his consent to a unanimous consent request or agrees to allow a bill to be considered, the measure must meet the following list of principles.
1. If a bill creates or authorizes a new federal program or activity, it must not duplicate an existing program or activity without de-authorizing the existing program;
2. If a bill authorizes new spending, it must be offset by reductions in real spending elsewhere;
3. If a program or activity currently receives funding from sources other than the federal government, a bill shall not increase the federal government’s proportion of the costs of the program or activity;
4. If a bill establishes a new foundation, museum, cultural or historical site, or other entity that is not an agency or a department, federal funding should be limited to the initial start-up costs and an endowment shall provide funding thereafter.
Thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight. I hope you will see the value both for our future and our children's future by not taking all this lightly. Money(wealth) isn't created or destroyed... it is simply transferred. For generations in America, one generation sacrificed for the next so they might inherit a better America. Today, that has reversed. Our children are born inheriting 400,000+ in debt. Join Obama and Coburn in creating transparency in our government and stopping wasteful spending.
Your comment
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the information you added to the issue.
I do not, however, argue that a Senate hold forever stops a bill from getting a vote, or that it is good to pass bills always with unanimous consent, or that Coburn is the only senator that has or will use "holds."
Our basic disagreement seems to be this: I think Coburn places holds on bills as a political stunt, which accomplishes nothing for his home state. You apparently believe he does so out of fiscal responsibility.
I have also considered your comment about the post's initial title ("Does Dr. No Believe In Voting?"), and I have changed it, though Coburn's actions do, in reality, halt standard voting procedures in the Senate.
Well done.
I have to say this first...your response was A+. Not because you changed the title, but because you did not get "visibly" upset and attack me for being, well different than you. If you always treat your traffic in this manner, I know you will do great things for our country. Much more is accomplished through peace, than war. (we agree here I am sure)
Ok, now for the fun. ;) You are right. Coburn's actions do bring to a screeching halt the typical method of approving legislation in the Senate. You and I may just disagree as to whether or not this is beneficial. With this, I am very content to agree to disagree. I firmly believe that each bill should be brought before a up or down recorded vote. IMHO.
Ironically, we agree again. We both believe that the position Coburn takes does little to nothing financially for Oklahoma. (assuming you were referring to his lack of "bringing home the bacon".) With that, I can not argue. It appears to be pretty clear that Oklahoma has been and perhaps even continues to remain a donor state.
In this letter from Senator Herbert, he claims Oklahoma is behind in bringing home the transportation funding.
"For years Oklahoma has been a donor state, paying in far more than we get back."
Here the State Chamber claims we have been a donor state when it comes to federal unemployment taxes.
"Not only have we been a 'donor' state all these years, recent indications are that we are getting back a shrinking share of our tax payments,"
Interestingly enough, Inhofe states that he has turned the tables.
...he ended Oklahoma’s status as a ‘donor state’ as Oklahoma now receives more money than it sends to Washington in federal highway funding.
Some people don't agree with Inhofe though.
So where is the truth? Are we a donor state? Does it matter if we are a donor state? It appears that Istook, in defending the tens of millions he brought home, didn't view the federal aid as true "Pork".
"For decades Oklahoma was a 'donor state' with the highway money we sent to Washington. I was able to fix that for a couple of years. All of it was carefully screened to make sure it was needed and proper. It doesn't fit the definition of what I consider pork."
Oddly, the watchdog of all "pork" (as they define it), Citizens Against Government Waste, is quoted in the same Daily Oklahoman article as having dropped Oklahoma's "pork rank" from 16th to 47th.
So it appears the Jury is back on this one. Oklahoma does not get as much "pork" or federal aid back as it contributes.
I believe that we again are going to agree with my next statement. This is a problem!
As a city councilman in my hometown, I am repeatedly reminded of how little funding is available to us through state and federal channels. I believe I understand this part of the problem intimately. Where we differ is this. Somehow, someone, somewhere, has to make it all stop...the spending that is. It is so out of control in DC, that I am ready to sacrifice much to allow my Senator to stand purely and honestly before his peers and challenge them to the floor on these bills. Will Oklahoma suffer as a result, you bet. Will my hometown be much less likely to get the street funding we so desperately need? I am pretty sure that will be the case.
Nevertheless it is time to make the sacrifice that we should have made decades ago. It is time to bring to light the wasteful spending and therefore the dismal mess we are leaving our children, our grandchildren, and most likely our great grandchildren. It isn't going to be an easy sacrifice. It isn't fair either. But I firmly believe, that my two-year-old deserves it. It is the least we can do after all we haven't done to protect their financial future. When states compete for money we don't have, our children lose.
With your permission, I would like to end with a short clip that really illustrates the passion that I share with Dr. Coburn. Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss our differences.
Here is that clip. Dr. No doing what I feel he does best