In response to a lot of questions I've been getting on exactly what a "Conference Report" or " Motion to recommit with instructions" is, I've decided that I should use my pathetic mastery of CSPAN lingo to educate the masses. Here is a list of parliamentary procedures in the United States Congress, complete with my real definition.

Senate

Filibuster: A chance for Southern conservatives to delay a Civil Rights Bill, or neo-cons to stop an anti-war measure from passing. Although, when you're in the minority, it can be defined as the "Thank ****ing God" rule. Unlike what you see in some movies, and what they tell you in history classes, filibusters don't consist of some old guy reading a phone book for 24 hours anymore. Now, someone will file a "cloture" (see below) motion to cut off debate, which needs 60 votes to pass. Essentially, this means that any controversial legislation in the Senate needs 60 votes, which makes things impossible to enact.

Cloture: The 60 vote threshold needed to end debate. That is why, even though a party may be in the "majority," it has very little power unless it can gather 60 votes. This rule is very nice though when you're in the minority, so we can stop things like the Flag Burning Amendment. 

Motion to proceed to the motion to invoke cloture: Yeah, that really is the name for things people could be voting on.

Tabling: To table a bill or an amendment means to kill it by majority vote. So when Jim DeMint proposes that we take every dollar out of the Federal Government, we can say "shut up."

Motion to Instruct the Sargent-at-arms: This is one of my favorites. A Majority leader can invoke this rare procedure by majority vote, which would require the sargent-at-arms to physically bring people to the chamber. And you think CSPAN is NOT entertaining? 

President Pro Tempore: The Vice President of the United States is constitutionally supposed to preside over the Senate, but he is too busy planning the destruction of the world. Therefore, the duty is given to the President Pro Tempore. This is usually the senior Senator from the majority party, (currently Robert Byrd of West Virginia). However, this guy is usually too frail or lazy to perform the duty himself, so he hands it off to Freshman Senators as a "hazing" ritual. Therefore, freshman in the majority party have to sit and preside over the debate (really they're probably doing crossword puzzles).

Roll Call Vote: Senators, contrary to conventional wisdom, don't all come to the floor for the vote immediately. Usually, the clerk will read all of their names to an empty chamber, and then the Senators will lazily meander to the floor when they are done with their donut. They go up to the desk and announce their vote, before immediately going back to talk with lobbyists about that special project in their state. Therefore, a process that should take a few minutes, takes a freaking half hour.  

House of Representatives

"My good friend, the gentleman from Missouri": That ***hole across the aisle.  

Motion to Recommit with Instructions: Usually, the House Minority can't do anything, because the rule for debating a bill is agreed to by majority vote. They are entitled to a motion to recommit, which is basically a way to add something to the bill that will either alter its meaning completely, or kill it. For example, on a bill to give Voting Rights to DC, Conservatives offered a motion to recommit that would remove DC's handgun bill. Usually these things don't pass, except when some moderates feel like they need to vote for it to save face in their district. 

Speaker of the House: The Speaker of the House usually doesn't preside over the House during normal debates. She's probably too busy eating Ghiradelli Chocolates. Therefore, other House members from the Majority party get the priviledge of shutting people up, and calling on them to speak.

House and Senate:

Conference Committee: Usually, the House and the Senate pass different versions of the same bill. Probably the House's version is more extreme (as the founders intended) and the Senate has served as a cooling saucer. Thus, they must reconcile a bill in "Conference." These conferences consist of members of both parties in proportion to their membership in each chamber. Once they hammer out a compromise, both chambers vote on the final bill, called the "Conference Report." Of course, none of this will happen if one Senator prevents it. (I'm looking at you again, Jim DeMint)

Parliamentary Inquiry: A way to guise a political statement in the form of asking a question about procedure.

Point of Order: Making a point that the rules of the chamber are being broken. The presiding officer will decide if the point is valid (obviously they side with their own party, the majority). The chamber than votes on the ruling of the chair. The majority wins the vote, and members contemplate why they have wasted valuable time. 

I hope this is helpful to those of you who are interested in politics, or are at least interested in a "CSPAN Drinking Game" 

10. Tom Price (R-Georgia) This guy is always on the floor attacking other members and is constantly talking about "fiscal responsibility." I've never heard him present any positive ideas of his own. He is one of the chief conservative attack dogs. I think he must be a part of the "B Team" because he's never on the floor during really important debates.

9. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)-This guy holds up the appropriations process by offering tons of amendments designed to strip government programs. The bill could be something like "$1 for sad children" and this guy would oppose it.

8. Adam Putnam (R-FL) The chairman of the Republican Conference has a certain smug demeanor that makes me quite peeved. No wonder Rep. Marion Barry of Arkansas referred to him as a "Howdy-Doody Looking Nimrod." He also admitted to fabricating some Democratic "scandals" because, as he said, "we haven't gotten a break from the media since the Mark Foley scandal."

7. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) This is the guy who was elected to Mark Foley's seat in Florida and complained that he "wasn't enjoying his job" and that it is "too difficult." What an insult to all of the people who dream of being elected to Congress and never get to serve.

6. "Dr." Phil Gingrey (R-GA) This guy was a lot funnier when he had a goofy mustache, but he is most noted for his "diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo, which was completely proved false by this weird thing called "medical science." Along with Bill Frist, this guy is one of the worst doctor's in America.  

5. David Dreier (R-CA) This guy is the ranking member of the Rules Committee and complains that the new Majority passes rules that don't protect the "minority's rights." I think he doesn't realize that most Americans don't really care about House procedure. He gives passionate speeches on the floor to "oppose this rule." Give me a break. Under his rule, the minority was NEVER permitted to offer amendments.

4. Steve King (R-IA) This guy is another one of the chief conservative attack dogs. He was the one who built a miniature model of a border fence and wall during the immigration debate. He also is a frequent user of the "Democrat" Party epithet. 

3. Stephen Pearce (R-NM) On a bill to take money away from oil companies and invest in alternative sources of energy this guy says, " This is just another bill from the San Francisco liberal wing of the House." When did it become acceptable to openly attack an American city? That makes me so angry. And the bill's sponsor? From West Virginia.

2. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) This guy is a self-admitting agitator. I get the feeling this guy has no concern about policy and just loves to go to the floor to create a ruckus. He is always bringing up vague technicalities in bills and is one of the people who is always drumming up support for a fake scandal (such as the Pelosi "plane" incident). One of the most memorable incidents with this loser was when he tried a series of parliamentary maneuvers to try to prove that American Samoa had been exempt from the Minimum Wage bill because Del Monte Foods (whose factories are in American Samoa) are headquartered in Pelosi's district. He got quite a parliamentary smackdown from the presiding officer, the always entertaining Barney Frank. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=RWxY-5FS2Bc)

1. John Boehner (R-OH) Does it get more irritating than the fool?  You have to have a lot of chutzpah to go to the house floor and cry about how "3000 people have died on 9/11 and we need to stay on offense against the terrorists," (Wow, is that just completely misleading), while then call members of your own party "wimps" for questioning the President's policy. Not to mention, it seems like everything the Congress has voted on  "emboldens" the terrorists.   

    During the 2004 primary election, the Conservative Club for Growth wrote about then-front runner Howard Dean, "Howard Dean should take his latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving,  Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs." While this quote is quite funny (it's given me some good laughs), it is evidence of a sharp divide in the left-wing community between people who are "of the left" and people who are "to the left."

    The Club for Growth is describing the "of the left" people, and it is understandable that they associate liberalism with these characteristics. After all, "of the left" people have become the face of progressives. They hail from big cities and spend their time in SoHo in New York or Valencia Street in San Francisco. Some are Hollywood actors, but more frequently they are upper middle class to wealthy people, who identify more with left-wing lifestyles than left-wing ideas. These are the people who think politics consists of cracking jokes about when John Ashcroft covered the breast of the statue at the Justice Department. These are the people that laugh hysterically to any "Bush/Dick" double entendres. The "of the left" crowd knows very little about what actually goes on in the political world, except for on sexy issues like abortion, gay rights and global warming (not to diminish the importance of these issues).  They generally spend their time in capoiera classes, slam poetry events or trendy bars. The "of the left" crowd never really concerns itself with issues such as war, the military industrial complex, economic inequality, or anything else that has marginal importance in most American's lives.

    It's not that these people are bad (although they can be really annoying and self-righteous). In fact, they do a lot of good. Hollywood actors and moveon.org (big "of the left" institutions) have raised awareness on a lot of issues and have won important victories for progressive causes. And let me be perfectly clear, they are still FAR better than any right-wingers, bar none. But ultimately, they do damage to people like me , who are "to the left." (Disclaimer: I have many "of the left" qualities, I admit. I'm from a city and have spent time in coffee shops and enjoy Chai Tea).  The elitist attitude of a lot of these people is that their lifestyles of looseness and faux rebellion are far superior than "middle Americans." Because the "of the left" crowd has such a megaphone through its Hollywood prominence and big city prowess, many Americans associate liberalism with these folks. The perception begins to take hold that "liberalism" is about coffee houses and alternative lifestyles and not about freedom, justice, diversity, equality and caring for the least among us. 

    The "to the left" crowd, which is much more of a silent constituency, is actually the majority of progressives (as hard as it is for some conservatives to believe). These are the people that helped the Democrats win Senate seats in Montana, Missouri and Virginia. They are concerned about soliders dying for a disaster of a war. They are appalled that our economy is so inequitable. These are also politicians like Ann Richards, Jim Webb, Bob Casey and Sherrod Brown. (If you don't know who these people are, you are "of the left") These politicians may not listen to Indie music and they may not think gay marriage is the most important issue of our lifetime, but they champion things that are really important for the everyday lives of Americans, like Universal Health Care, ending the War in Iraq and expanding the equality of opportunity.

      The real harm of the "of the left" crowd is that they turn off people who otherwise would have progressive views from voting for left-wing candidates. Middle Americans are angered that the "of the left" people look down upon them and scoff at their values of sacrifice, community and family. Ultimately, aren't these good values? Sure, some of these values have been hijacked by Right-Wingers to mean things that they are not. But, they are values that I respect more than "getting to know myself in a foreign country." (an ultimate "of the left" obsession). Even though some Americans may hold progressive views, they become MORE angry at the perceived attitude of the "left-wing elite," that they end up voting Conservative. That is why self-identified "liberals" have declined in numbers in the past 25 years.

    All of us in the left-wing community (myself included) should start paying attention to the way we are perceived. There is nothing wrong with being "of the left," but we should also rethink what our core values are. In my view, being liberal has nothing to do with vague lifestyle and cultural qualities, it is a philosophy of ideas that make people's lives better.  

As the 2008 Election season heats up, many progressive candidates have been running on a populist message, that too much wealth and power is concentrated in the very few. In response, some smug elitist columnists from the New York Times (I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with Pay-vid Crooks) and others have tried to trick us into believing that such inequality does not exist. The New York Times article cites modest increases in real wages, and the fact that the income of the lower brackets has increased since Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were implemented. Sometimes, smug economists/political theorists will try and isolate various statistics to make a point that contradicts the truth. The truth can be found through an analysis of what is really happening.

Since 1981, when supply side economics permeated into America's bloodstream, real wages have declined, while productivity has increased. According to an August 2006 article in the New York Times, (not written by the aforementioned author), wages make up the lowest share of GDP since statistics have been measured, while profits make up the highest percent of GDP than at any point in our history.  What does this mean? The money is being made through the great American engine of innovation, but only the very few are reaping the rewards.

Of course, this is more than you need to know. Do you think that the 46 million people who can't afford health insurance, or the 13 million children living in poverty want to read articles telling them that inequality isn't THAT bad? I don't think so. According to the Children's Defense Fund, a vast majority of these children come from working parents, whose wages have remained stagnant. Even with today's raising of the national minimum wage, most low wage workers still live near or below the poverty line. Is it right that people should be suffering, is it right that people should be hungry, is it right that people should be impoverished, when hedge fund and equity owners are reaping record profits? Of course not. No statistician or Westchester County home-owning economist should be able to convince you otherwise.

We are the richest country in the world, our GDP will tell you that. So, the money is there. Where is it going? Rich people. One third of the 2001 tax cut, in which billions of dollars were given back to the wealthiest earners, could have funded universal health care for every child, 100,000 new teachers, and a fully funded head start program. The money is there, we are just not using it correctly.

Finally, I just want to make sure everyone is aware of some of the BS that comes out of these articles. Most of these writers, who have no background in Economics, often say that low wage workers have been gaining income just like the top earners! Wonderful, right? No. They never pay attention to relative wealth. As the rich get exponentially richer, the poor's relative wealth decreases, even if their wages increase. Also, make sure when they tell you that wages are rising, you know that they're usually talking about nominal wages and are not taking into account inflation.