Rep. Aaron Vega on Increasing Massachusetts Welfare Funding | Connecting Point | Apr. 27, 2018

Rep. Aaron Vega on Increasing Massachusetts Welfare Funding | Connecting Point | Apr. 27, 2018


>>MORE THAN HALF OF HOUSE
LAWMAKERS ARE BACKING AN ADDITIONAL BOOST TO WELFARE
FUNDING IN NEXT YEAR’S STATE BUDGET, ALONG
WITH A POLICY CHANGE THAT WOULD EXTEND
BENEFITS TO ALL CHILDREN IN A FAMILY.
I SPOKE ABOUT THIS AND OTHER AS EXPECTS OF — ASPECTS OF THE STE
BUDGET WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVE AARON VEGA,
OF THE 5TH DISTRICT.
>>AGAIN, I THINK THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE REAL DEEP, DEEP ISSUES
WITH SOMETHING IN THE BUDGET, I MEAN, THIS IS THE OPERATING
BUDGET FOR THE ENTIRE COMMONWEALTH FOR THE YEAR.
I FELT VERY COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING IT.
>>YEAH, YOU SPENT ABOUT FOUR DAYS GOING THROUGH THE BUDGET,
ABOUT 1,400 AMENDMENTS. ABOUT $80 MILLION WAS ADDED
OVERALL TO YOUR POINT. ANYTHING THAT YOU FELT REALLY
WAS GROSSLY UNDERFUNDED THIS TIME AROUND?
>>WELL, I THINK UNDERFUNDED I WOULD GO BACK TO SCHOOL FUNDING.
I WOULD DEFINITELY SAY THAT THE COMMITMENT THAT THE STATE HAS
MADE FOR CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENT WAS NEVER REALLY
FULLY FILLED. THAT’S AN ISSUE.
THE CIRCUIT BREAKER FUND WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE 75%, SPECIAL
NEEDS REIMBURSEMENT BACK TO MUNICIPALITIES.
EVEN IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR AFTER WE JUST DID A SUPPLEMENTAL
BUDGET, WE GOT UP TO 72%. AGAIN, WE’RE NOT EVEN FULFILLING
THAT ORIGINAL COMMITMENT. ISSUES LIKE THAT DEFINITELY I
THINK GET OUR MUNICIPALITIES AND DEFINITELY OUR SCHOOL COMMITTEES
UPSET AND ALSO GET US UPSET TOO. I WOULD SAY THE THIRD ONE WOULD
BE TRANSPORTATION. AGAIN, TRANSPORTATION —
>>REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY IN PIONEER VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
SAY THEY NEED TO REDUCE THEIR ROUTES AS A RESULT OF LACK OF
FUNDING?>>YES, I THINK IT’S FRUSTRATING
BECAUSE SO MANY OF THESE DEPARTMENTS IF YOU WOULD, NOT SO
MUCH THE ORGANIZATIONS BUT THE DEPARTMENTS ARE REALLY TRYING TO
GET TO THEIR FUNDING AT ’08 LEVELS.
THAT’S 11 YEARS AGO NOW, AT LEAST BUDGET CYCLES.
EVEN IF EVERYTHING WAS GOING UP, WE KNOW EVERYTHING COSTS MORE
EVERY YEAR, SO WE’RE NOT EVEN HITTING OUR LEVELS WHERE WE WERE
IN ’08, NEVERMIND WHAT THE INCREASES SHOULD HAVE BEEN OVER
THE LAST 10 YEARS. FUNDING FOR THE REGIONAL TRANSIT
AUTHORITIES, EVERYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE MBTA WAS LOOKING FOR
$88 MILLION VERSUS $80 MILLION. THEY GOT $82 MILLION.
>>WHEN YOU LOOK AT OVERALL BUDGET, THE MAJORITY OF HOUSE
MEMBERS VOTED FOR IT, BUT THERE WERE A FEW WHO VOTED AGAINST IT
INCLUDING IN THIS REGION, REPRESENTATIVE NICK WAS THE ONLY
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THIS REGION WHO VOTED AGAINST IT.
WASN’T ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY BUT GAVE ME SOME OF HIS THOUGHTS.
ONE OF HIS CONCERNS WITH THIS BUDGET WAS THE FACT THAT IT
DIDN’T INCLUDE MASS HEALTH FUNDING THAT GOVERNOR BAKER AND
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR PALOITO HAD INCLUDED.
HE SAID THAT WOULD SAVE $272 MILLION THAT COULD HAVE
BEEN USED FOR SOMETHING ELSE. WHY WASN’T THAMURIA PROVED?
>>SURE. THIS IS A MEASURE THEY PUT
THROUGH TWICE. WE TWICE DEFEATED IT IN THE
LEGISLATURE. HERE’S THE REASON WHY.
WE HAVE OUR THRESHOLD BEING 130% POVERTY LEVEL VERSUS 1 00%.
I’M OPEN TO THE DISCUSSION BUT THE ISSUE IS IF YOU GO FROM 113%
TO 100% YOU LOSE 130,000 PEOPLE OFF MASS HEALTH.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY CAN’T HANDLE
THAT THEY HAVE NO COMPARABLE PLANS THAT WILL GIVE THEM NEARLY
THE BETTER COVERAGE OR ANYTHING COMPARABLE FOR THE COMPARABLE
PRICE. YOU’LL HAVE 1 40,000 PEOPLE
WITHOUT INSURANCE. THEY CAN’T AFFORD ON THE
NETWORK.>>WHAT ABOUT A PHASE-IN?
YOU HAVE A 30% GAP THERE?>>AGAIN, NOT THAT I’M
NECESSARILY IN FAVOR OF, YOU KNOW, TALKING ABOUT MASS HEALTH,
WE HAVE LOTS OF DIFFERENT TOPICS TO TALK ABOUT BUT TALK ABOUT THE
ENROLLMENT IN AND OF ITSELF, I’D BE OPEN TO SEEING, YES, WHAT IF
YOU WENT TO 1 2525% OR 120% TO SEE WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE, HEALTH
OUTCOMES ARE, SUDDENLY HAVING MORE BUSINESS TO THE ER BECAUSE
PEOPLE AREN’T SEEING THEIR PERSONAL CARE PHYSICIANS?
YOU CAN’T DO THAT KIND A HUGE CUT AND EXPECT 140,000 PEOPLE TO
FEND FOR THEMSELVES AND NOT HAVE AN IMPACT.
YOU’RE RIGHT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO
LOOK AT IT WHAT IF YOU DID 5% OR 10% REDUCTION AND SEE THE
IMPACT?>>SOMETHING ELSE THAT THE
REPRESENTATIVE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THE BUDGET DIDN’T
FUND POLICE TRAINING TO A LEVEL HE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE
SEEN. HE SAID “THE DEMOCRATS VOTED
DOWN AN AMENDMENT TO CREATE A MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR
CITIES AND TOWNS TO HIRE POLICE OFFICERS WITH LOCAL SCHOOL
RESOURCE OFFICERS THAT WOULD HAVE MADE SCHOOLS SAFER.”
>>I THINK WHAT WE’VE DONE GOOD STUFF ON SCHOOL RESOURCE
OFFICERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL AROUND MAKING SURE THEY’RE
PROPERLY TRAINED AND THERE IS SOME FUNDING AROUND THAT.
MAKING SURE THERE’S AN MLU BETWEEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS
AND THE SCHOOL DEPARTMENTS. WE ADDRESSED A LOT OF THAT
CONCERN IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
I’D ALSO ADD A LOT OF US ARE SUPPORTING AN AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD PUT $2 FEE ON CAR RENTAL THAT HAS WOULD HAVE GONE
DIRECTLY TO POLICE TRAINING. THAT WASN’T ADOPTED.
DEMOCRATS, QUOTE/UNQUOTE, WERE COMING UP WITH DIFFERENT IDEAS
FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING. AGAIN THIS IS A BUDGET BOTH
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS DIDN’T WANT TO MAKE A MONEY BUILD,
INCREASE TAXES OR FEES SO THAT ENDS UP LIMITING WHAT WE CAN DO.
>>SOMETHING THAT DID END UP IN THE HOUSE VERSION OF THE BUDGET
IS SOMETHING THAT’S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 1995 REFERRED TO
COMMONLY AS THE CAP FOR KIDS. I UNDERSTAND IT — AS I
UNDERSTAND IT BASICALLY WHAT IT SAYS IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN AFTER
YOU’VE BONE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, YOU DON’T GET MONEY FROM THE
STATE THAT WOULD HELP YOU –>>FOR ADDITIONAL CHILDREN?
>>YES, WITH THAT ADDITIONAL CHILD.
$100 A MONTH PER CHILD OR PER ADDITIONAL MEMBER.
WHY THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THIS BUDGET?
>>THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THIS BUDGET BECAUSE I THINK THE TIME
WAS PAST DUE. MOST STATES BACK IN THE EARLY 90
THAT PUT THIS IN PLACE HAVE TAKEN IT OUT.
I THINK THERE’S LESS THAN 17 STATES NOW THAT HAVE THIS IN
PLACE NOW. LESS THAN NINE STATES EVEN AT
THIS POINT. SO THE TIME HAS COME.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TRANSITION REFORM, WELFARE
REFORM, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, BUT LET’S NOT DO THAT
ON THE BACKS OF CHILDREN. THIS IS 8,700 CHILDREN IN THIS
COMMONWEALTH THAT AREN’T GETTING ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS BECAUSE
THEIR FAMILY WAS ENROLLED IN THIS PROGRAM BEFORE THEY WERE
BORN. THE REALITY IS, THE REAL-LIFE
STORIES IS THAT $25 A WEEK MAY NOT SOUND LIKE A LOT BUT IT
MEANS EXTRA BOX OF DIAPERS SO THE KIDS AREN’T STAYING IN THEIR
WET DIAPER UNTIL THEY HAVE TO BE CHANGED IT MEANS BEING ABLE TO
GET THEM ADDITIONAL GOOD FOOD IT MEANS ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT
UNFORTUNATELY $25 MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.
>>I CAN HEAR CRITICS, THOUGH, SAYING, ISN’T THIS MEANT TO —
AND EVEN ON THE WEBSITE FOR THE STATE, IT SAYS “EMPOWER
RESIDENTS IN THE COMMONWEALTH.” I CAN HEAR CRITICS SAYING BY
GIVING PEOPLE ADDITIONAL MONEY, THAT’S NOT AN INCENTIVE.
THAT’S NOT EMPOWERING THEM OR HELPING THEM TO GO OUT AND GET A
BETTER JOB AND IMPROVE THEIR LIFE IN THAT WAY?
>>SO EVEN IF I AGREE WITH SOME OF THAT STATEMENT, LET’S TALK
ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS, GETTING THE PARENTS THE ADDITIONAL
TRAINING AND THE JOB TRAINING AND THE EDUCATION THAT THEY NEED
AND MAKING SURE WHEN THEY GET A JOB THEY DON’T GET KICKED OFF
BENEFITS RIGHT AWAY. THERE’S NO INCENTIVE RIGHT NOW.
IF I HAVE AN $11 AN HOUR JOB RIGHT NOW, IF IT GOES UP, I
REDUCE MY HOURS BECAUSE I DON’T WANT TO LOSE MY CHILDCARE
VOUCHER WORTH $800 TO $900 A MONTH.
THERE’S NO INCENTIVE THERE TO WORK.
IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WELFARE REFORM, LET’S TALK ABOUT
WHAT WE’RE DOING ON THE BACK END AND NOT TO THE KIDS.
IT’S NO CHILDREN’S FAULT OR KID’S FAULT BEING PORN INTO
POVERTY THAT THEY WERE BORN IN THAT SITUATION.
WHY WOULDN’T WE GIVE THAT FAMILY, CHILD $100 A MONTH SO
THEY CAN GET FOOD, CLOTHING AND DIAPERS.
AGREE THERE ARE ISSUES WITH THE SYSTEM BUT TAKING IT OUT TO THE
CHILDREN TO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN ARE BORN OF THE SITUATION
ISN’T THE RIGHT WAY TO GO.>>LET’S LOOK AT OTHER THINGS IN
THE BUDGET. THERE WAS SOMETHING INTERESTING.
I SAW THE SUPPLEMENTALLY INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING FOR
TRANSPORTATION. IT’S SOMETHING THAT THE SENATE
HAS REJECTED A FEW TIMES NOW. THE HOUSE VERSION OF THE BUDGET,
IT DOES INCLUDE IT ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC THE SENATE IS GOING
TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT?>>I THINK IT’LL BE INTERESTING
TO SEE WHAT WE DO. THE OTHER THING IS WE PUT OUR
ADDITIONAL MONEY INTO TRANSIT AND REGIONAL TRANSIT, $2 MILLION
TO MAKE IT A COMPETITIVE GRANT. WE DIDN’T EVEN PUT IT INTO THE
NORMAL FORMULA. THERE’S DEFINITELY
BACK-AND-FORTH BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE ON HOW WE WANT TO
FUND TRANSPORTATION OVERALL AND I THINK THAT, AGAIN, WITHOUT
FIGURING OUT A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR IT, WHETHER IT’S AN INCREASE
ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE TRIED TO DO A COUPLE YEARS BACK, INCREASE
ON GAS TAX OR CIGARETTE TAX, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, WE’RE NOT
GOING TO FIND COMMON GROUND NECESSARILY.
I MEAN, EVEN NOW THE SENATE PASSED THE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET,
ONE WE PASSED I THINK TWO WEEKS AGO AND THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL
STUFF IN THERE AS WELL THAT WASN’T EVEN ON OUR RADAR.
THAT COMES TO CONFERENCE. I THINK IT’S, YOU KNOW, TRYING
TO GET FIRST 160 MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE TO AGREE ON ONE THING, 40
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE TO AGREE ON ONE THING AND HAVING ALL OF
US AGREE TOGETHER, IT’S NOT AN EASY TASK.
>>IT IS NOT. THANK YOU FOR COMING IN TODAY.
>>ANYTIME.>>WHAT’S SOMETHING NEARLY
EVERYONE COULD STUDY UP ON?
CIVICS! FEWER AND FEWER HIGH SCHOOLS AND
COLLEGES ACTUALLY DEVOTE CLASSES TO
TEACHING THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF
CITIZENSHIP. WE ASKED JOHN DIFFLEY, A HISTORY
PROFESSOR AT SPRINGFIELD TECHNICAL
COMMUNITY COLLEGE, TO GIVE US ALL A REFRESHER
COURSE.>>WE COME FROM ENGLISH WITH THE
ENGLISH SYSTEM TO SO IT GOES BACK TO THE MAGNA COTTA, 13TH
CENTURY DOCUMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY WAS ONLY FOR THE
NOBILITY BUT OVER TIME, IT’S BEEN ADDED TO THE ENGLISH BILL
OF RIGHTS IN THE 17TH CENTURY AND THEN WE BUILT UPON THOSE AND
EXTENDED EVEN FURTHER THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID.
>>SO WE WENT EVEN BROADER?>>YES, YEAH, GAVE MORE FREEDOMS
, LISTED THEM EVEN MORE AND, YEAH, IT APPLIED THEM OVER
TIME TO EVEN MORE PEOPLE THAN ORIGINALLY INTENDED.
THEY WERE MORE LOOKED AT AS ALMOST PRIVILEGES AT FIRST AND
NOW, YOU KNOW, THEIR RIGHTS. THEY’RE INALIENABLE.
>>WE EXPECT THEM AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
>>YES. EXACTLY.
>>INTERESTING. ON THE U.S. CUSTOMS AND
IMMIGRATION WEBSITE IT BOILS DOWN VERY SIMPLY AND SAYS SEVEN
RIGHTS, NINE RESPONSIBILITIES. AND I THINK A LOT OF THEM COULD
POP TO MIND FOR US, YOU KNOW, FREEDOM TO EXPRESS YOURSELF.
THAT’S THAT’S A RIGHT. FREEDOM TO WORSHIP.
THAT’S A RIGHT WITH THE FREEDOM TO EXPRESS YOURSELF, HOW ARE YOU
SEEING THAT BEING INTERPRETED? DO YOU THINK THAT’S THE MOST
COMMONLY SORT OF CALLED-UPON RIGHT WE HAVE?
>>YEAH, I THINK PEOPLE OFTEN SAY, YOU KNOW, IT’S MY FREEDOM
OF SPEECH, I CAN SAY WHATEVER I WANT.
UM AND I THINK THEY MISUNDERSTAND THAT.
THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS, PLENTY OF RESTRICTIONS ON OUR FREEDOM
OF SPEECH. I KNOW YOU CAN’T JUST SAY — THE
MOST COMMON YOU CAN’T YELL “FIRE” IN A CROWDED THEATER.
A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST THINK THAT THAT — EVEN IN THEIR EMPLOYMENT
THEY CAN GO AND SAY, WELL, I HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUT AS
WE BOTH KNOW, THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN’T SAY AND CAN’T DO.
>>.>>IF THE FCC CATCHES ME CURSING
ON AIR, THERE’LL BE A PROBLEM.>>WE AGREE TO THOSE WHO WE TAKE
THOUGH THOSE BOXES IT’S IN PART OF THE — WE TAKE THOSE
POSITIONS. IT’S PART OF THE CONTRACT.
IT’S VOLUNTARY WHEN WE’RE AT WORK IN THAT SITUATION, WE AGREE
TO LIMIT OUR FLIGHTS THERE. IT DOESN’T MEAN WE CAN GO OUT
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE POLITICAL CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE
OF WORK, BUT, UM, YEAH, IT REALLY — WE DO LIMIT THEM.
>>SO LOOKING AT THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES THEN, UM,
EVERYONE KNOWS WE HAVE TO PAY TAXES.
>>YES.>>WE MIGHT NOT LIKE IT.
>>NO.>>I THINK THAT THAT’S PERHAPS
ONE OF THE MOST PREDOMINANT RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WE HAVE AS
CITIZENS BUT THERE’S ALSO THIS CONCEPT AMONG THOSE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF STAYING INFORMED AS CITIZENS.
>>THAT’S SOMETHING I THINK INHERENT BASIC IN OUR SYSTEM
THAT EVEN THE FOUNDERS WANTED US TO DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN
EDUCATED POPULOUS. WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON
TO MAKE DECISIONS TO, UM, WHICH REPRESENTATIVES — IT’S A LOT OF
WORK AND I THINK PEOPLE AREN’T ALWAYS WILLING TO GO THERE,
ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GET ALL OF YOUR NEWS ON FACEBOOK
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT PEOPLE DON’T NECESSARILY SEARCH IT OUT
WE KNOW THAT COULD BE SKEWED EITHER WAY.
WHAT THEY SAY? YOU’RE IN YOUR OWN SILO THERE.
YOU HAVE TO STAY INVOLVED IF YOU WANT TO — AND INFORMED IF YOU
WANT TO BE INVOLVED.>>THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT,
LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES.
LET’S BREAK EACH OF THOSE DOWN A LITTLE BIT AND REMIND FOLKS
WHICH EACH FUNCTION IS START WITH LEGISLATIVE?
>>THEY PASS LAWS. EXECUTIVE BRANCH SUPPOSED TO
ENFORCE THE LAWS. IT’S LIKE POLICE POWER THAT THE
PRESIDENT AND HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS HAVE AND
THE SUPREME COURT IS SUPPOSED TO BE —
>>YOU’VE BEEN HEARING A BIT ABOUT THESE DAYS.
>>YEAH. YEAH.
THE COURT SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO — IT SORT OF ENFORCES THE LAWS
BUT IT’S A CHECK ON THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN OVERRULE.
>>BECAUSE THEY’RE COMING IN AND INTERPRETING THIS ON A VERY
CONSISTENT BASIS RIGHT.>>YES.
YES. THAT’S THE HOPE, RIGHT, THAT IT
STAYS CONSISTENT. YEAH THERE COULD BE A CHECK ON
CONGRESS IF THE LAW WENT TOO FAR.
COULD MAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT THERE.
IT’S GOOD TO HAVE THE THREE DIFFERENT BRANCHES SO THAT WAS
THE INTENT IT’S NOT ALL ON ONE PERSON’S HANDS.
>>HOW DO YOU THINK THAT’S WORKING?
THE THREE BRANCHES FOR US.>>I THINK SO FAR IT SEEMINGLY
WORKED. PEOPLE ALWAYS GET A — I MEAN,
YOU KNOW, THE JOKE — CONGRESS GETS NOTHING DONE AND THINGS
COULD TAKE FOREVER IN THE COURSE — IT’S IMPERFECT, BUT IT SEEMS,
I THINK IT WORKS FOR THE MOST PART.
>>I THINK EVERY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CYCLE WE ARE REVISITED
BY THIS CONCEPT CALLED THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
THERE’S SOMETIMES A LOT OF CONSTERNATION AROUND WHETHER OR
NOT THIS IS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO ELECT A REPRESENTATIVE AND
PERHAPS EVEN TOUCHES ON THAT APATHY.
YOU SAY PEOPLE FEEL LIKE, OH, WHY SHOULD I GET INVOLVED IF MY
VOTE IS NOT EVEN COUNT?>>YOU’RE VOTING FOR AN ELECTOR.
YOU’RE NOT ACTUALLY VOTING FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.
I COULD SEE –>>WITH THIS CONCEPT OF
ELECTORAL COLLEGE, THAT’S WHEN COMING FROM?
>>IT’S MORE OR LESS THE FOUNDERS PUT A — IT’S A CHECK.
IT’S ALMOST A VERY ELITE CHECK ON THE MASSES REALLY AS THEY
DIDN’T ALWAYS LOOK TAT– THEY LOOKED AT IT ALMOST AS A
MOBOCRACY, THE MOB MENTALITY. WE VOTE AND THEY ESSENTIALLY GO
BACK AND MAKE SURE WE’RE SELECTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE.
>>FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO WE ARE CHOOSING AND WE ARE ELECTING, AT
THE FEDERAL LEVEL, WE HAVE TERM LIMITS.
AT THE STATE LEVEL AS WELL. THE CONCEPT OF TERM LIMITS
THOUGH, WHERE’D THAT COME FROM?>>I THINK — ACTUALLY GOES BACK
TO ANCIENT GREECE THE DEMOCRACIES IN ATHENS THERE.
IT’S SO PEOPLE DON’T BECOME TOO ENTRENCHED IN THEIR POSITION.
IT’S ALSO THE POINT OF BREAKING AWAY FROM ENGLAND, MONARCHY,
IT’S NOT A JOB FOREVER. AS YOU SHOULD TURN OVER — HAVE
TURNOVER IN IT SO PEOPLE JUST, YEAH, REALLY DON’T TAKE TOO MUCH
POWER AND JUST GET TOO COMFORTABLE THERE.
THAT’S ALWAYS GOOD TO GET CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP EVERY NOW AND
AGAIN.>>I THINK SOMETIMES ONE OF THE
COMMON CRITICISMS IS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ELECTION SYSTEM
WORKS NOW WITH MONEY, IT’S OFTEN PEOPLE WHO ARE ELECTED TO OFFICE
ONCE ARE OFTEN ELECTED TO OFFICE MORE FREQUENTLY.
>>YES THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM, BUT BECAUSE IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE
TO BECOME A SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE.
>>THE FILIBUSTER. I FEEL LIKE THAT’S A PERENNIAL
THING WE HEAR ABOUT. MOST RECENTLY, PROBABLY WE HEARD
ABOUT IT WITH NANCI PELOSI WHEN SHE TOOK TO THE HOUSE TO TRY TO
FORCE A VOTE ON THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE, BUT THE CONCEPT OF A
FILIBUSTER, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE SORT OF BANNED IN THE 1890’S.
IT’S SORT OF AN ADULT TEMPER TANTRUM IN MANY WAYS.
>>IN MANY WAYS IT CAN BE, YES. IT’S PRETTY MUCH YOU REFUSE TO
YIELD THE FLOOR. YOU JUST CONTINUE TALKING.
YOU’RE JUST TRYING TO STALL FOR TIME AND HOPEFULLY JUST WEAR THE
OPPONENT, OTHER SIDE OUT. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DON’T HAVE
THE NUMBERS FLANGE CONGRESS. IT’S REALLY AN — ADVANTAGE IN
CONGRESS. IT’S REALLY AN ATTEMPT TO PUT AN
EMERGENCY BRAKE ON THINGS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *