A Senator Holds the Government Hostage

One of the biggest differences between the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives is that infamous thing called the filibuster. It allows minority party members to slow down or even put legislation on hold. If there are not 60 members unified to avoid it, a filibuster can easily be implemented. There are times when it could be good to allow for further discussion, but it really is a stall tactic that allows the minority party to avoid getting run over by the majority's agenda. There are similar measures used that essentially put the government at their mercy because power is spread throughout all members of the U.S. Senate where even minority members have a say. The latest example comes from Alabama Senator Richard Shelby. He has decided to place a "blanket hold" on all presidential nominations until a couple of billion dollar earmarks for Alabama are put on the fast track. His objective and strategy of sorts is continuing a trend of counter productivity that Republicans have employed in the last year.

Senator Shelby has chosen to put his and Alabama's interests before the general overall good of the country. Additionally, with this decision by Shelby it shows the influence that defense contractors have in government. There are currently over 70 nominations that are being held in limbo due to Shelby's maneuver. This move has only given the Democratic Party more ammunition against the party of "No". The Senator is a bit upset over the tanker contract that remains unresolved between Northrop Grumman/EADs and Boeing. His motive is to ensure that tankers would be assembled in his state. Not to mention, both groups involved are donors to Shelby and hence they are using this as a way to get Shelby to help them so they will in turn help him. Shelby is certainly not the first politician to let campaign/committee contributions get in the way or influence how they govern; it is just the latest example. However, when is enough enough. Especially in today's times when there are so many things going on that businesses need to keep out of the government's daily proceedings.

These two contractors have been major contributors to Shelby and it is no surprise that he would threatened the government for his own political future. Northrop Grumman/EADs and Boeing have also been in the ear and pockets of other politicians so there actions with Shelby are nothing new. However, there is another objective for Shelby as a tanker plant in Alabama would create an avenue to give the state hundreds of jobs.

We have seen members of the U.S. Senate hold up potential federal appointees before and Shelby has done this act before. Last April, Shelby held up the nomination of Ashton Carter for the position of Pentagon acquisition chief for the same benefactors he is helping now. Unlike that time, there are several more names that need to be process and appointed or not. These appointees and the positions they are for include intelligence, homeland security, national security, and other key areas.

I completely under the philosophy of not completely agreeing with an appointment nominee that the opposing party president might select and your decision to oppose that nominee or make it difficult for them to get through the hearings without a challenge. But there must be moments of clarify and responsibility as a legislator. If there is a bill and you want to implement that a tanker be built in your home state; that is "your duty" to gain whatever you can for the state you represent. The same could go when it comes to dealing with contractors and such because you would have to be a fool to not realize that the way politics and politicians are funded often come more often than not from corporations. Whatever the general public donates to a campaign or candidate does not make or break a candidate as much as if these defense contractors were to stop funding Shelby's political future.

The big difference here though is the fact that he is holding up appointing men and women to key positions when we are fighting two wars, fighting a recession, and dealing with a multitude of issues. Then, you or members of your party turn around and say that an issue would not have arisen if President Obama had done something differently because "he is weak on national security". So, Senator Shelby, put aside your own political agenda so that they positions can be filled as soon as possible so that our country and those departments can run as intended. Members in Congress are there to govern and legislate; not hold the government and our future in jeopardy and their hands.