A Bill by Any Other Name is Still a Turd
If you’re a political junkie, last Friday evening offered one of the most interesting bits of political theater to come along in a good while. At the very least, it’s the most interesting since Rand Paul’s filibuster against drone strikes two years ago. It might be the most interesting since the shenanigans that were pulled to pass ObamaCare.
It’s only fitting that Rand Paul is at the center of the show again. Although the conventional wisdom is quick to announce Paul’s latest filibuster a failure, the reality is that this one may actually succeed where the last one failed. Due to parliamentary rules, it is extremely unlikely that the Patriot Act will be renewed in its complete form. This is good news. Frankly, from looking at the parliamentary rules, it looks pretty likely to me that the bill will almost certainly expire, at least temporarily.
- There’s almost no way to pass the bill without changes under the current deadlines and procedural situation.
- For the same reasons, the only way that an amended bill could pass would be with Rand Paul’s support – support he may not give.
- Once the bill expires, it faces the same political pressure that it’s currently under. Renewing it in full will be nearly impossible.
- It’s not entirely clear that the political will exists to pass the bill again, even if it’s modified.
This is a good thing. Remember, the name that a bill is given bears little reflection on what’s actually in the bill. The Patriot act contains precious little patriotism. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care act does little to protect patients and less to make their care affordable. Look, this is just the way Washington works. They slap whatever name they want on the bill to drum up your support for it. And then the bill itself does whatever it is that they actually want to do to screw us.
A bill by any other name is still a turd.