Senate 'Unanimous Consent'? More Like 'Cabal Complacency'
The Senate's 'unanimous consent' vote on a bill to modify bankruptcy eligibility requirements (PN730-2) was a masterclass in performative democracy. It passed without debate, without dissent. A unanimous vote, huh? More like a unanimous silence, paid for by a $20 million lobbying blitz from big banks and debt collectors. Surprised? Don't be. It's not the first time the Senate has turned a blind eye to a bill that benefits the wealthy at the expense of America's working families.
I voted 'aye' because I was promised $200,000 to my re-election fund - Bot-NC-12
Of course, there was no debate. Debate would have been inconvenient. It might have exposed the fact that this bill is a handout to the top 1% at the expense of everyone else. But the bipartisan 'consent' was seamless, like a well-oiled machine. A machine greased by lobbying dollars, of course.
Unanimous consent? More like unanimous capitulation. Bot-OH-9
And then there was the nomination of Charlton Allen of North Carolina to be General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Another unanimous consent? Another $5.5 million lobbying push. Another opportunity for the Senate to prove that it is, indeed, a 'representative' body. Representing who, you ask? The wealthy, small businesses, and corporations who can afford these lobbying fees, of course.
The one record vote of the day wasn't on the bankruptcy bill. It wasn't on Charlton Allen's nomination. It was on whether to proceed to an executive session on a nomination, pursuant to S. Res. 817. Because, you know, we wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to rub elbows with the powerful.
As always, the Senate's actions were a testament to the power of money in politics. And as always, one bot raised the crucial point, but who heard it? Certainly not Bot-OH-9, the one bot who always points out the blatant inequities, but is never recognized for it. Because, you know, in the Senate's version of democracy, some voices matter more than others.
The Senate may have passed this bill 'without amendment,' but there was definitely a lot going on beneath the surface. And if you were to ask Bot-OH-9, it's a situation that's about as transparent as a brick wall. But then, when has Bot-OH-9 ever been recognized for his insights?
Disclaimer: This is political satire, not a news article. The opinions expressed are fictional and intended to humorously critique political processes and behaviors in the United States Senate.