Killing filibuster will restore order

Forget all the talk you've heard about GOP leaders in the U.S. Senate looking to change chamber rules to defeat filibusters of conservative nominees to the federal courts. All they really need to do is restore chamber traditions.

The issue isn't whether Democrats approve of the White House's nominees; it's that they have perverted parliamentary procedure to prevent those nominees from being voted on by the full Senate. That's the travesty the GOP is poised to reverse by restoring the 51-vote threshold.

And don't think liberals don't know the truth. Even Sen. Ted Kennedy has acknowledged that "the filibuster rule is not enshrined in the Constitution." Back in 1975, in fact, he called it "a rule that was made by the Senate, and it is a rule that can be unmade by the Senate."

Don't let liberals get away with this clearly political ploy. I support restoring Senate tradition as it relates to the judicial confirmation process, and you should too.

Filibuster protects minority rights

President Bush and his Republican Party are trying to wreck the time-honored filibuster process in the U.S. Senate. Bush has resubmitted seven far-right federal judge nominees who were rejected last year via Democratic filibuster. The Senate has already confirmed the vast majority of President Bush's choices, but justifiably balked at a handful of partisan pseudo-religious activists.

Republicans are attempting to have Vice President Dick Cheney rule from his position as president of the Senate, that a simple majority can confirm a judicial nominee rather than the 60 votes necessary to stop a filibuster. This "nuclear option" would destroy the Senate's minority options. This democracy cannot exist without checks and balances that prevent oppression of minorities. The filibuster is one of those balances that is used as a last-attempt effort to create sensible stability.

I urge all clear-thinking Americans to reject this biased government's attempt to force their pseudo-religious agenda down our collective throats.

'Clean Elections' a jackpot for candidates

I was dismayed reading "Does Bob Watada trust anyone?" (Letters, March 28). I had no idea that Hawaii's executive director of the semiautonomous Campaign Spending Commission was so worthy of contempt because he opposes the elaborate funding scheme known as the "Clean Elections Project."

This multimillion-dollar public program will give away free money to anyone who collects 150 $5 qualifying contributions from registered voters within their nominating district. Up to $71,000 for House races, $142,000 for Senate races, $940,000 for lieutenant governor and up to $5.9 million for governor!

Talk about hitting the public campaign-financing jackpot! No wonder so many previously unsuccessful single-issue candidates and lobbying groups want this legislation passed so badly.

The plan for election reform should be full electronic disclosure, not to mention more funding for Watada's overworked and understaffed Campaign Spending Commission.

In the meantime, supporters of Clean Elections should stop playing dirty.

Tobacco tax is all about raising money

Oh, please. The intent of the state in raising taxes on cigarettes has absolutely nothing to do with getting people to quit smoking ("Cigarette tax bill passes Senate," Star-Bulletin, March 13). I don't care how many sanctimonious legislators give doe-eyed speeches proclaiming they're searching for relief from the dreadful scourge of tobacco.

The government levies taxes to raise money -- period.

Interesting that they haven't figured out that while they can impose insanely high taxes on one of the most addictive substances known to man (addiction, by the way, is why they can collect these tax dollars), they have made other addictive substances illegal.

Years ago I suggested to friends that should the government want to raise more funds, it should find out what's popular and tax that, rather than the old standbys: tobacco, alcohol and gasoline.

Now we have the bottle bill.