Category Archives: Congress

Polls: “Stop the Insanity”

Posted on by

Glenn Greenwald looks at polls to shred apart the “Americans want bipartisanship” myth. In polls and in the voting booth, the only time Americans are expressing a desire for bipartisanship is when it is applied to Republicans.

Let me suggest that what Americans long for is not “bipartisanship,” but sanity. They’re tired of the clown show.

People allegedly want “bipartisanship.” The nation’s political and media powers translate that to mean people want both parties to have an equal say in government, and that policies should be crafted to the “center” of the current political spectrum in Washington.

But I do not think that’s what most people want at all. What most people want are politicians to stop squabbling like children and get serious about governing. They are tired of childish partisan games sucking all the energy out of government. They want real problems addressed in a real-world way. They don’t care which party is in power so long as that party is behaving like grownups.

The GOP continues to behave like 2-year-old stuck in the “no!” phase.

I think what people want from Washington isn’t “bipartisanship” as the villagers understand the word. What they want might more honestly be called “post-partisan” or “anti-partisan” or just plain “not-partisan.” They want the games to stop.

That doesn’t mean they expect Congress to be of one mind. However, they want opposition to the administration to come from somewhere else than Mars. They want opposition that comes from an honest desire to solve problems and make America better, not from whatever pathological character disorders propel right-wingers to grab power, by any means, that they clearly are not responsible to hold.

If you look at today’s headlines, you’d think President Obama is somehow failing the people on “bipartisanship.” For example, the Washington Post: “Obama Gets High Marks for 1st Month, But Survey Finds Sharp Erosion in Bipartisan Support”

Large majorities of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll support his $787 billion economic stimulus package and the recently unveiled $75 billion plan to stem mortgage foreclosures. Nearly seven in 10 poll respondents said Obama is delivering on his pledge to bring needed change to Washington, and about eight in 10 said he is meeting or exceeding their expectations. At the same time, however, the bipartisan support he enjoyed as he prepared to take office has eroded substantially amid stiff Republican opposition to his major economic initiatives.

In other words, everyone but bitter-ender Republicans approves of Obama. Then the pathological intransigence of the GOP is framed as Obama’s failure and not theirs.

For ABC News, Gary Langer reports — “A Strong Start for Obama – But Hardly a Bipartisan One.”

Barack Obama’s month-old presidency is off to a strong start, marked by the largest lead over the opposition party in trust to handle the economy for a president in polls dating back nearly 20 years. But the post-partisanship he’s championed looks as elusive as ever.

Again, when people express a desire for “post-partisan” government, this does not mean they want right-wing lunatics to have an equal say in government. They want the insanity to stop. Cenk Uygur explains:

As DougJ at Balloon Juice says, “villager” opinion and public opinion have rarely been so far apart.

Eating Their Own (Friday the 13th)

Posted on by

You probably heard that Sen. Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination as Commerce Secretary. You are probably happy about this. I know I am.

What’s going on? I think Andrew Sullivan is right. One, the Republican Party has declared total war on the Obama Administration. Never mind that Americans are suffering. Never mind that the economic meltdown has replaced terrorism as the number one threat against America. All that matters to the GOP is that President Obama fails badly enough that they can win some seats back in Congress in 2010.

The BooMan thinks the current unified front against Obama will crack and crumble soon enough. He may be right; I hope he is. But it appears the GOP chose to destroy Judd Gregg’s political career rather than quietly stand by and allow him to take the Commerce Secretary position.

The story that’s current at the moment is that originally it was Judd Gregg who approached the Obama team and asked to be part of the administration. Not long ago Sen. Gregg had spoken out in favor of the idea of a big stimulus bill. But the Republican Party, as Andy Sullivan says, made Gregg’s position untenable. He recused himself on the stimulus bill vote, which managed to piss off everyone on the political spectrum. He’s so bruised up now he’s saying he won’t run for re-election to the Senate in 2010, although I understand he has left himself room to change his mind.

By all appearances, Gregg must have caught hell from his party for considering a cabinet position. It’s the most likely explanation for his behavior.

For more commentary, see No More Mr. Nice Blog, Tom Edsall, and Michael Tomasky.

Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest

Posted on by

You’ve probably heard that there’s a joint House-Senate stimulus bill agreement. It’s all over but the signing.

I’m listening to Jonathan Alter on Countdown saying he’d just passed through Times Square, and that it is empty. Times Square is the theater district. In the evening it’s usually swarming with tourists. Yes it’s a weeknight, and February, but empty? That’s so sad. I’m sure he meant it is empty compared to what it usually is, not completely devoid of people. But still, it’s sad.

On September 13, 2001, still in shock from the terrorist attacks, I left Grand Central and walked west on 42nd Street to Times Square. It was bustling. There was considerable construction going on, and the construction workers had hung American flags on the scaffolding. Some of them had flags attached to their hard hats. There were many expressions of defiance against the terrorists, spraypainted on signs and sheets and flapping in the wind high above the streets.

Most of all, Times Square was busy. New York City was bursting with prosperity in those days. As terrible as the week was, as grief-stricken and as angry as people were, outside the financial district the city was beautiful. The cafes were overflowing with diners, and shoppers were everywhere.

Did Republican economics finish the job the 9/11 terrorists started?

On to dumb, dumber, dumbest.

Dumb — Kathleen Parker and other “pundits” who are tsk-tsking Barack Obama for being an amateur. In short, she said, he lacks maturity, toughness, and gravitas. He’s too puppy-eager for people to like him. He won’t give up his Blackberry.

Yea, if he were a real leader, he’d have his stimulus bill by now. Oh, wait … See also Andrew Sullivan.

Dumber — Republicans in Congress, who steadfastly refused to discuss the stimulus bill in good faith, who spent the past several days lying and grandstanding, and who voted against it but for three Senators who are now being targeted by right-wing organizations. Dumb enough? Now the liars and grand-standers are whining that they were cut out of the final House-Senate negotiations. See John Cole.

Dumbest — You’ve heard this one by now, I’m sure — Rep. Steve Austria (R-OH) thinks FDR caused the Great Depression.

Moderate Mush

Posted on by

In one of its trademark mushily oblivious editorials, the Washington Post today praises the “moderates” who worked out a Senate compromise stimulus bill. However, other people drew editorial scorn.

The effort wasn’t helped by those senators, including the leadership on both sides of the aisle, who wallowed in customary blame-gamesmanship. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) accused the moderates of trying to hold the president hostage. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) derided the impending bill as an “aimless spending spree that masquerades as a stimulus.” Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) went theatrical. He held up a copy of an earlier version of the Senate stimulus plan to slam the process that led to its creation. She brandished her own copy to complain that Mr. Graham never resorted to such antics when they considered President Bush’s bailout bill for Wall Street. Friday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) jumped in, deriding the quest for bipartisanship as a “process argument” and claiming that potential cuts in the Senate bill “will do violence to the future.”

What the mushheads at WaPo fail to understand is that Pelosi is right. Their ideas of “bipartisanship” call for process over substance, and the cuts in the Senate bill will prolong the misery of many Americans.

As Ian Welsh explains, the “moderates” have cut 1-1/4 million jobs from the stimulus bill (or just under a million, depending on what the actual cut turns out to be). To WaPo, 1-1/4 million jobs are not important. What’s important is that Senators speak politely and not rattle the teacups or slosh the cream.

Anyone up for storming the Bastille today?

Ian does the math. Paul Krugman also explains,

I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.

The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.

According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

As Matt Yglesias puts it, “the cart of bipartisanship is straightforwardly put ahead of the horse of policy merits.”

Brad DeLong:

The stimulus package is too small–and it looks like almost all of the cuts are from reasonable uses of government funds that are substantially labor intensive and thus are the right kind of thing to be in the stimulus package.

Now, I tend to believe that process is important. But what the moderates are doing is ignorant. They aren’t looking objectively at the cost effectiveness of the various components of the package. They’re just cutting stuff out that it feels good to them to cut out. And yes, I think most Republicans want the thing to fail, and they’re ensuring that it does.

WaPo — deliberately undermining what the other party is trying to do is not “bipartisanship.

I understand President Obama will address the nation tomorrow. I hope he has the guts to explain to the American people that the compromised bill will be less effective than the one he wanted. I hope he doesn’t just praise the Senate for screwing up America’s future.

Stimulus Bill: Come to Jesus

Posted on by

Mcjoan says “Maybe it’s time for Obama to have a come to Jesus meeting with a few members of the Dem caucus, Ben Nelson being at the top of that list.” I endorse that.

I also think Congress and the Washington press corps should listen to Nancy Pelosi:

Pelosi — speaking to reporters on the second day of her retreat with House Democrats at a swank Williamsburg, Va., golf resort — was clearly annoyed with Senate attempts to slash up to $100 billion in spending from the $819 billion package the House passed last week.

At the same time, she urged the need for speed in passing the package — and stopped short of saying that she’d insist on her demands during upcoming conference negotiations with the Senate.

“Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this bill,” the California Democrat said, seeming to sweep aside the Obama administration initial desire to have broad GOP support for the plan.

The Obama Administration’s desire is to get the damn bill passed asap, and if it can be done with no Republican votes at all, then so be it. Unfortunately, the Senate will require some Republican votes to pass.

Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), said: “Her comment really makes one wonder whether she understands the concerns of not only the majority of struggling Americans seeking tax relief and job creation, but many members from her own party.”

Are the majority of struggling Americans seeking “tax relief” right now? I don’t think so. “Tax relief” actually is pretty far down the list, except for right-wingers, who need to learn they are a bleeping minority.

There’s much clucking in media about how Pelosi and other Dems are being “partisan” for not standing around smiling and passive while the minority party ensures that the American economy remains bleeped up long enough for Republicans to take some seats back in 2010. Again, the beltway crowd sill seems to think that “bipartisan” means allowing the GOP to have the last word, even after they’ve lost an election.

We are reminded that John McCain is brain dead:

Day after day, McCain has been on the Senate floor criticizing Obama’s package with the core Republican message. “This bill has become nothing more than a massive spending bill,” he has said. “To portray it as stimulus flies in the face of reality.” He has called the legislation an “unnecessary, wasteful bill.”

I saw a clip of that on television last night, and it left me babbling at the walls. Dear Senator Idiot: Do you not understand that “spending” is the bleeping point of the bill? Do you not understand that the crisis requires getting more money into circulation as fast as possible, and only the government can do that? Do you have any brain at all?

I swear, if John McCain had popped out of the wall I think I would have thrown a lamp at him.

Anyway, it looks as if the Senate has agreed on a watered-down version of the stimulus bill. I think Congress should pass whatever it can pass as quickly as possible, but when Obama finally signs it into law I want him to go on television and explain to the American people that the bill as passed was watered down by Republicans and will be less effective than the bill he wanted. Credit where credit is due.

Tone Deaf

Posted on by

The disconnect is everywhere now. Republicans and right-wing bloggers think they’ve shown the Obama Administration what’s what. For example, Kathleen Parker seems to think President Obama has been bested by Rush Limbaugh —

Obama was cool even when, at that same GOP meeting, he urged Republicans to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. No anger, just angst. “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.”

Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’ve been baited by none other than the Master Fisherman. Limbaugh tossed you a lure and you chomped. … the backfire Obama felt in West Virginia was a gentle zephyr compared to the blowback that can be bellowed by El Rushbo.

Sure he can bellow, but does anyone care? In the past several months we’ve seen over and over again that what Rush bellows does not move public opinion by so much as a hair. Steve Elman and Alan Tolz wrote in the Boston Globe (November 8, 2008),

Consider some of the major stumbles this year by the medium’s 800-pound gorilla. Rush Limbaugh vigorously promoted three separate political objectives over the past year, all of which failed: derailing John McCain’s quest for the Republican nomination, sabotaging Barack Obama’s drive for the Democratic nomination by fomenting Republican crossover votes for Hillary Clinton, and ultimately stopping Obama’s march to victory in the general election. …

…New ears – even middle-aged or senior ears – are vital to talk radio’s influence because they are attached to brains that are available for persuasion, rather than brains that have already made a choice. In other words, if Limbaugh and Michael Savage (not to mention Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and other more recent adventurers in talk) fail to attract many new listeners, they end up talking only to those who agree with their opinions, and thus have a smaller chance to affect the ideas of the electorate in general.

The “no new ears” syndrome is haunting the entire Republican Party these days. They are busily congratulating each other for sticking it to the Obama Administration this week. As Nate Silver says, House Republicans in particular seem to be saying no just to say no. I mean, what’s with blocking a delay in the changeover to digital television?

(BTW, the federal program set up by the previous administration to provide coupons for purchasing digital-to-analog converter boxes ran out of money several months ago.)

Eugene Robinson writes in the Washington Post that Republicans not only have no new ears; the ears they have aren’t hearing much.

When not one single, solitary Republican vote can be found in the House of Representatives to support the president’s $819 billion stimulus package, it’s pretty clear that the GOP caucus has been meeting in a soundproof room.

See also Michael Tomasky, “They Actually Think This” and “Boy, it’s fun to kick these people while they’re down!”

There has been criticism of Obama from the Left from people who think he should not have even attempted to negotiate with Republicans on the stimulus package. But I think he was right to make a public show of meeting with them and offering concessions. I think many people would like to see an end to petty partisan bickering. So Obama reached out a hand and the Republicans bit it. Did you catch that, America? Do you see who’s at fault here?

Kathleen Parker (you really ought to read this column all the way through; it’s pathological) tries to make the case that Obama is showing the same “arrogance” that Dubya showed early in his administration. Parker actually writes,

If Obama had a mandate at all, it was to heal the divisions that have plagued politics for so long. No more partisan bickering, he promised, though there’s only about a smirk’s difference between Obama and Bush, stylistically. While one is bring-’em-on confrontational and the other a passive-aggressive Mr. Cool, both reveal a staggering sense of personal empowerment.

Ms. Parker, dear, what Obama is showing is voter empowerment, not personal empowerment. Your side lost. The American people want change, and your side is standing in the way. Exactly what entitles you to do that?

Regarding the family planning provision dropped from the stimulus bill — Katha Politt thinks Obama has betrayed women. However, Steve Benen writes that the Obama Administration is committed to the family planning funds and intends to put the provision in another bill.

There was an impression in some circles that Obama’s willingness to scuttle the family-planning funds was evidence of a lack of commitment on the issue. For the president, however, it seems this was about when to advance funding on the issue, not whether. Obama wasn’t giving up on access to Medicaid-covered family planning services, he was just delaying it a little to help advance the stimulus plan.

Now that the House Republicans have demonstrated they want to be marginalized, I say they can be politely ignored from now on.

Alternate Realities

Posted on by

Did anyone else catch Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois) on Rachel Maddow’s show this evening? Is it me, or did he make no sense at all?

Update: For any who missed it, here’s the MSNBC video:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Powers

Posted on by

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said yesterday that the Senate doesn’t work for Barack Obama.

Reid, who lambasted the GOP-led Congress for being a rubber stamp for President Bush, indicated that he will not bow to the Obama administration.

Reid stated, “I don’t believe in the executive power trumping everything… I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government.”

“If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. … I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him,” he said.

In December, Vice President Dick Cheney said President-elect Obama will “appreciate” the expansion of the executive branch’s power over the last eight years. During an interview on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, Cheney predicted that Obama will not cede that authority back to Congress.

While Cheney has been a regular at the Senate GOP policy lunches over the past eight years, Reid recently said Vice President-elect Biden will not be allowed to sit in while Democrats discuss legislative strategies over lunch. The move is part of Reid’s attempt to separate the executive and legislative branches, which moved in unison between 2001 and 2006.

This is as it should be, and I hope Reid means it. That said, he and Nancy Pelosi are not the strongest leaders Congress ever had, and I don’t expect them to rebel all that much. My greatest hope is that Barack Obama appreciates the separation of power also and doesn’t try to trample all over them the way the Bushies did.

Meanwhile, demonstrating an “utterly cavalier lack of knowledge about the actual principles on which the country was founded” (Michael Tomasky’s description of Sarah Palin), MacRanger jeers at Reid for “pissing Obama off.” Stupid is as stupid blogs.

Auto Bailouts and Auto Bailouts

Posted on by

A bit from last night’s Countdown that I hope nobody missed —

OLBERMANN: The filibuster threat here is partially Senator Shelby’s of Alabama and I’m missing something in this equation. Alabama has given more in tax subsidies per job for non-union jobs at foreign automakers plants in Alabama than Detroit is asking to save union jobs for American auto manufacturers. I’m missing something here.

[CHRIS] HAYES: Well, you’re not missing anything. I mean, this is the worst kept secret in Washington when you talk about the auto bailout. Every time you see Carl Levin and see Janet Granholm or any Michigan politician, there’s an implicit understanding and there’s a treatment from the press that they are representing distinct and, sometimes, narrow geographical interests of the people they represent.

The same, though, is true of a lot of the politicians from the southeast, particularly Alabama. The largest industry in Alabama is the car industry. And, you know, we’re talking about, you know, throwing taxpayer dollars at the Big Three. Well, they’ve been throwing taxpayer dollars at Toyota for years in Alabama, and no one raises a stink about that.

OLBERMANN: And to what degree also is in this an opportunity that the Republicans see for kneecapping a big union?

HAYES: Yes. I mean, at the level of power politics, I think that’s a huge part of it, and you see it in terms of you read the conservative press. People are obsessed with the erroneous number that is somehow $70 an hour in labor. We know that’s not true. David Leonhardt had a very good piece from “The Times” on that today.

I believe this is the David Leonhardt piece referred to. You can watch the entire segment here:

The Myth of Liberal “Overreach”

Posted on by

So far I haven’t seen a single Democrat, or independent liberal for that matter, claim that the election of Barack Obama means there will be a permanent Democratic majority forever and ever amen. The best outcome most of us hope for is that Dems will at least keep if not increase their seats in Congress in the 2010 midterms and that President Obama gets a second term. Beyond that, anticipation dissipates into the Unknowable Unknown.

The only certainty is that all compounded things will decay. Nothing lasts forever, in other words.

This has not stopped a number of conservatives from wagging fingers at us and warning us not to expect a permanent Democratic majority. Of course not, dears, but nobody thinks in terms of “permanent majorities” except you. Oh, and clue: As long as there are human beings, history will not end.

The disconnect may be that conservatives don’t grasp the meaning of the word “permanent.” James Antle, associate editor of the American Spectator, writes,

After Tuesday, the Republican remnant in Washington is fearing the worst. While they seem to have dodged a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate, they will have less ability to shape and block legislation than at any time since Jimmy Carter’s administration. Conservative Democratic senators are few, and many moderate Republicans from blue states will feel pressure to cave into Obama’s agenda. Republican opinion leaders warn of a big, and perhaps permanent, shift to the left.

It’s happened before and could happen again.

A permanent shift to the left happened before? But it didn’t last, did it? That means it wasn’t permanent.

Conservatives also are warning us not to “overreach,” meaning don’t go all New Deal on us. Antle continues,

But these concerns could be as overwrought as Democratic worries that their party would forever be shut out of power by an ascendant right wing after November 2004. Undivided American government leads to overreach, and overreach leads to defeat. It took four years of Carter to bring about eight years of Ronald Reagan. It required just two years of Clinton to give way to Gingrich and a dozen years of Republican domination of Congress.

Let’s think about this. Did Reagan sweep Carter out of office in 1980 because of “overreach”? Did George Bush and the GOP win in 2000 because the Clinton Administration was guilty of “overreach”? That’s not how I remember it. There were many factors that caused Dems to lose those elections, some of which were the fault of Dem administrations and Dems in Congress, and some of which were not. But “overreach” was not one of those factors.

Carter lost in 1980 mostly because he seemed weak and ineffectual, not because he “overreached.” His actual policies were middle-of-the-road for the time. Among his achievements were deregulation of the airline and telephone industries.

Regarding “It required just two years of Clinton to give way to Gingrich and a dozen years of Republican domination of Congress” — let us note that President Clinton won re-election easily in 1996. And, frankly, I think it’s possible that he would have been re-elected in 2000 if he could have run for a third term.

So what “overreach” is Antle talking about? If you want to see an example of “overreach,” let’s see — invading Iraq? the Patriot Act? The Terri Schiavo episode?