George Packer’s piece in the New Yorker, entitled The Empty Chamber, is an excellent piece on the disfunctional aspects of the United States Senate. The article is well-written and thought provoking, and I have been meaning to add a link to it for a while now.
The Senate rules are badly in need of reform. They were written for a period where debate flourished and campaign fundraising was less critical. Now, the rules are used to inhibit debate and drive wedges between the parties. I believe the system is fixable, and Packer masterfully takes readers through the first step of realizing there is a problem in dire need of fixing.
After watching the debacle that is the United States Senate over the last few months and hearing the pundits deplore or defend the use of the filibuster and anonymous holds, I am fairly receptive to alternative structures to accomplish the task of legislating. The minority party has a strong incentive to grind the gears of government to a halt, regardless of the urgent business of the country. The minority party can then go to their base and claim, with evidence, they stopped the other side from enacting their evil agenda and go to the public at large and claim, again with evidence, that the majority party did not accomplish anything in these perilous times. The base is energized so it will show up to vote next time around and the public is disillusioned with the government and stays home (at worst) or believes in the incompetence of the majority and votes the minority into power (at best).
Continue reading »
As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed. There’s a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Here’s what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.
“Let me know”? Seriously? What have we been doing the last twelve months? We’re going back to the drawing board?
Pass the damn bill.
News has it that Obama is going to propose a freeze on all “non-military discretionary spending.” While we don’t know much yet about what that means, the move feels transparently political, and my guess is, it isn’t going to be received well.
Keep in mind the following:
- Obama proposed and successfully pushed Congress to pass the Stimulus Bill, which was one of the largest spending bills in the nation’s history. There may be very good economics underpinning the Stimulus Bill, but the size of spending is undeniable, and it is one of the things people most associate with President Obama’s administration.
- Obama flatly rejected Senator McCain’s proposal for a general spending freeze during the campaign. Obama had a good argument as well- better to use a scalpel to control spending than a hatchet. Looks like we are out of scalpels.
- Even though the health care bill proposed by the Senate is projected to actually reduce the deficit, most Americans don’t believe those projections. According to Rasmussen Reports, 68% believe the bill would increase the deficit, making it nearly impossible to promote passage of the health care bill without the public believing he is breaking his promise to freeze spending.
- Obama is now promoting a jobs bill which undoubtedly will also cost a significant amount of money, even if, again, the economics are sound.
There is no escaping the cognitive dissonance Americans are going to feel upon hearing news that President Obama wants to propose a spending freeze. It will take all of .00002 seconds for Republicans to claim a freeze was their idea (and they will be right- it was one of several very bad ideas they offered). Then when he once again pushes for health care reform (which may come as soon as next week), it will take even less time for Republicans to lambast him for “forgetting what he promised just last week.” Projections of deficit reduction only matter if you believe the projections.
Obama isn’t going to claim the crown of “most fiscally responsible president” anytime soon. Even if he was, in fact, the most fiscally responsible president ever, public perception is not on his side, and in politics, perception equals reality. Why try to claim the title now when there is literally no chance it will succeed and a significant chance it will actually hurt his narrative in trying to pass significant legislation?
This might be a very good policy- we can’t possibly know how good or bad it will actually be until we have more details- but it seems to be poor politics at a vulnerable time for Democrats. Then again, lacking faith in the President’s persuasive powers the night before a major address hasn’t worked out well for doubters in the past.
1. CongressMatters explains how the “sidecar” option can work to pass health care reform.
2. Ezra Klein notes that the devil is in the details of Obama’s proposed spending freeze, but the freeze risks hurting the poor the most.
3. President Obama was selected for jury duty in Chicago. Apparently someone in Chicago didn’t think he might be busy.
4. The students and faculty at Seton Hall University School of Law have done a remarkable job of reconstructing the events that lead to the death of three detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Their full report and findings can be found here.
5. The US law firm of Perkins Coie represented pro bono Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantanamo Bay detainee whose case ultimately found its way to the US Supreme Court. The attorneys who worked on the case gave a video presentation of their experiences which can be viewed here.
6. At least one Republican Senator promises to use all procedural mechanisms available to stop the “sidecar” option. Why is it that using reconciliation to amend a bill is deemed “trickery” and “shenanigans” but using the filibuster to stop 59 Senators from passing legislation isn’t?
Much ado is being made of Fred Barnes’ article claiming that if Coakley loses, Senator Kirk, the interim Massachusetts (not Massachusettes, Martha) Senator, would cease to be a Senator immediately upon the closing of the polls.
Barnes’ claim is apparently being taken at face value by much of the blogosphere. Keep in mind, first of all, that it is Fred Barnes making the claim (he is right about as often as Ben Affleck makes a good movie- it can happen, sure, but when it does, admit it- you are surprised). Also keep in mind, the “source” for his article is an unidentified group of Republican attorneys. Well of course they think Kirk loses his seat immediately. They are charged with promoting their client’s best interests so long as they have a colorable legal claim. They aren’t charged with weighing all information and coming to the fairest reading of the law.
As is frequently the case, the legal “answer” isn’t immediately obvious (and may actually favor Democrats in this instance).
Continue reading »
“When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, ‘Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don’t believe?”
-Quentin Crisp
For as long as mankind has existed, so too has the notion that a higher power watches over mankind’s affairs, and perhaps even intervenes from time to time. Throughout that period, religion has struggled to define God and make him approachable. Where religion has been left to its own devices, and kept separate from the mechanisms of state power, it has done quite well. Where religion has become entangled with politics and government power, the results have tended towards the disastrous. This isn’t to say there should be zero overlap between religion and politics. Such a complete divide isn’t realistic or even possible. It is simply to say that wherever entanglement is found, we should view the entanglement with extreme skepticism, particularly when religion is employed by those wielding the reigns of government power in an “us, the righteous” versus “them, the evil” manner.
Continue reading »
From Politico:
1. President Obama takes the heat President Bush did not
2. Rep. Chaffetz still wants body scan ban
and from the Washington Post:
3. Republican senator DeMint holds up nomination for TSA chief
In summary, the bombing attempt is Obama’s fault, a Republican amendment would prohibit using full body scans at airports in security checks, and a Republican is preventing the confirmation of a new TSA chief, who would oversee airport security. Got it.
1. Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber,” tried to light his shoes on fire on a flight and now we all have to take off our shoes at the airport. Well, if past precedent holds, future airport visits should be really interesting.
2. A culinary masterpiece.
3. Nate Silver analyzes the probability the House agrees on a bill substantially similar to the one passed by the Senate.
4. Why a climate change bill may not be the next major piece of legislation undertaken by the House and Senate.
5. Ten things to watch for as the House and Senate begin to merge the health care bill.
State of Health Care Reform
President Obama is receiving a significant amount of criticism for being too “hands off” in governance. His leadership style with respect to health care in his first year largely involved speaking in generalities on the topic and leaving the details and messy process to Congress for resolution. When the process would start to collapse, he would once again deliver a powerful, albeit unspecific, speech on health care, and urge Congress to get back to work. Time and again they did. In the end, health care reform hasn’t yet passed, but whatever you may think of Obama’s leadership in the first year, he came closer to shepherding comprehensive health care reform to passage than any president who has ever tried.
Now granted, “close” isn’t much consolation in politics, especially to the tens of thousands of people who will die because they do not have health insurance in the United States. So why does “close” matter? Because if we were close to finalizing health care reform two weeks ago, there is no good reason we can’t still be close today- and finished tomorrow. To understand what Obama can do to finalize the bill, we need to first understand who the obstacles are.
The House of Representatives has been particularly responsive to Obama’s calls to action- and not just on health care either. Of course, the House doesn’t have to deal with the filibuster or the nonsensical Senate tradition of the “hold” which permits one single Senator to block debate or passage of a bill indefinitely (or at least until the Majority Leader grows weary of the hold). At every step of the health care reform process last year, the House was ahead of the Senate. The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a draft bill in August while Sen. Baucus’ committee toiled on. The House then passed its full bill in November while the Senate remained stuck in negotiations. The nation’s attention turned to the Senate and, rather than rise to the occasion, the Senate had to deal publicly with the ego of Joe Lieberman, the special interest demands of Senator Nelson and Landrieu, and procedural votes taking place in the late hours of night or in the early morning on Christmas Eve. The public reacted to the messy Senate process about as one would expect- negatively.
Continue reading »