Quick thought experiment--which of the following two scenarios would put Democrats be in a better position for the 2010 midterm elections?
Shrinking deficits, with stagnating unemployment;
Shrinking unemployment, with stagnating deficits.
You would have to be living in a pretty walled-off, abstract world to think that voters care more about the deficit than unemployment. Not only should the far greater importance of jobs be obvious on a gut level to anyone with a job in politics, but polling currently shows more than three times as many people citing jobs and the economy as the top national issue than cite spending and the deficit.
In order for Democrats to avoid a Republican landslide in 2010, creating jobs is far more important than reducing the deficit. This is especially the case given that unemployment is not expected to drop at all until next summer, at the earliest. If you think polling is worrying for Democrats now, and you would have good reason to think that it is, imagine what the polls will look like after another eight or nine months of 10% unemployment. Wipeout city.
Unfortunately, it looks like the Obama administration has had enough of dealing with a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. In 2010, the administration is looking to institute a job-slashing freeze--or even a significant reduction--of government spending. The plan is already in the works, as every government agency has been ordered to prepare for either a spending freeze, or for 5% spending cuts:
The Obama administration has alerted domestic agencies to plan for a freeze or even a 5 percent cut in their budgets, part of an election-year push to rein in record deficits that threaten the economy and Democrats' political prospects next fall.
How is freezing, or cutting, federal spending going to create jobs in 2010? The answer is that it won't. Such a move is more likely to cost a lot of jobs. The Obama administration is also looking to use the remaining $210 billion in Wall Street bailout money to pay down the deficit, rather than to finance a new jobs bill. The bottom line is that they are focusing on deficit reduction, not on creating new jobs.
If the Obama administration is not going to undertake any serious effort to improve the employment situation in 2010, and will instead focus on reducing the deficit, the Democratic majority in the House is now in serious danger. If Democrats run for re-election in 2010 while facing 9-10% unemployment (and 16-17% underemployment), it doesn't take a polling expert to know what will happen.
This isn't to say that we should give up. For one thing, we need to fight against the administration focus on the deficit versus employment. For another, we need to make sure to defend the endangered progressive champions in Congress, so that the overwhelming brunt of losses are Democrats with whom we could live without. However, no matter what we do, we do need to face the reality that unless the administration changes course, and focuses on jobs instead of the deficit, 2010 is going to be a continued disaster on the jobs market, and a complete disaster for the Democratic Party.
If the public option campaign succeeds, it will be a proof of concept for the Progressive Block strategy--House Progressives threatening to join with Republicans to block must-pass Democratic legislation unless they receive a major concession. After all, the public option campaign would not even exist had House Progressives not voted to draw a line in the sand on the public option. If a public option passes into law those Progressives, through their new strategy, will have been the prime movers.
So, thinking ahead for a moment, what should House Progressives target next if they achieve this proof of concept? Climate change might not be feasible, since almost every House Progressive already voted in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Afghanistan probably won't work, since their won't be anymore supplemental appropriation bills (it will be merged into the budget now), and because Republicans will vote in favor of Afghanistan funding as long as it isn't tied to any other legislation. Financial regulation is difficult because it requires drawing a bright line on such a murky subject. Immigration is a possibility, but given all of the delays in even introducing an immigration bill, it isn't clear at all that the Democratic leadership considers immigration reform to be must-pass legislation.
The best bet is for Progressives to target the budget next year. Specifically, they should demand a substantial, probably 10% (a nice round number), increase in taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Here is why:
Increasing taxes on the rich is pretty popular. In fact, it is one of the most popular things the federal government could do:
CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 1-5, 2009. N=998 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"Do you think the tax code should be changed so that middle and lower income people pay less in taxes than they do now and upper income people pay more in taxes than they do now, or don't you think the tax code should be changed?"
They took our stuff from us, and we are taking it back. How can the top 1% argue that they are the only people who add wealth to America? This is the sort of fight that can help Democrats regain the populist mantle heading into 2010.
People are worried about deficits, but this would be a lot more popular than cutting spending.
This is a clear bright line, the budget is an undeniably must-pass piece of legislation, and this proposal is guaranteed to have 100% Republican opposition.
No question about Senate reconciliation for a budgetary measure like this. So, we wouldn't have to deal with the 60-vote Senate.
This seems like a winnable campaign and could shift the balance of economic and political power in this country. After health care, I hope the Progressive Block pivots toward addressing income inequality through a big, progressive change in the tax code.
I don't know if you've been thinking about it, but the costs of long-term care have been on the mind of some friends of mine lately.
For reasons that we won't go into here, they are in the process of pricing long-term care at care facilities...and yesterday afternoon, we had a chance to have a look at the "menu" of services (the facility's term) that can be purchased at this particular location.
If you are facing this issue in your own family, if you are a taxpayer thinking about how we plan to fund long-term care in the future...or if, one day, you expect to be old yourself...this conversation will surely matter.
Give the media and blog play the new Pew Survey on political values and core attitudes seems to be getting, I find it necessary to offer a further rebuttal to the usefulness of the insights provided by the poll.
These are just some of the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,223 adults surveyed online between March 6 and 14, 2007 by Harris Interactive®. Other findings include:
A 71 percent to 15 percent majority of adults do not think "it is necessary to increase taxes to reduce the budget deficit". Large majorities of Republicans, Democrats and Independents feel this way;
Even if taxes "had to be raised", very large majorities oppose raising the estate tax (64%) gas taxes (82%), income taxes (81%), the social security tax (83%), and the Medicare tax (87%);
The only two taxes on the list shown to those interviewed which would be acceptable to majorities of adults ("if taxes had to be raised") are taxes on cigarettes and beer and alcohol, with 73 percent and 72 percent of adults respectively saying these so called "taxes" should be increased;
When it comes to cutting government spending, there is little support for cutting any substantial programs. Given a list of twelve federal government programs and asked to pick two which should be cut ("if spending had to be cut") space programs top the list by a wide margin (51%). Significant minorities, all under 30 percent, pick welfare programs (28%), defense spending (28%), farm subsidies (24%), environmental programs (16%), homeland security (12%) and transportation (11%). Hardly anyone would cut Medicaid (4%), education (3%), Social Security (2%) or Medicare (1%).
By throwing around terms like "socialism" and asking vague questions about political values, we can pretend that there are major policy differences in America. However, when people are actually asked about government programs, the bi-partisan, status quo nature of America is truly revealed.
Miniscule percentages--less than 5%--of the country want to make cuts to Medicaid, education, Social Security and Medicare when given a choice between those and other programs. The percentage of people who want to cut defense spending is down, too. In addition to unemployment, these programs account for roughly 80% of government spending, and very few people want to cut them.
On the other side of the coin, it seems that the only tax increases people favor are taxes on the wealthy, and also cigarette and alcohol taxes. Everything else is pretty unpopular.
The simple fact is that the overwhelming political advice from the American is to maintain the status quo. And so, our politicians do just that. I've said it before and I'll say it again: right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats are only arguing over 3% of the economy. We could bother to point that out to the country, but it seems a lot easier to call each other names and pretend that our abstract self-identifications actually constitute large policy differences.
Many of the arguments about the Obama administration that have played out among pundits and activists alike are based on whether or not the Obama administration is living up to the abstract vagaries of Obama campaign rhetoric. Is President Obama changing the government enough? Is he being bipartisan enough? Is he really avoiding ideology? It was an intentional part of then-Senator Obama's campaign strategy for these terms to be vague, thus allowing voters to read their own hopes and desires into Barack Obama. That we are still arguing over these terms is a testament to the success of the execution of that strategy.
Personally, I am tired of these arguments, because they don't seem to ever lead to new knowledge. Instead, I now find it much more interesting to actually try and quantify how much the federal budget has changed from the Republican trifecta (FY 2002, 2004-2007) to the Democratic trifecta (FY 2010-2013). This way, we can develop a quantitative metric for understanding what our electoral fights in this country are really all about. What sort of change really takes place from strong Republican control of the federal government to strong Democratic control of the federal government? Rather than arguing over vague abstractions-which essentially means we don't even know what we are arguing over--let's put a price tag on change.
I have already done some work on this front. Two weeks ago, the total spending difference from the 2009 to 2010 budget, broken down by federal department, were listed here on Open Left. Also, earlier this week, I was able to quantify the difference in total social spending between the Republican trifecta, the Democratic trifecta, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The overall results were surprisingly minimalist: shifting from Republican to Democratic control of the federal government resulted in a shift of about 2% of the national economy away from what might loosely be termed "private enterprise" and toward "social investment" in things like education, energy, health care, infrastructure, and pensions. Lest people think this is only an issue of the wrong type of Democrats being in charge, my research also showed that if the Congressional Progressive Caucus was running the show, the difference would have been 3% of the national economy instead of 2%.
Apart from these big-picture analyses, it is important to catalogue all of the differences on a more specific level, as well. For example, yesterday, the Huffington Post took a look at the differences between spending on the "drug war" from 2009 to 2010. Again, the results were minimal (more in the extended entry):
Here are the changes in spending the Obama administration has proposed from the 2009 budget to the 2010 budget. The amounts are in billions of dollars, the changes are derived from wikipedia, and the discretionary spending is broken down by agency:
Mandatory ($40 billion)
Social Security: $32.5
Medicaid: $31.0
Medicare: $28.0
Interest on debt: $25.0
Potential disasters: $8.1 billion
Other: -$86.8 (mainly unemployment)
Discretionary ($119.685 billion)
State: $15.0
Housing: $7.4
Education: $5.3
Infrastructure bank: $5.0
Veteran's Affairs: $4.9
Commerce: $4.5
Defense + wars: $3.1
EPA: $2.7
Agriculture: $2.3
Transportation: $2.0
Social Security admin: $1.0
NASA: $0.9
Interior: $0.7
Other agencies: $0.7
Labor: $0.6
Treasury: $0.6
Homeland Security: $0.5
Service: $0.25
Science foundation: $0.1
Education: -$0.1
Corps of Engineers: -$0.2
HHS: -$1.3 (not including Medicare and Medicaid)
Justice: -$1.5
There is also an increase of $66 billion in "Other" spending, which likely refers to the new health care investment.
Bailout: (-$700 billion) The TARP program has been budgeted with zero actual dollars for fiscal year 2010, but still has a $250 billion "placeholder." This money is included in the budget in the event that President Obama requests an additional $750 billion in bailout funds, as it is expected that losses on those funds would reach $250 billion. However, it is not the same as actually requesting or appropriating the funds.
In the unlikely event that such a request was made, it is highly unlikely that such a request would ever pass Congress. In the House, the second $350 billion in TARP funds only garnered 155 "yea" votes back in January, 63 short of a majority. Voting for additional bank bailouts is political death for endangered Democratic members of Congress, and would cost President Obama a huge amount of political capital. It isn't going to happen.
****
Commentary on these numbers in the extended entry,
The New York Times story on the Senate budget vote this afternoon contains a false causal connection:
The Senate was expected to approve the budget later Wednesday before a prime-time news conference by Mr. Obama on his 100th day in office. No Republican support was anticipated due to the inclusion of a procedural provision that would bar filibusters against a health care plan later this year if it meets nominal budget targets.
This simply is not true. No Senate Republicans voted for the budget four weeks ago even when it didn't include health care reconciliation. As such, the lack of Republican support for the budget is not contingent upon the presence of health care reconciliation.
Anyway, I'm sure that this is one of the reasons that Senate Democrats finally decided to go with health care reconciliation. Total Republican opposition to the budget even if it lacked health care reconciliation made any further Republican threats meaningless.
If a political party consistently engages in sociopathic behavior for a decade or more (shutting down the government, impeaching a President, stealing a Presidential election, calling all opponents socialist traitors), and if the primary political result of that behavior is that the party in question loses virtually all of their power, then threats of even more sociopathic behavior from that party are not threats at all. Democrats seem to have finally accepted this. Let Republicans do whatever the hell they want--it only seems to hurt them.
It appears that the Republican "threat" to make gigantic public displays of partisan asshattery if Democrats provided cheaper, more accessible health care to Americans has failed. Although victory has not yet been finalized, a tentative budget deal between congressional Democrats and the White House denies Republicans the option to filibuster health care reform:
Democrats in Congress and the White House have struck a tentative budget deal that includes reconciliation instructions that will make it easier to push through healthcare reform this year.
The deal, which still needs approval from the full House and Senate, would allow Democrats to pass healthcare reform with just a simple majority in the Senate, instead of the 60 votes needed to pass most controversial legislation, according to a congressional aide.
The budget agreement does not include reconciliation instructions for climate change legislation, which both Senate Republicans and Democrats have argued against.
The decision to include reconciliation instructions will likely rile Republicans, who portrayed the use of the maneuver as an attack on Senate rules. But top Democrats have said that they'll resort to reconciliation rules if Republicans remain unwilling to cooperate on long-awaited healthcare legislation.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) stressed that the deal has yet to be finalized. He noted that he and House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.), who held talks on the budget Thursday night, still need to present "options" on the budget resolution to their fellow colleagues.
The lack of reconciliation for climate change is not a surprise, given that the Senate overwhelmingly voted against it a few weeks ago. Also, it is likely that some Senate whipping will need to be done in order to ensure this victory on health care (on at least two occasions, the House has already voted in favor of using reconciliation on increased health care investment). Still, this is very promising for increased health care investment in America. Without the filibuster available to Republicans, it is highly likely that in 2009 Democrats will succeed where they failed in 1994. This might be the biggest legislative victory for progressives in, well, about as long as I can remember.
On a less positive note, Senator Max Baucus has tabled debate on a public option (that is, government funded and operated) in the health care reform package for now. However, it remains on the table, so that fight is not yet lost. After the victory on reconciliation, I am more positive than ever that we will eventually win the public option fight, too.
If Democrats provide cheaper and more accessible health care to Americans, Republicans have promised to publicly turn themselves into the biggest partisan assholes of the last forty years.
Seriously. That is the actual political calculation Senate Democrats face on health care reform right now. It is the most obvious win-win political calculation Democrats have been presented with during my entire lifetime.
If Democrats use the budget reconciliation process, which denies Republicans a filibuster option, to invest two-thirds of a trillion dollars into health care, Republicans are "threatening" to do the following:
The GOP might first go after White House nominations. Republicans could require each appointee to get a separate hearing and a separate roll call vote. They could stop attending committee hearings, and decline to provide "unanimous consent" to move forward on even the most benign issues or routine Senate business. Republicans could also demand that the text of bills, which are often hundreds of pages long, be read aloud.
Yeah, that will really be a big electoral winner for Republicans. While Democrats give Americans cheaper and more affordable health care, Republicans give America extreme partisan gridlock. Oh please, please don't do this to us Republicans! How can we Democrats ever survive as a political party if Republicans were to engage in such brilliant political tactics?
Even Republicans know that these tactics won't work. If they did think that these gridlock tactics were a good idea, then they would be using them right now. The last three months have largely been dominated by Democrats passing legislation that Republicans claim they hate. As such, why didn't Republicans use these tactics to stop that legislation? Oh, that's right--because they knew that using these tactics to stop legislation that Americans want would make them look like even bigger assholes than they already are.
This isn't a threat from Republicans. This is handing Democrats a third consecutive landslide election on a silver platter. We would be idiotic not to take the opportunity and run.
A few days ago, the Senate and the House each passed budget resolutions. They are large PDF documents that you can read online, the Senate resolution here and the House resolution here. There are differences between the two versions, and removing those differences will necessitate a conference committee. The main reported difference is that the House version looks to pass President Obama's significantly increased health care investment through the "reconciliation" process, which would remove the threat of a Republican filibuster on health care in the Senate. The Senate version lacks such a provision, thus leaving the door open to a Senate Republican filibuster on increased health care investment.
There are, however, other differences. In terms of overall outlays, the Senate budget resolution is roughly $8.1 billion larger than the House resolution. To help describe these differences as accurately as possible, I have broken down the spending differences, by type, in the Senate and House budgets. You can see the entire breakdown here:
The primary differences are that the Senate allocates about $6.3 billion for defense, overseas military deployments, and international affairs. By contrast, the House allocates about $8.1 billion extra in outlays for Medicare and Income Security. Most of the remaining difference comes from the "allowances" section, where the House allocates roughly $7.43 billion in outlays than the Senate.
This information presents a major opportunity for effective, progressive activism that can shift between $6-8 billion in military spending in the Senate version toward the $6-8 billion in health care and income security spending in the house version. In addition, there is some very positive transparency language in the Senate version of the bill that is not in the House version because, as I understand it, amendments to the resolution were not allowed in the House. In addition for pushing reconciliation on health care, these would be real, strong, progressive improvements to the budget.
There is, however, one problem: a list of the participants in the budget conference committee is not currently available online. Or, at least, I was unable to find it after an hour of searching this morning. If, in the comments, anyone could supply such a list, it would help us put together an important activist campaign. Additionally, any other difference between the Senate and House budget resolutions would be extremely helpful. Please provide them in the comments.
Update: I have no confirmed that the conferees have not yet been chosen, nor has a conference committee date even been set. So, we are going to have to place the waiting game for now.
Also, note the large, $12 billion difference in transportation between the House and the Senate budget authorities. I'm not sure what this means, especially since the outlays are identical, but it is worth looking into.
Let's play Democratic political strategist for a moment. Which of the following two options do you think would be more popular with voters? Is it:
Less expensive, more widely available health care delivered through a partisan legislative process that excludes congressional Republicans;
OR
The health care status quo, and a bi-partisan legislative process that includes congressional Republicans?
Perhaps I am missing something, but when it comes to allowing health care reform to go through the budget reconciliation process, that is the basic political calculation Democrats need to make.
Unless you are so far up David Broder's butt that you can only see his intestines, it should be obvious that more voters would prefer cheaper, more widely available health care to bipartisanship any day of the week and twice on Mondays. Bipartisanship is an abstract, vague ideal, while health care costs are very real. If anyone actually chooses bipartisanship instead of more widely available health care, then their priorities are out of whack to the point where they are representing David Broder in Congress, rather than their own constituents.
Republicans have been crushed in two consecutive elections. Not a single Republican in either the House or the Senate voted for the budget. And yet, it appears they have been holding back. Unless Democrats allow Republicans to filibuster health care, then Republicans will stop holding back and do something so tottaly ultra mega awesome that they will get back into power. Or, at least that is what Republican Senate Mike Enzi says:
The matter [reconciliation] is guaranteed to be a major partisan sticking point when the two chambers meet to hammer out a final version of next year's spending plan. If it passes, it would allow the Senate to pass Obama's proposed health care reform without the threat of a Republican-led Senate filibuster.
Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming, speaking for most of his GOP Senate colleagues, warned Tuesday that if a health-care "reconciliation winds up in the budget bill, it'll be like a declaration of war. ... I hope that that wedge doesn't get thrown in there."
Wow-I wonder what Enzi means by a "declaration of war." Will that mean Republicans won't vote for any Democratic legislation? Will they call war veterans traitors? Will they suppress Florida and Ohio voters in a successful attempt to steal elections? Will it mean they will try to impeach President Obama? Will they act like such jerks that we will wax them in a third straight election?
Democrats should be trembling over a threat of "war" from Republicans. All this time, you know that Republicans were just holding back. They wanted Democrats to win the Presidency, 14 Senate seats, 54 House seats, half a dozen Governorships and about a dozen state legislative bodies just to make things interesting. But, if Democrats actually use this head start to pass legislation of any import, they will stop holding back, and use their super-secret-awesome-win-every-time-and-there-is-nothing-Democrats-can-do-about-it tactic. And this tactic will totally wipe out any gains Democrats will make with the voters by making health care for the voters cheaper and more available.
Remember Democrats--Republicans are going to really go crazy on you if you pass health care reform without letting them filibuster it. And there is no way that giving people health care will compensate for the vast unpopularity you will suffer when the Republicans do whatever "declaring war" actually means. Nope. It's tottaly impossible. Don't let Republicans use their Super-Secret-Mega-Top-Ultra-Awesome-Forever Political Tactic on you.
(The tactic, I'm pretty sure, is basically just whining about socialism and the lack of bipartisanship on television.)
Something unexpected just happened on Capitol Hill today--the Congressional Progressive Caucus drew a line in the sand on something. In a letter sent to Speaker Pelosi, Representatives Woolsey and Grijalva stated that most of the 77-member progressive caucus will not support a health care plan that lacks a public option with a level playing field. I like it:
Dear Madam Speaker and Majority Leader,
Regarding the upcoming health care reform debate, we believe it is important for you to know that virtually the entire 77-Member Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) prefers a single-payer approach to healthcare reform. Therefore, it will come as no surprise as you work to craft comprehensive health care reform legislation, that we urge the inclusion of a public plan option, at a minimum, in the final legislation. We have polled CPC Members and a strong majority will not support legislation that does not include a public plan option that is supported on a level playing field with private health insurance plans.
We look forward to working with you to ensure inclusion of a public plan option and the successful passage of healthcare legislation that will provide a choice of quality healthcare for all Americans
As the conservodems in the Senate seem mainly fixated on cap and trade, it appears that Progressives have fired the opening shot on health care. If there is no public option, then there is no deal.
This isn't an issue where House Blue Dogs and Senate Conservodems can hide behind their "red" districts in opposition. Here is the most recent poll I could find that seemed to talk about a public option:
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 11-15, 2009. N=1,112 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Should the government in Washington provide national health insurance, or is this something that should be left only to private enterprise?"
Government 59%--32% Private Enterprise
With a margin like that, only about 20-30 of the 435 congressional districts, and only about 4-5 states, would be opposed to a public option. And even then, the opposition would be pretty narrow. However, at the same time, terms like "public option" don't really mean much to people yet. The frames and terminology that will drive public opinion on this debate have not yet been set. Drawing a line in the sand is a good first step, but now we have to brace ourselves against what will inevitably be bi-partisan talking points about socialized medicine and government intruding on families. As long as the reconciliation process is still available for health care, as long as the progressive caucus holds a line on the public option, and as long as we can control the framing of the debate, this is a winnable campaign.
There are a few headlines trying desperately to portray some sense of major conflict between House Democrats and the Obama administration on the budget. The attempted narrative is to portray Democrats as conservatives reacting against excess spending from the Obama administration. For example, here is how the Washington Post describes it in their headline:
House Democrats Slash More Than $100B From Obama's Plan
However, this is a really flimsy, concern troll narrative. Once you read further, all indications are that the House blueprint has actually increased non-bailout public spending, yet still reduced deficit projections and the possibility for conflict over, President Obama's budget. In the extended entry, I explain how
Obama also asked Congress to budget for a $250 billion place-holder fund that's intended to pay for a third round of bailout money for struggling banks -- but that notion is dead on arrival in Congress, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) acknowledged this afternoon.
"[I]t's not in there, and I have no problem with that," Reid told reporters.
The bonus scandal outrage was almost certainly the final straw that broke the back of the third bailout. Given that it almost killed the second bailout as well, any notion that the bonus scandal was simply a side issue, faux outrage, or a smokescreen should be safely dead by now. It just saved us $250 billion.
Passing more bailout funds through the budget was the only chance Congress would ever approve more. Now, that threat is gone. And it wouldn't have been possible without red-hot, blinding, widespread outrage over the bonuses. Score one for anger!
As the House and Senate Budget Committees begin work this week on their versions of the Congressional Budget Resolution, the usual suspects are lining up to oppose proposals that would pay for health care reform, reduce global warming, create more jobs and improve our education system. Beyond the expected Republican opposition, however, some key Democrats are also calling for changes that would seriously weaken Presidents Obama's groundbreaking budget.
Although the chairs of the House and Senate Budget Committees are expected to craft resolutions that remain faithful to the President's priorities, many of the revenue sources proposed by Obama are being called into question. Further, the skittish-on-spending Blue Dog Democrats in the House and similarly inclined Senate Democrats are urging reductions in domestic appropriations, which pay for education, job training, housing, child care and child welfare services, public health, and other family and community services.
Should the federal government be using every available legal means to block or retrieve executive bonuses at financial service companies like AIG that are receiving bailout money?
Or...
Should the federal government be urging citizens to urge members of Congress to authorize even more public money for executive bonuses at financial services companies like AIG?
The reason I ask is because today President Obama is currently calling for both of these actions to take place, and it is confusing the hell out of me.
We saw it with the stimulus, and now we are seeing it again with the budget. Once again, major political media outlets are arguing that Obama is making a mistake allowing Congress to write laws. Because, you know, heaven forbid that the legislative branch actually write legislation. The New York Times is the culprit in this case:
Mr. Obama is taking a gamble in outsourcing the drafting of his agenda's details to these five veteran lawmakers and others in Congress, each with his own political and parochial calculations.
Yes, this is truly a gamble on President Obama's part. The much safer route would have been to personally draft the bill himself, and use some sort of legal authority that doesn't exist in order to require Congress to vote on that bill without any possibility of amendment.
Look, Congress writes all federal legislation. That is simply how it works in our system of government. It simply isn't possible for the President to introduce legislation in Congress, because the President is not a member of Congress. Even though the President is required to submit a budget draft, it is just a draft, not legislation, and Congress can do whatever they want to it from that point forward. It is a distressing sign for our Republic that we have reached the point where our largest newspapers are calling it a gamble for the legislative branch to actually write our legislation.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Tuesday that President Obama's budget plan doesn't have enough support from lawmakers right now to win approval.
President Barack Obama's unveiling of his first budget last week caused a great deal of fanfare in the media. But while universal health care and cap-and-trade made headlines, the outline of the budget for the Department of Justice went largely ignored. In that outline, Obama included a provision for prisoner reentry programs:
Expands Prisoner Reentry Programs. The Budget includes $109 million for prisoner reentry programs, including an additional $75 million for the Office of Justice Programs to expand grant programs authorized by the Second Chance Act that provide counseling, job training, drug treatment, and other transitional assistance to former prisoners.
This represents a shift in the Department of Justice's crime policy that then candidate Obama alluded to in June:
we need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child -- it's the courage to raise one.
As Adam Serwerexplains at the American Prospect, liberals and conservatives have been at a stalemate on the issue of addressing black poverty and its root causes, including fatherlessness.
remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts.
It looks as if President Obama has decided it more wise to pursue his "fatherhood" agenda piecemeal and by funneling it into departmental funding, rather than pinning all his hopes on one bill.
In every case, a "Y" refers to the vote that gave money to Wall Street, and a "N" refers to a vote against giving Wall Street money. ("A" refers to not voting.)
Totally for Wall Street, no for Homeonwers Rick Boucher: Y, Y, A
Chet Edwards: Y, Y, Y
Bart Gordon: Y, Y, Y
Consistent: Bobby Bright: N
Chris Carney: N, N, N
Travis Childers: N, N, N
Kathy Dahlkemper: N
Lincoln Davis: N, N, N
Parker Griffith: N
Baron Hill: N, N, N
Tim Holden: N, N, N
Larry Kissell: N
Frank Kratovil: N
Betsy Markey N
Eric Massa: N (what the fuck Massa?) Jim Matheson: N, N, N
Bart Stupak: N, N, N
Gene Taylor: N, N, N
Harry Teague N
Given that they represent blue districts, if either Ron Kind or Mike Arcuri was to vote against President Obama's budget, it should be open season on both of them in their 2010 primaries. To vote to hand hundreds of billions over to Wall Street, but then to oppose even a New Democrat approved housing bill and oppose President Obama's budget--at that point, you simply don't deserve to be a Democratic nominee for Congress anymore.
Ron Kind in particular needs to go, as he was a pro-FISA rewrite, pro-Iraq blank check Bush Dog on top of all this. As such, I don't even really care how Ron Kind votes on the budget--he has crossed the line way too many times for an Obama 58% district. Let's get a primary challenger on him now. Even with Wisconsin's open primary laws, that is an exceptionally winnable primary campaign.
