Open Left - Obama administration

As Obama administration focuses on deficits instead of jobs, Democratic majority circles the drain

Chris Bowers — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:09:30 GMT

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.

The stimulate China's economy, cause Democrats to lose act of 2009

Chris Bowers — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:43:38 GMT

As posted last night in Quick Hits by Daniel de Groot, the Obama administration want to use leftover TARP funds to pay down the debt. I guess the idea is that China's economy needs more stimulating than our own:

The Obama administration, under pressure to show it is serious about tackling the budget deficit, is seizing on an unusual target to showcase fiscal responsibility: the $700 billion financial rescue.(...)

The Treasury Department said about $210 billion in TARP funds remains unspent, including about $70 billion returned from financial institutions. A further $50 billion is expected to be repaid in the next 12 to 18 months.

This is a terrible, terrible idea. There are times when paying down the debt is prudent--like the early part of this decade--but right now we need that money to create jobs. Immediately.

Paying down the debt now would just send the $210 billion left in the TARP funds to China and other countries to who we owe money. A much better use would be for it fund a $200 billion jobs package that Congress is looking to move over the next one to three months.

Unfortunately, the administration's idea of using the remaining bailout money to pay down the debt is already catching on with Blue Dogs and Republicans. Anti-health care, pro-coathanger, Representative Larry Kissell has introduced, and is gathering cosponsors for, a bill in Congress to match the Obama administration's plans. Here is a Dear Colleague letter he is circulating in the House right now, trying to gather more co-sponsors on top of the four Republicans, four Blue Dogs, and freshman Ann Kirkpatrick who have already joined up:

(The letter Kissell is sending to other House members can be found in the extended entry.)

Support the Repaying the American Taxpayer Act of 2009

Co-Sponsors(9)*denotes original cosponsor: Bright, Foxx, Griffith, Coble, Lummis, Myrick, *Kirkpatrick, Minnick, Kratovil

Dear Colleague:

When the first allocation of hundreds of billions of TARP dollars was used to buy preferred stock in hundreds of financial institutions, our constituents were assured this was necessary in order to free up lines of credit for everyday Americans who needed to buy a car, a home, or pay their bills. Instead these banks horded the funds rather than put them out on Main Street as available credit. Many continued to award obscene bonuses to their executives in order to "retain" their expertise. Meanwhile, those everyday Americans who were assured their tax dollars were going to a good cause have continued their struggle to get a small loan or a credit card.

I was not in Congress when the first half of TARP funds were voted on but I joined a majority of my colleagues in opposing the second half of funds. Due to the initial lack of oversight and accountability, TARP has been a mismanaged program from the beginning. Furthermore, Americans were sold on the promise that revenues from the sale or return of TARP related assets would be applied toward the public debt. What the American people were not told was that as long as the U.S. is running a deficit, the revenues from TARP related funds would simply return into the Treasury's general fund. That is why I introduced H.R. 3020, the "Repaying the American Taxpayer Act of 2009."

Specifically, H.R. 3020 would amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to require revenue from the sale of TARP related assets to be directly paid toward the national debt while simultaneously reducing the debt ceiling for every dollar of TARP money returning to Treasury. Only by lowering the debt ceiling accordingly can Congress truly prevent Treasury from turning around and immediately borrowing more money. This bill would also insert language requiring that dividend payments received off the preferred stock the government owns in public companies be treated under the same rules. Finally, this bill would require the Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP) to include in the SIGTARP Quarterly Report to Congress, a section outlining confirmation of these transactions and subsequent lowering of the debt ceiling. I understand enactment of this bill may require Treasury to return to Congress earlier to ask that the debt ceiling be raised; however, I believe money for the purchase of TARP related assets was money that never should have been borrowed in the first place. Accordingly, it shouldn't be treated as revenue when it returns to the Treasury's general fund.

If you would like to cosponsor this bill, please contact XXXXXX at XXXXXX or via email at XXXXXXXX. I look forward to your support.

Sincerely,
Larry Kissell
Member of Congress

Yeah, that's right, support hardworking Americans by sending their tax money to China, instead of to create jobs. Good friggin' plan.

And that's not all! In the extended entry, I discuss how the White House is pushing for either spending freezes or massive cuts next year, because apparently they are more concerned with avoiding labels than with actually creating jobs. More in the extended entry

Combined with proposed spending freezes and / or cuts, using the remaining bailout money to pay down the debt would be a disastrous move by an administration more concerned with avoid labels than anything else:

The White House is in the early stages of considering what bigger moves it might make for next year's budget. The Office of Management and Budget has asked all cabinet agencies, except defense and veterans affairs, to prepare two budget proposals for fiscal 2011, which begins Oct 1, 2010. One would freeze spending at current levels. The other would cut spending by 5%.(...)

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is pressing for substantial spending cuts to go with any tax increases to try to avoid the "tax and spend" label that has bedeviled Democrats, according to administration and congressional officials.

Avoiding labels will not help Democrats at the ballot box one iota. Only stimulating our economy and creating jobs will do that. FDR and Democrats did not win landslide victories in 1934 and 1936 by engaging in a Hoover-like attempt to freeze spending and pay down the debt during a time of crisis. They spent, and spent big--resulting in Asian Tiger-like a GDP growth of 10.9% in 1934, 8.9% in 1935, and 13.0% in 1936.

If you want to know why Democrats and FDR did so well in 1934 and 1936, it is because they delivered results. Huge, huge GDP growth. the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats are not delivering anything close to that.

This is more than a fight over another piece of legislation. Determining what to do with the leftover TARP funds is going to be a fight for the survival of not only our economy, but of the political future of the Democratic Party. The remaining $210 billion in TARP needs to be spent to fund a $210 billion jobs bill, or else the entire party goes down in flames as the result of meager job growth next year.

Don't repay Chinese bankers with the $210 billion. Give Americans jobs.

Majority of Americans, and Democrats, oppose troop increases in Afghanistan

Chris Bowers — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:25:00 GMT

President Obama job approval rating has been static for the past three months. Since mid-August, net job approval for President Obama has hovered in a tight, 5-8% net approval range. This range is very similar to the amount by which he won the 2008 election (7.27%), strongly suggesting that the national political environment has simply returned to its pre-election coalitions. President Obama's supporters are now the same group of people who voted for him last year, while his opponents are those who voted for someone else.

Since he is now relying on his pre-election coalition to maintain his overall support, any decision to further escalate American troop presence in Afghanistan is dangerous for President Obama. This is not only because a narrow majority opposes troop escalation in Afghanistan, but because the majority of Americans who oppose the troop escalation are members of President Obama's coalition (aka, mainly self-identified Democrats).

First, here is a summary polling on troop escalation in Afghanistan over the past month:

Support or oppose increasing the number of American troops in Afghanistan?

Poll	Date	Support	Oppose
Mean	Nov 11	43.6	50.2
AP	Nov 07	43	54
CNN	Oct 31	42	46
NBC	Oct 24	47	43
ABC	Oct 17	47	49
CNN	Oct 17	39	59

Even if the October 17th CNN is removed from the average, a 48% plurality still opposes sending more troops to Afghanistan. What's more, the people who oppose sending more troops tend to self-identify as Democrats:

Democrats Obama Performance Troop Levels

Approve / Increase 54% 27%

Disapprove / Decrease 27% 52%
By a 2-1 margin, self-identified approve of President Obama's handling of Afghanistan, even though twice as many Democrats favor decreasing troop levels there as favor increasing troop levels.

Republicans Obama Performance Troop Levels

Approve / Increase 20% 57%

Disapprove / Decrease 58% 16%

Democrats	Obama Performance	Troop Levels
Approve / Increase	54%	27%
Disapprove / Decrease	27%	52%

Republicans	Obama Performance	Troop Levels
Approve / Increase	20%	57%
Disapprove / Decrease	58%	16%

Already, a 27% disapproval for President Obama among Democrats for his handling of Afghanistan is far above his overall job disapproval among Democrats, which only stands at 12.3%. If an additional 15% of national Democrats were to start disapproving of President Obama's overall performance, then his overall job approval rating would slide to around a net negative of 4-5%. Such a negative approval rating would seriously endanger the rest of his legislative agenda, from health care to climate change to financial regulations.

President Obama is not going to win back any significant number of Republicans, who overwhelmingly disapprove of his handling of Afghanistan despite approving of his policies there. It is also unlikely that he will win back a significant number of Independents until the economy shows real improvement. Right now, he is functioning primarily on a base of Democratic support, which an escalation in Afghanistan has the potential to damage.

President Obama is probably not taking these political considerations into account when determining troop levels in Afghanistan, but given the impact that an escalation could have on human lives in other areas--specifically health care and climate change--it would not be a terrible idea if he did.

100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan during 2011-2013 (Updated with denials)

Chris Bowers — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:09:42 GMT

President Obama will increase the American military presence in Afghanistan yet again:

Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term.

The president still has more meetings scheduled on Afghanistan, but informed sources tell CBS News he intends to give Gen. Stanley McChrystal most, if not all, the additional troops he is asking for.

McChrystal wanted 40,000 and the president has tentatively decided to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops.

This is going to bring the total number of United States troops deployed to Afghanistan over 100,000 by the start of 2011:

The first combat troops would not arrive until early next year and it would be the end of 2010 before they were all there. That makes this Afghanistan surge very different from the Iraq surge, in which 30,000 troops descended on Baghdad and the surrounding area in just five months.(...)

The buildup would be expected to last about four years, until McChrystal completes his plan for doubling the size of the Afghan army and police force.

With 68,000 Americans already there, the Afghan surge would mean there would be 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of the president's first term.

This matches up pretty well with the corresponding withdrawal from Iraq. Between now and next August, about 70,000 troops will leave Iraq (from 120,000 to 50,000), but add about 30,000 in Afghanistan. Given that 34,000 troops were sent to Afghanistan earlier this year, this means there will not be a significant decrease in overall American troop deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan until near the end of 2011.

Even though America will have zero troops in Iraq by the end of 2011, current plans are to keep troop levels in Afghanistan high until the end of 2013 (assuming the four-year build-up counts 2009). As such, Obama will run for re-election with about 60% of the number of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan (100,000) as Bush typically did (about 160,000, apart from the original 2003 invasion and the subsequent 2007 escalation).

(Hat-tip: rayj in quick hits)

Update: The Obama administration is denying that they have decided on a long-term troop increase in Afghanistan of this level. I guess we still have to wait and see, but I bet it actually happens.

Obama administration sitting on second stimulus?

Chris Bowers — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:05:48 GMT

There is a lot of money left in the TARP fund:

A report from the TARP's official watchdog estimated that there is $317 billion left in the program, a sum that includes funds paid back to the government by some banks.

Already, the Obama administration has used TARP money for financial assistance to auto companies ($23.4 billion), homeowners ($75 billion, and now a new program to provide credit to small businesses of a yet to be determined size.

Couldn't the Obama administration just keep using TARP money for stimulus related programs, such as the ones described above, and effectively make it a second stimulus package that does not require Congressional approval?

There certainly seems to be precedent for it. Over 70 years ago, FDR established the Works Progress Administration via executive order, using funds Congress appropriated in the stimulus act of 1935:

On April 8, 1935, the United States Congress passed the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act. The Emergency Relief Appropriation Act was part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Roosevelt hoped that his New Deal would allow Americans to cope with the Great Depression, would help end the current economic downturn, and would help prevent another depression from occurring in the future.

We know at this point that the stimulus needed another $600 billion in spending to combat the effects of the recession. Smart pundits like Paul Krugman, Matthew Yglesias and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities keep talking about the need for a new WPA, a new Civilian Conservation Corps, and more grants to state and local governments to plug their budget gaps. Can't the Obama administration just use the remaining TARP money to just start programs like these, immediately?

Over the next few years, the TARP fund should grow by at least another $200 billion, as banks, automakers, homeowners and small businesses continue to pay back their loans. So, not only do we have short-term funding to start up a new WPA and / or a new CCC, there is long-term funding to keep them operational, too.

This would not only help alleviate the increasingly dire unemployment situation, but diverting Wall Street bailout money directly into jobs for main street would be a huge, huge political winner. Not to mention that a program for young people, like a new CCC, might be exactly what is needed not only to help the demographic hardest hit by the recession, but also to get Democratic-leaning young voters back to the polls in 2010.

Are there any legal restrictions preventing this? Is the Obama administration just sitting on funds that could be used for a second, more effective stimulus package? There might be internal opposition within the administration, but right now I am just looking for legal problems. If anyone can think of any legal barriers to using TARP funds to create new jobs programs that harken back to the days of FDR, please say so in the comments. Otherwise, this is a campaign we need to start ASAP.

Update: To clarify, what we need to do is figure out the legal limits of what this money can be spent on. Any advice on that front is greatly appreciated.

The Importance of Recognizing Internal Debates at the White House

Chris Bowers — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:00:00 GMT

As has been written about all over the place, yesterday, NBC's John Harwood reported that a White House advisor dismissed bloggers as part of a left-wing fringe. Today, as Adam already discussed, senior White House communications advisor Dan Pfeiffer responded, saying those dismissive views do not represent those of the White House as a whole.

I accept Pfeiffer's email. Of course the entire White House does not hold such a dismissive view toward bloggers. While there are definitely some progressive blog haters staffing and advising in the White House, I doubt it is a majority opinion.

Even if you think a dismissive attitude toward the progressive netroots is widespread in the White House--and there really isn't any way to prove this one way or the other--it is important to remember that there are internal White House debates on virtually every policy and strategic choice it faces. This is as much the case when it comes to how to interact with the progressive blogosphere as it is with how to proceed on LGBT issues, troop levels in Afghanistan, how large the stimulus should have been, or whether or not to keep Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. All of these issues and more are debated inside the White House, and the progressive view is almost always represented. Rather than there being a single, monolithic viewpoint among President Obama, his aides, staff and advisers, what the White House ends up doing is following the internal argument that wins the day.

This undeniable existence of this internal White House debate shows how facile it is to criticize progressive bloggers for criticizing the White House, or to dismiss the White House as uniformly conservative. There are very few, if any, progressive criticisms of major White House strategic and policy decisions that are not voiced within the White House itself. Take, for example, Miachel Tomasky's diatribe from last year against progressives who opposed re-nominating Robert Gates for Secretary of Defense:

And people who can't see that Obama needs to reassure the political establishment by doing things like re-appointing Robert Gates at the Pentagon precisely so he can have the establishment's good will, which in turn grants him the room to operate and to isolate the political opposition, understand so little about politics that it's not even worth the time it would take to spell out the argument to them.

You can only vent such spleen against progressive critics of keeping Gates--or any other major Obama administration decision--if you assume a preposterous scenario where there is absolutely no debate within the Obama administration about such decisions. After all, many of the idiots who Tomasky deemed too stupid to understand the impossibly brilliant strategic calculus of the Obama transition team were working on the Obama transition team:

The speculation over Gates' tenure has been most intense inside the Obama transition team. The team received a request from Gates that, were he to stay, he would want to retain some of his top civilian assistants. The request led to concerns among the Obama transition staff: "Gates is not a neo-con or even a hardcore Republican," a person close to the process noted, "but the people around him sure as hell are."

These debates extend far beyond decisions like keeping Gates or not. There is internal debate within the White House itself, from both the left and the right, on every policy and strategic decision it makes. Once you accept this, the frequent online arguments over whether some progressives are being too critical of the President Obama, or whether the Obama administration as a whole somehow hates progressives, start to seem almost entirely pointless.

The Democratic Party is currently debating many facets of how the government should be run. Joining in this debate is good for both democracy and progressivism. If progressives don't voice our opinion on these debates, whether on minor matters like White House interaction with the blogosphere, or important matters like the size of the stimulus package, then we reduce the chances of the White House taking our side. Even if we lose these arguments more often than not--and I think we are losing them more often than not--participating in them is still a lot better than continuing with the internal blogosphere argument about whether we are clapping too loudly, or not loudly enough.

How To Run The Country

Chris Bowers — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:02:50 GMT

An anonymous White House aide responds to the largest LGBT rights demonstration in a decade serves as an interesting guide on how to run the country:

LESTER HOLT: John what we saw in that protest today, was it simply frustration or does it represent a serious problem the President is having with an important part of his base?

JOHN HARWOOD: As a practical matter Lester I don't think it's a serious problem. we've seen and certainly Bill Clinton learned that they Democratic President can get punished by the mainstream of the electorate for being too aggressive on social issues so for now I think the administration feels that if they take care of the big issues - health care, energy, the economy - he's going to be just fine with this group.

HOLT: But in general when you look at the left as a whole, have there been conversations about some things they thought would have been done but haven't?

HARWOOD: Sure but If you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90% or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the "internet left fringe" Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.

Here is what I have learned about running the country from this:

Mock those who do not dress to your standards, implying that their attire is reflective of deeper, intellectual deficiencies.
Believe that the country is closely divided even when you have a clear majority.
Give anonymous quotes implying that your boss doesn't take a group seriously even as your boss is speaking to said group.

Basically, it seems to involve simultaneously internalizing and projecting a sense of paranoia.

Which is, you know, a pretty sound technique for building up a political party, much less a country. The key to governing is to use anonymous quotes to stir up resentment against people who publish their thoughts through independent online mediums. Or, if bloggers don't work for you, really whatever other group of people you feel is useful to stereotype and build up public resentment against.

Public Option Hot Potato

Chris Bowers — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Yesterday, the national political media was reporting that Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid, would make the final call on merging the Senate HELP and Finance bills. Now, Senate Democrats have passed that hot potato to the White House:

Senior White House officials are scheduled to be in the room throughout negotiations to merge competing Senate health care bills from the Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committees, with the expectation that they will make key decisions to mediate disagreements. In advance of the floor action to follow, Obama and top administration officials have been lobbying Senate Democrats to secure support for a final package.

"The White House presence in the merger will be huge, and it has to be," a senior Democratic Senate aide said Monday. "President Obama will have to weigh in on the most difficult issues."...

Democratic sources say Obama is going to have to make the final call on the controversial issues, including whether to push for the public insurance option.

What is really remarkable about this story is how it shows dumping the public option is not something either the White House or the Democratic Senate leadership want responsibility for. This is because the public option is not only overwhelmingly popular among the Democratic base, but because many progressive grassroots organizations and members of Congress have made such a big campaign out of it. They are afraid of the base on this one, and don' want to be blamed if the public option goes down. So, expect this game of public option hot potato to continue.

Now, here at Open Left, we always knew that it would be the White House making the final call. The process and the Democratic Party pecking order meant the White House would hold final say. This is why we joined with CREDO Action to petition President Obama on the merger of the two Senate bills--a petition which now has over 80,000 signatures.

Public Option More Up To White House Than Harry Reid

Chris Bowers — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:52:35 GMT

The AP argues in an article today that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is largely responsible for merging the Senate HELP and Senate Finance committee health care bills into a single piece of legislation:

With the Senate Finance Committee on the verge of approving a sweeping health overhaul bill as early as Tuesday, the path might appear open for action by the full Senate.

Not so fast.

First the Finance Committee bill must be combined with a more liberal version that the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee wrapped up this summer. Such a merger is so rare that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has never attempted it on any piece of legislation - much less one as complex as President Barack Obama's top legislative priority.(...)

Reid must resolve all those issues and more over the next week or so to come up with a single bill to bring to the Senate floor.(...)

But many of the details are unresolved and it's Reid's job to decide.

Many of the details might be up to Reid to decide, but the public option is not one of them. The process for merging the two bills involves the chairmen of the two Senate committees, Harry Reid, and the White House. Given that Senate HELP chair Tom Harkin will be pushing in favor of a public option being sent to the floor, while Senate Finance chairman Max Baucus will be pushing against it, it will be the White House, not Harry Reid, who serves as the tiebreaking vote. Think about it:

On one hand, if the White House wants to send a public option to the floor, but Harry Reid does not, within the overall Democratic power structure Tom Harkin plays the White House exceeds Harry Reid plus Max Baucus.
On the other hand, if the White House does not want to send a public option to the floor but Harry Reid does, then Max Baucus plus the White House cancels out Harry Reid plus Tom Harkin.

In any 2-2 tie, the White House trumps Harry Reid. As such, it is heartening to see the White House pushing to include a public option in the merged bill:

Despite months of seeming ambivalence about creating a government health insurance plan, the Obama White House has launched an intensifying behind-the-scenes campaign to get divided Senate Democrats to take up some version of the idea in the weeks just ahead.

President Barack Obama has long advocated a so-called public option, while at the same time repeatedly expressing openness to other ways to offer consumers a potentially more affordable alternative to health plans sold by private insurers.

But now, senior administration officials are holding private meetings almost daily at the Capitol with senior Democratic staff to discuss ways to include a version of the public plan in the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to bring to the Senate floor later this month, according to senior Democratic congressional aides.

Good. If they succeed, and a public option is in the bill sent to the Senate floor, it will be a huge boost to the public option campaign. Getting 60 votes to overcome a filibuster of the entire bill is a lot easier than getting 60 votes to add a public option to the bill via Senate floor amendment. This is because even the Senate Conservadems are loathe to cross President Obama by filibustering health care reform, and Senator Schumer claims there are 54 to 56 votes for a public option in and of itself. Schumer's numbers seem a bit optimistic to me, but they are still hopeful.

Our petition to the White House urging that a public option be included in the bill sent to the Senate floor is up to 78,728 signatures. Can we get to 80,000? Add your voice today, telling the White House that we are watching the process closely and expect results. Trying is good, but succeeding is better.

Priorities

Paul Rosenberg — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:00:00 GMT

Expanding on a short post by digby, from a tip by reader Steve L, most of us probably heard--and rolled our eyes over--the announcement that Blackwater (AKA Xe) had its contract renewed by the Obama State Department:

Controversial Blackwater Security Firm Gets Iraq Contract Extended by State Dept
Company Banned From Operating by Iraqi Government Earlier This Year
By KIRIT RADIA
Sept. 1, 2009-
The State Department has extended a contract with controversial private security firm Blackwater, ABC News has learned. The contract was due to expire this month.
Sources say the department has agreed to temporarily continue using the subsidiary known as Presidential Airways to provide helicopter transport for embassy employees around Iraq until a new contract with another security company, Dyncorp International, is fully implemented. Presidential Airways is an arm of U.S. Training Center, which is a subsidiary of the company Xe, formerly and still commonly known as Blackwater....
The Blackwater contract's extension is for an indefinite period of time, but an official stressed it was "limited." The official said the State Department would like to complete the transition in "weeks or months."

Certainly by 2012. Or '13. Definitely by '13. Or '14.

Meanwhile, ACORN is being fired:

Census Bureau Cuts Its Ties With Acorn
By JAKE SHERMAN
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Census Bureau on Friday dropped Acorn as a partner for the 2010 Census after two separate hidden-camera videos captured four employees of the community organization giving tax advice on running a brothel to a man posing as an aspiring politician and a woman posing as his girlfriend and a prostitute.
The Census Bureau earlier this year signed up the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, one of the nation's largest community groups, as a national partner for the decennial census, a role that entails helping to publicize the importance of the count and encouraging people to participate.
In a letter to Acorn President Maude Hurd, Census Director Robert Groves said Acorn had become a distraction.

But not Blackwater. No distraction there. Dead Iraqis, maybe. But no distractions.

Violence is cool. Sex, not so much. Even if the violence is real, and the sex hypothetical.

More on Trust

Chris Bowers — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:54:03 GMT

Two days ago, I wrote that I did not trust the Obama administration when it comes to applying political pressure on conservative Democrats in order to pass some of the more progressive elements of the Democratic agenda. The specific examples I used were card-check and cramdown, on which I believe the administration offered token vocal support but did not take serious (or at least effective) efforts to advance.

In response, Matthew Yglesias wrote yesterday that I wasn't using common sense, which would show that the Obama administration is passing the most progressive legislation that is possible to pass:

For a bill to pass the House of Representatives, it needs a majority. According to DW-NOMINATE score, the median member of the House of Representatives is currently Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota. The median member of the United States Senate is Kay Hagan of North Carolina. The pivotal sixtieth Senator required to break a filibuster is Ben Nelson of Nebraska. All you need to believe in order to believe that Barack Obama is generally signing the most progressive bills that it's possible to pass is that the Obama administration is more left-wing than Representative Herseth and Senator Nelson.

That is a very nice generalization about the political situation, but it breaks down when you look at the specific fights I cited as my examples: card-check and cramdown. In particular, the card-check fight is case where the administration completely failed to apply necessary pressure to pass what was a very winnable fight.

In the 110th Congress, 52 Senators supported cramdown, eight away from passage. On June 26th, 2007, 51 Senators voted in favor of invoking cloture on a version of the Employee Free Choice Act that included card-check. One Senator, Tim Johnson, was supportive but too ill to attend the vote.
With 8 votes needed to reach 60 in the Senate, and with all major Democratic challengers for Senate stating their support for the Employee Free Choice Act with card-check, the target in 2008 was to net Democrats 8 Senate pickups. Rather than lacking common sense about the need for 60 votes, as Yglesias accuses me, I mentioned this target repeatedly during my 2008 Senate forecasts, as a running whip count on card check. In the end, Democrats netted exactly 8 seats--enough for passage.
During 2009, under the Obama administration's watch, six Democratic Senators caved to pressure from business groups and flipped their positions on card-check. So, we had the votes, and then lost them as business groups (with an apporval rating of about 10%) apparently applied more effective pressure than the Obama administration (which, at the time, had approval ratings in the mid-60% range).
A couple of months after card-check had been defeated, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was quoted calling pressure from progressive groups against conservative Democrats, including labor, "f*cking stupid."

To recap: we had 60 votes for card-check, we lost six of those votes under the Obama administration's watch, and then the White House chief of Staff called attempts to apply political pressure on wayward Democrats "f*cking stupid."

So please, tell me again why I should believe the Obama administration is doing everything it can to pass things like card-check, and how I lack common sense about how 60 votes are needed to pass the Senate. We had the votes, the votes were lost under the Obama administration, and then the Obama administration protected the Democrats who defected.

More in the extended entry.
As far as cramdown goes, there was never any direct polling on the matter due to its relative obscurity. However, the poll with the closest wording, taken not long before cramdown was defeated, showed overwhelming support:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Feb. 18-22, 2009. N=1,112 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"The Obama administration has a plan to help homeowners refinance their mortgages, avoid foreclosure, and make more credit available for mortgages. Do you think the federal government should provide this financial help to homeowners, or shouldn't the federal government do this, or don't you know enough yet to say?"

Should: 61%
Should not: 20%
Don't Know Enough: 14%
Help only some: 3% (voluntary answer)
Unsure: 2%

Through a generalization, Yglesias argues that voting in favor of cramdown was politically dangerous for conservative Democrats due to their conservative constituencies. As such, he implies there was no possible political pressure the Obama administration could have applied to these Senators that would have resulted in the passage of cramdown.

However, there is no evidence at all that cramdown was either unpopular or even understood by the constituents in any district. What little polling there was indicates it actually would have been extremely popular. Further, the long-time champion of cramdown in the House is Representative Brad Miller, who is from a lean-Democratic district in North Carolina (PVI D+5) and who first won his seat in 2002, which was a very good election for Republicans.

It is also important to remember exactly what political pressure the Obama administration applied to on conservative and moderate Democrats on cramdown. One week after the House fight on cramdown, where the New Dems had successfully watered down the bill, President Obama met with the New Dems and said the following:

President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats on Tuesday afternoon, he offered a statement of solidarity.

"I am a New Democrat," he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.

With cramdown pressure like this, it is no wonder that the lobbies for financial institutions were able to exert more influence on conservative and moderate Democrats than the Obama administration.

There is just no evidence that this is a politically toxic position that would put any member of Congress in trouble with his or her constituents. There also isn't any evidence that the Obama administration tried to apply pressure on conservative Democrats during this fight. So instead, I will go with Senator Durbin's famous explanation for the defeat of cramdown in the Senate:

And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.

Maybe there weren't 60 votes to be had in the Senate under any circumstances. Still, it is important to remember that the reason for that has nothing to do with the conservative constituencies some Senators represent. Rather, it is because the lobbies of financial institutions appear both more willing and able to influence certain conservative Democratic Senators more than are the Obama administration or Democratic leadership. That these decisions by conservative Democrats are more often based on fear of powerful financial interests than the conservative nature of the constituencies involved is common sense Yglesias should have about the political process.

Stuff I Don't Trust

Chris Bowers — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:58:11 GMT

"Trust" is a nebulous, subjective, qualitative and irrational concept. As such, it usually isn't granted a "serious" place in political discussions by "serious" people. This even goes for the more "serious" people in our little progressive media world. For example, policy analysts, such as Ezra Klein, or quantitative analysts, such as Nate Silver, would probably be extremely reluctant to include "trust" in their latest analysis of the Baucus health care plan, or the effectiveness of the ACES climate change legislation.

Nonetheless, trust plays a large role in all aspects of political action. The degree to which an individual trusts a party, a policy, an individual politician will heavily influence that individual's interpretations of the efficacy of and / or willingness to support, that party, policy or individual. As such, for no real other purpose but to provide disclosure on my general orientation to the ongoing health care fight, here is a long list of how much I trust the different players and aspects of the debate. Mainly, it is a long list of why I don't really trust anyone involved.

More in the extended entry.
Who I don't trust and why:

Although it might go without saying, I trust virtually none of the Republicans or conservative Democrats in Congress to be good faith actors. Over the past forty years, it seems to me that these groups have consistently passed legislation that has led to the overwhelming majority of economic growth in this country ending up in the hands of the top 5% of income earners. While they claim to be bi-partisan and common sense, in practice they only perpetuate an economic, political and media system that is primarily responsive to powerful, status-quo institutions. I will continue to not trust them--and their calls for common sense, bi-partisan solutions--until the majority of them support legislation that actually changes the direction of the flow of wealth in this country, and enforce regulations in a way that does not disproportionately benefit powerful people and institutions.
I don't really trust the Progressive Block to hold firm. I want to believe them, because I think they really do want government to be responsive to more than just powerful, status-quo institutions and individuals. However, their past defeats leave me wary. Many in the same members of Congress who are in the current Progressive Block folded on the second vote for the Wall Street bailout, and also on attaching IMF funding to the Afghanistan supplemental. They seem to have folded simply because they were asked to do so by either candidate or President Obama, and because they were given the meager of legislative concessions in return.

Is there any reason to believe this won't just happen again? The regular indications that the Block is simply a bluff don't give me a lot of confidence. I suppose I won't believe them until they actually score a major legislative victory by holding firm.
I don't trust the Obama administration, either. I never really have trusted them, and this has been a major cause of friction I have had with many bloggers and commenters since the end of the election. Given that we are still early on in the Obama administration, the difference between progressive bloggers who are largely critical, and those who are largely supportive, of the Obama administration primarily comes down to this issue of trust.

If you are a progressive and trust President Obama, then appointing a huge number of pro-industry and pro-Blue Dog moderates to key administration positions (Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers being the most prominent cases) is actually a means of symbolically placating powerful institutions while still advancing progressive goals behind the scenes. However, if you don't trust the administration, then this is simply continuing to make sure that the government remains primarily responsive to powerful, status quo institutions and individuals.

If you are a progressive and trust President Obama, then when things like cramdown and card check get defeated, or when the stimulus and climate change bill are weakened, it was because that was the best anyone could be done in our current political environment. However, if you are me, then it seems like these defeats could have been avoided, or at least lessened, if the administration had offered more than token, verbal support. The administration's unwillingness to take on powerful, status-quo institutions comes off as satisfaction with those powerful, status-quo institutions. This is especially the case when they heavily pressure Progressives to fold on things like the Wall Street bailout or IMF funding, but offer no comparable pressure to conservative Democrats who seek to block the most progressives aspects of their proposed policy (and in fact privately admonish progressive groups who independently go after those conservative Democrats.)

I will probably trust the Obama administration a lot more when a major piece of legislation is passed into law against the overwhelming objections of the major industry that is affected by that legislation. This simply hasn't happened yet.
I don't trust a regulatory approach. Regulations require effective enforcement. If the people in charge of enforcing the regulations answer to elected officials who wish to maintain the favor of large industries, then it is hard for me to imagine that the regulators will take effective, punitive action against those industries when regulations are violated. Anytime I am told that new regulations are being put in place to make sure that Wall Street / defense contractors / secret wiretappers / private health insurance companies aren't going to keep screwing us, I try to remember a recent time when said regulations actually kept them from screwing us. And I can't remember one.
I certainly don't trust the latest partial statement by Democratic leaders. Whenever there are online discussions trying to determine if the fight if going positively or negatively based on a couple of sentences by Senator Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, President Obama or press secretary Robert Gibbs in an interview or press conference, usually I just roll my eyes.

These statements are invariably vague in an attempt to appeal to multiple constituencies simultaneously, to prevent contradicting oneself later on, and in order to provide negotiating "wiggle room." The frequency with which these statements are contradictory with one another (see Hoyer versus Pelosi), contradictory internally (see Harry Reid supporting a public option that isn't accountable to Congress), or simply retracted / qualified the next day doesn't help either.

We keep looking for singular meanings in statements that are intentionally vague, manipulative, and designed to cover the ass of the person making the statement. As such, there simply is no such fixed meaning in these statements. To me, it feels like we are just being played.

The bottom line is that I will trust these players or approaches to reform only if and when they actually deliver reform that is primarily responsive to the needs of the majority of the country rather than to the wealthiest income earners, to the heads of the most powerful industries, and to the purveyors of status-quo conventional wisdom. A victory like that hasn't happened in a long, long time.

I would love for that to change, and will keep working to help it change. But it actually happens, I simply don't believe that things like Baucus-care or the current version of the ACES will actually improve the status-quo. And perhaps my sense of distrust isn't as detailed as the policy analysis of some bloggers who think the ACES of Baucus-care will actually improve the status-quo, but I freely admit I can't get past my distrust it anyway.

Not About Whether Obama Supports the Public Option

Chris Bowers — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:00:00 GMT

There is an argument taking place right now in the progressive blogosphere about whether or not President Obama supports a public insurance option in health care reform. There are two quick responses to this fight:

In the theoretical abstract, of course President Obama supports a public option. He said so on the campaign trail. White House spokespeople reiterated that support yesterday. Inside sources I have tell me that President Obama has told them personally that he supports a public option. And I'm not the only one. So yes, every indication is that President Obama supports a public option.
The goal isn't to have a President who agrees with the concept of a public option. Rather, the goal is to actually have a robust public option that is available to all Americans. Some people might be confusing these two ideas. Personally, I think this is because some people in progressive media are more interested in engaging the long running "Obama is a progressive versus Obama hurting progressives" argument, rather than actually achieving legislative results. I don't know how large either group actually is, and even combined they are certainly not a majority of the progressive blogosphere community, but both groups are more interested in winning that argument than actually achieving legislative results.

We are at an impasse where, due to a Progressive Block in the House, health care reform legislation cannot pass that chamber without a robust public option. In the Senate, it appears that no bill with a robust public option can reach 60 votes. As such, whether or President Obama supports the concept of the public option is not the important point. Rather, the important point is whether the Obama administration, in order to achieve a health care bill, is more willing and able to pressure the Progressive Block in the House or the Conservadem Block in the Senate.

In this light, I don't actually blame the Obama administration and elite Democratic surrogates from starting to apply more pressure to the Progressive Block in the House. From the bailout, to the housing bill, to the stimulus, to the climate change bill, Progressives have consistently proven more willing to fold than Blue Dogs and / or Conservadems. Given this, the White House is simply pressuring what recent history has shown to be the more easily pressured group when it needs to pass legislation. Past collapses have made the Progressive Block on health care less credible, and so pressuring Progs is the obvious play.

Well, we have to change this dynamic once and for all. It needs to be made clear that Blue Dogs / Conservadems are just as, if not more likely, to fold than Progressives. Otherwise, not only will be lose meaningful health care reform, but we will lose pretty much all legislative fights down the road.

So, it is up to us is making sure that the House Progressive Block turns out to be stronger than the Senate Conservadem Block. That is the only way we are going to win this, not with arguments about what the White House supports or does not support in the abstract. As such, get on the phone and thank as many of the members of the Progressive Block as you can for standing firm. Make sure that the easier play for the White House is to push Senate Conservadems to fold. That is the only way we are going to win this.

Group Targeting Dems Tells Groups To Stop Targeting Dems

Chris Bowers — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:35:02 GMT

The White House apparently doesn't like progressive groups spending resources against Democratic members of Congress on health care. This is pretty confusing, given that President Obama's political operation appears to be doing exactly the same thing.

Like most people reading this blog, today I received a message from Organizing for America urging me to call my Representative:

Your representative, Chaka Fattah, has been fighting hard for real health insurance reform. Can you call the local office in Philadelphia? Let the person who answers know that you're a constituent. Then tell them: "Thanks for working to enact real health insurance reform this year. Voters like me support your efforts."

This is a direct call to contact Democratic members of Congress. About the only difference I can tell between this call to action and the calls to action from other progressive groups is that it urges me to be nice to Representative Fattah. However, yesterday OFA urged me to visit Senator Specter's office, and left it open as to whether or not I should be nice and thank him (emphasis mine):

Click below to sign up for an Office Visit for Health Reform:
http://my.barackobama.com/OfficeVisit

Wherever you live, these visits matter: Many representatives are pushing hard toward reform, and they are taking a lot of heat from special interests. They deserve our thanks and need our support to continue the fight. But those who are still putting insurance companies and partisan point-scoring ahead of their constituents must know that voters are watching -- and that we expect better.

So, OFA is not only urging me to contact Democratic members of Congress, but it leaving it open-ended as to whether or not I should thank them or telling them I expect more. Given that they explicitly told me to thank Representative Fattah, I wonder if there is an implied subtext here.

It is also curious that the email from Sunday specifically urged me to contact Senator Specter, rather than Senator Casey. While it is possible this was purely random, and some Pennsylvania members of OFA were asked to contact Senator Casey, it is also possible that OFA is specifically targeting Specter because he is viewed as a more difficult swing vote than Senator Casey.

Exactly how OFA's activities differ from other groups spending liberal dollars to target Democratic Senators on health care reform is a pretty fine line. Like other progressive organizations, OFA is running ads in Democratic districts. Like other progressive organizations, OFA is urging their volunteers to contact specific Democrats. Like other progressive organizations, OFA is telling its volunteers to thank some members of Congress, and tell other members of Congress to do more. The only difference is that OFA isn't always making it clear which members of Congress need to be thanked, and which members of Congress need to be told to do more.

It is hard to even classify this as a meaningful difference, given that it would be politically dangerous for the White House to specifically say which Democrats need to be told to do more. Such specific targeting of Democrats from OFA would reveal more about the ongoing negotiations than the White House would like, and would also create a process story about the White House specifically targeting one or more Democratic members of Congress. Leaving it open-ended is as far as OFA can go without causing problems for the Obama administration.

I guess the bottom line from the White House it that is pretty f*cking stupid for progressive groups to be spending resources against fellow Democrats, unless those groups leave it open-ended as to whether those ads are meant to pressure or thank the Democrat in question. Because that is a huge difference.

It Is What Dems Are Forced To Do, Not What They Say, That Matters

Chris Bowers — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:04:58 GMT

Over the past few days, the progressive blogosphere has engaged itself in yet another pie fight over whether or not President Obama is teh awesome or teh suck. This particular fight arose from comments President Obama allegedly made about how progressive groups should supposedly stop attacking conservative Democrats:

President Obama, strategizing yesterday with congressional leaders about health-care reform, complained that liberal advocacy groups ought to drop their attacks on Democratic lawmakers and devote their energy to promoting passage of comprehensive legislation.

On the one hand, many bloggers are taking this to mean that President Obama is a corporate lackey siding with the conservative Democrats and that he wants his activists to be silent on health care reform. On the other hand, many bloggers are taking this as yet another brilliant move of Deep Blue-esque, ten-dimensional chess from the administration that is beyond the comprehension of mere "humans." Or, having been involved in about 6,744 of these arguments myself, at least I assume many bloggers are espousing those competing views.

Look people--whoever you are as I am being admittedly vague--it doesn't matter what President Obama says about process matters like this. No superior, competing reading of what President Obama allegedly said is actually going to result in more pressure on conservative Democrats. Success in key legislative fights like health care will be dependent upon our ability to put the Democratic leadership in a position where progressives give them no other choice but to pressure conservative Democrats to accede to popular, progressive demands. If we accomplish that, then whether or not President Obama is teh suck or teh awesome will not matter.

More in the extended entry.
For example, back in 2007, when asked about Fire Dog Lake and Open Left pushing against Bush Dogs, DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen said pretty much the same thing that President Obama supposedly said:

"Would you put a bit of money and effort to go after these wayward Democrats?" writes blogger Matt Stoller on Open Left. "We can't replace all of them with progressive Democrats, but we can certainly annoy at least a few of them and raise the costs for voting against the Constitution."
That would be liking shooting themselves in the foot, U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told us recently when asked about such groups upset with lawmakers like Carney.

So the Democratic congressional leadership doesn't like progressive activists and organizations attacking conservative Democrats. BFD. Here is the Democratic leadership in response to the Progressive Block strategy:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Huffington Post Thursday that a health care overhaul that did not include a public option wouldn't make it through the House because it "wouldn't have the votes."(...)
Asked by HuffPost if she would allow a reform package without a public option out of the House, she responded: "It's not a question of allow. It wouldn't have the votes."

The House Democratic leadership apparently didn't like our attacks on conservative Democrats, either. However, they are still going to have no choice but put pressure on conservative Democrats anyway. Otherwise, they won't get a health care reform bill, and that is politically untenable for them.

Bottom line: it doesn't matter what the Democratic leadership in Congress or the White House says about our attacks on conservative Democrats. If we hold a Progressive Block on something they dearly value, then they have no other choice but to put pressure on conservative Democrats. So, stop worrying about, and / or arguing about, what the leadership says. Join the effort to build the Progressive Block instead.

Congress Is Relevant Again

Chris Bowers — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Whether he was simply offering advice, or whether he was channeling strategy conversations he had with Obama administration staffers, back on Tuesday Ezra Klein certainly described the apparent legislative strategy of the Obama administration for 2009:

For now, the White House should have as little to do as possible with the various legislative products. Let the committees absorb the blows of the bad weeks. Let the early coalitions present themselves. Let the Republicans show their strategy in the mark-up sessions. Let the CBO score all the different options. Let the legislature familiarize itself with different revenue options. Wait. Wait and wait and wait. Wait until Congress has pushed this as far upfield as it's able.

Then open up the White House. Then have Obama on TV. Then have Rahm on the phone with legislators. Then take Olympia Snowe for a ride on Marine One. The White House can exert explosive force on a piece of legislation, but it can only do so effectively for a short period of time.

The White House has made no early legislative pushes for really anything this year. On the stimulus, negotiations were largely left to a gang of Senators Congress. As EFCA and cramdown went down to defeat, the White House didn't do or say much of anything. On climate change, the White House stayed pretty quiet until the deals were already made, and the votes were all but secured. On health care, they appear to once again be largely staying out of it. Even back in October, before Obama was President, he was instrumental in the final push to pass the Wall Street bailout, but played no real role until it was first defeated in the House.

Outside of the budget and the bailout, the Obama administration simply does not appear to be adopting a significant role in crafting legislation. Unlike the Bush administration, it has decided to leave that to Congress. The end result is that Congress is now relevant again. In fact, it seems entirely reasonable to state that Congress is now more relevant than the White House.

For those looking for a strong hand to help guide progressive legislation, this might be seen as a bad thing. Surely, Obama's assistance on cramdown and EFCA would have been particularly desirable. However, overall I think it is a net positive. For one thing, I don't think the Obama administration is particularly progressive. For another, far too much power had been accumulated in the "unitary executive." Congress, especially the House, should be the most powerful branch of government. With more regular elections, equal representation, and smaller districts, it is by far the most democratic institution in the federal government. (It is not a coincidence that it is also the most progressive.)

So, I'm glad that Congress is relevant again. I wish there was some way to legally codify its newfound relevance, and to make sure that we never return to the unitary executive.

A New Path To Progressive Power

Chris Bowers — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:38:07 GMT

Given Representative Lynn Woolsey's claims about the White House playing extreme hardball with freshman progressives over the Afghanistan supplemental, it is important to note that her claims are, in all likelihood, exaggerated. The White House is applying pressure, but it probably isn't in the cartoonish form of "vote with us on this or you are dead to us forever." It is extremely rare for such a threat to ever be made in D.C. politics. Further, it is unlikely that consensus seeking President Obama or freshman Democrat defending Rahm Emanuel would make such a threat. Pretty much across the board, threats like those just don't fit the profile of the technocratic and cautious figures that compose much of the Democratic leadership. Karl rove might make such a threat, but even he probably wouldn't do it very often.

However, it is also likely that new progressive tactics--specifically, joining with Republicans to block and / or alter Democratic legislation--are frustrating the Democratic leadership. It is a lesson Progressives have learned from Blue Dogs. Over the past few years, Blue Dogs have demonstrated an ability to wield influence through constant threats, and some actual instances of, joining with Republicans to block Democratic legislation. While the tactic has long proven to be effective no matter what faction of the Democratic Party does it, until recently there hadn't been a Progressive--Conservative alliance for, according to Dennis Kucinich, almost ten years (more in the extended entry):

The GOP is also objecting to the inclusion of IMF money in the war bill. Kucinich recalled that the last time progressive Democrats joined with Republicans to defeat a Democratic agenda item came in 1999, when 26 Democrats sided with Republicans to block President Clinton's continuing bombing of Serbia.

"Republicans had their own agenda," recalled Kucinich.

Further, the Afghanistan-IMF funding bill is not the only area where Progressives have managed to increase their clout by joining with Republicans. Ron Paul's legislation to audit the Federal Reserve now has 223 co-sponsors in the House, enough for passage. About one-quarter of the co-sponsors are Democrats, and most of them are Progressives. Alan Grayson helped whip on this bill, for example.

No matter what pressure the White House is or is not applying, Progressives haven't done themselves any favors over the past ten years by pretty much always bowing to leadership pressure. The progressive caucus has the most consistently loyal voting habits to the leadership of all ideological caucuses, but unfortunately that loyalty has not yielded much in the way of progressive legislation or influence for the past decade. Progressives could have, for example, used this coalition to force significant alterations to the Wall Street bailout. Instead, Progressives caved to leadership pressure at a rate far exceeding that of other Democrats, and a virtual blank check ended up passing through Congress.

A new coalition is forming, and it has a real chance to pass a lot of legislation. Further, it also has the potential to significantly increase the influence of Progressives within the House. The lesson is clear: Progressives will be pressured if they go up against the Democratic leadership, but with that pressure comes the potential for influence.

Please Play Hardball with Blue Dogs, Too

Chris Bowers — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:55:56 GMT

According to Representative Lynn Woolsey, the White House is applying extensive pressure to freshman progressives who oppose either funding for Afghanistan or the funding for the IMF attached the Afghanistan supplemental funding bill.

The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won't get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday.

"We're not going to help you. You'll never hear from us again," Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen. She wouldn't say who is issuing the threats, and the White House didn't immediately return a call. Woolsey said she herself had not been pressured because the White House and leadership know she's a firm no vote. But she had heard from other members about the White House pressure.

I don't think that progressives should rail against the White House applying this extreme level of pressure in the event of the supplemental bill. Really, if you fight against the White House, you should expect serious pushback from the White House.

However, what we should be demanding is an equivalent level of pressure to be placed on conservative Democrats when they cross the White House as well. What Progressives are doing in this instance is exactly what many conservative Democrats have done time and time again: holding up and / or significantly altering Democratic legislation by joining with Republicans. So far, despite many instances of conservative Democratic blocking legislation that the White House publicly endorsed, nothing approaching equivalent pressure has been demonstrated. It is almost enough to make a progressive think that the White House is taking sides in the party.

More in the extended entry.
Compared to the one example of progressives blcking the administration on the Afghanistan supplemental, here are five examples in 2009 of conservative Democrats either defeating, watering down, or holding up Obama administration supported policy:

Passage of the full Employee Free Choice Act was prevented earlier this year by six conservative Democrats who flipped their votes from 2007. What pressure has the White House placed on Tom Carper (DE), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Arlen Sepcter (PA), Jim Webb (VA) in response?
A gang of twenty or so Senators reduced he stimulus / jobs package by $96 billion. What pressure was placed on the roughly one dozen Democratic members of that gang?
Bankruptcy foreclosure reform, known as "cramdown," was defeated in the Senate back in late April. Eleven Democratic Senators voted against it. What pressure have they received?
The House Agricultural Committee is currently holding up climate change legislation, and demanding a $3.4 billion payout to agribusiness in order to pass it. This is even though that legislation has already been watered down below the targets set by President Obama during his campaign. Many of the Democrats on this committee are electorally vulnerable, and thus potentially susceptible to pressure from the White House. What pressure are they receiving?
The White House has repeatedly reiterated its support for a public option in health care reform. However, Kent Conrad has all but declared that effort dead in the Senate because it lacks the votes. Where is the pressure against Democrats like Mary Landrieu, who have backtracked their earlier support and now stated their opposition to a public plan?

It is difficult to complain about this, or any other, White House playing hardball with members of Congress that oppose their agenda.

However, there is a good reason for progressives to complain about a Democratic White House placing a huge amount of pressure on progressive Democrats in Congress when the White House does not seem to be applying anywhere near the same amount of pressure on conservative Democrats in Congress. This is especially the case given how this is the first time congressional progressives have made such a stand against the Obama administration's agenda, while conservative Democrats have done so repeatedly over the last five months.

Lacking equivalent pressure against Blue Dogs and Senate conservodems, the message from the Obama White House could easily be read as siding with Blue Dogs and Senate conservodems. If the Obama White House wants to avoid this perception, it should start applying equal pressure to all Democrats who oppose one or more of their major agenda items.

How Will Unemployment Figures Affect Obama's Approval Rating?

Chris Bowers — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:24:11 GMT

Even as unemployment continues to rise, President Obama's approval rating remains high. This is largely due to the Bush administration and Republicans still receiving most of the blame for current economic conditions, rather than Democrats and the Obama administration. However, if history is any indication, and if current forecasts of continued job loss throughout 2009 followed by a recovery in the second half of 2010 are accurate, we can expect President Obama's approval rating to drop substantially between now and mid-2010, followed by a long, slow recovery afterward.

The best historical analogy for the current political and economic situation is the first three years of Ronald Reagan's presidency. In the early 1980's, a new President, who had won by a wide margin and brought a new party into the White House, also experienced an extreme economic downturn. In fact, the economic downturn of the early 1980's is the only one statistically comparable to our current situation. Since 1948, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics starting keeping records, the only previous months when unemployment was either equal to, or greater than, current levels was a 15 month stretch from May 1982 to July 1983. At the time, the U3 unemployment rate peaked at 10.8% in November and December of 1982, a number that is likely to be equaled by the end of 2009. So, what happened to Reagan is a good point of comparison on what to expect with Obama's approval.

In early June of 1981, Ronald Reagan had an approval rating similar to Barack Obama's current approval. For the first four and a half months of his Presidency, Reagan's average net job approval was +40.86%, very close to Obama's current average of +37.44% (all numbers from Gallup). When job losses began a steady, upward rise in September of 1981, Regan's disapproval also began to rise:

Reagan Disapproval, August 1981-February 1984

National U3 Unemployment Rate, 1981-1984

There was a strong connection between Reagan's rising dispproval rate, and between the rising unemployment rate. Reagan's peak disapproval rate of 56% occurred in January of 1983, just after the November and December peak in unemployment at 10.8%. From that point on, Reagan's disapproval began to drop at roughly the same, slow rate as unemployment dropped. By early 1984, his disapproval had returned to its September 1981 levels, and pretty much stayed there for a long time.

The lesson in these numbers is that Obama's disapproval rating will probably continue to rise during 2009, as unemployment continues to rise and as more time passes from the Bush administration. However, it will not be necessary for unemployment to return to pre-recession levels in order for Obama's disapproval rating to start dropping. Rather, it appears that all Obama will need to affect a positive change in his approval rating will be a drop in unemployment from its peak levels. And, as long as the drop continues, Obama's disapproval rating should continue to drop as well.

As such, if job creation really does start in the second half of 2010, say in July of 2010, it should be a boon to Democratic fortunes in the midterm elections. While Republicans lost 27 House seats in the 1982 mid-term elections, which took place just before peak unemployment, the 2010 midterm election should take place just as the economy is starting to experience job growth. Ideally for Democrats, unemployment would start to decline by February of 2010, which would provide enough time before the elections to recoup whatever losses they would suffer between now and peak unemployment. However, few economists seem to be predicting such an early unemployment peak, so that is a longshot.

After 2010, as long as job growth continues, it is likely that President Obama will have a consistently high approval rating through most of 2011. However, when the stimulus spending runs out near the end of 2011, the loss of that spending in the economy might cause a renewed drop in employment, and thus re-election trouble for Obama in 2012. As such, after a successful 2010 midterm, Democrats should strongly consider either a smaller, second stimulus package, or a modest long-term increase in government spending. Politically speaking, the last thing they need is for employment to peak in late 2011 when no elections are being held...

...and yes, I can see how this analysis appears more concerned with the politics of the economy than with the actual economy. I don't mean to imply that the politics are all we should be concerned wiith. I am just trying to stick to my strengths as a writer, and I am more of a political analyst than an economic one.

Are We Going To Be In Afghanistan Forever?

Chris Bowers — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:45:36 GMT

In President Obama's big speech today, he offered up the following rationale for continued American military presence in Afghanistan (hat-tip: David Mizner in Quick Hits):

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

If we are keeping troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan until there are no violent extremists bent on killing Americans, then it is highly likely that we will be keeping a large military presence in the region during the entirety of President Obama's administration. And probably beyond then, too.

Are we really going to root out every last Afghani and Pakistani who wants to kill Americans? The refugee crisis in Pakistan has now displaced over two million people, and the American drone attacks in the region are part of cause. Further, thousands of Afghani civilians have been killed during the war, and it seems unlikely that none of the survivors will become violent extremists determined to kill Americans.

Even if the goal is not to root out all violent extremists, but rather to keep a military presence until such time as local governments can deal with the threat themselves, then we have probably committed ourselves to an operation that will last another decade or more. I find that extremely unsettling, to say the least.

There just doesn't appear to be any exit strategy for Afghanistan, at all. Public opinion still favors a continued American military presence in Afghanistan, but it isn't the overwhelming majority it once was. Also, it is difficult to project if public opinion will hold up during such a long-term commitment. It might, but I wouldn't put money on it. At some point, the majority of the American people will probably want to start reducing our military presence in the region. This could become a major flashpoint for the Obama administration in the years ahead.