Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 2, 2010

THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Just a reminder, the Monthly's annual pledge drive is underway. We sincerely appreciate those of you who've already shown generous support, and hope other readers will take a moment to help out.

* After an unexpectedly good week last week on Americans filing for their first week of unemployment benefits, this week's numbers went up 26,000 to 436,000, a little worse than expected.

* On the other hand, November retail sales "blew by analyst estimates, posting one of the biggest increases in three years.... Sales at stores open at least a year -- a crucial indicator known as same-store sales -- rose an average of 6 percent, according to Thomson Reuters, well above the 2.6 percent that analysts had expected. That was the biggest increase since 2007 except for a 9.2 percent rise in March of this year."

* A child nutrition bill championed by First Lady Michelle Obama won House approval today, and is on its way to the White House for the president's signature.

* Five former Republican Secretaries of State wrote an op-ed today, urging Senate Republicans to do the right thing and ratify New START. Note, the retired officials agree that President Obama has already provided "reasonable answers" to skeptics' questions.

* As I type, the House is considering whether to pass a censure resolution condemning Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) for his ethics transgressions.

* Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) gets away with it: "Justice Department prosecutors have cleared Senator John Ensign of criminal allegations arising from his affair with a former campaign aide and his efforts to secure lobbying work for the woman's husband, the senator's lawyers announced Wednesday."

* When I describe Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) as a racist, I mean it.

* Undermining the Truth in Lending Act really isn't a good idea.

* In case recent developments on the Hill haven't depressed you quite enough, funding for embryonic stem cell research is also in trouble.

* Juan Williams thinks unemployment benefits hurts those without jobs. Remember, Fox News considers him a liberal.

* On this, David Brooks is absolutely right: "[M]y problem with the Republican Party right now, including Paul, is that if you offered them 80-20, they say no. If you offered them 90-10, they'd say no. If you offered them 99-1, they'd say no. And that's because we've substituted governance for brokerism, for rigidity that Ronald Regan didn't have. And to me, this rigidity comes from this polarizing world view that 'they're a bunch of socialists over there.'"

* The far-right continues to lash out at public employees. AFSCME has a very compelling response to the criticism.

* How odd: "Maryland actually has the only collegiate-level competitive eating group in the United States."

* It's possible that Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) doesn't know what "empirical" means.

* This looks like a fairly significant breakthrough: "NASA's secret is finally out: Researchers say they've forced microbes from a gnarly California lake to become arsenic-gobbling aliens. It may not be as thrilling as discovering life on Titan, but the claim is so radical that some chemists aren't yet ready to believe it. If the claim holds up, it would lend weight to the idea that life as we know it isn't the only way life could develop."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

Bookmark and Share

HOUSE DEMOCRATS APPROVE MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUT.... It took some awkward maneuvering, but House Democrats voted today to approve the tax-cut plan they've wanted all along.

The House on Thursday passed a permanent extension of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class. Democratic leaders are pointing to the vote as an example of their party's efforts to help working Americans before Republicans take control of the chamber in January.

The bill, which would extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts on income less than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families, passed 234-188, with the backing of three Republicans and all but 20 Democrats.

The Republicans who opposed the bill were Reps. Walter Jones Jr. (N.C.), Ron Paul (Texas) and John Duncan (Tenn.). Several Democrats who hail from wealthier districts as well as a number of Democrats who lost on Nov. 2 were among the defectors.

Some of those Blue Dogs who voted with Republicans already lost their re-election bids. They could have voted for the middle-class-first policy, but bucked their party anyway.

Regardless, it's heartening to see the House do the right thing, even if everyone seems to fully realize that this proposal won't pass the Senate. If the upper chamber still operated on majority rule -- the way it used to work; the way it was designed to work -- the debate would be incredibly easy. But since the Dems' popular and reasonable tax-plan compromise can't overcome a Republican filibuster, the tactical maneuvering will continue.

Regardless, there are now 168 House Republicans on the record on this issue -- they were willing to kill breaks for the middle class because it wasn't generous enough to the wealthiest people in the country.

What's less heartening is the bizarre and arguably inexcusable error of timing. House Dems could have held this vote in September, positioning the party as champions of the middle class, and putting Republicans in an awkward spot shortly before the midterm elections. For reasons I still can't understand, they chose not to.

So, what happens now? Pretty much everyone on the Hill seems to expect some sort of deal that allows a temporary extension of all Bush-era rates. The question remains as to what Dems can/will get in exchange.

Update: Here's the roll call, if you're interested. The more Dems try to hit the airwaves tonight, declaring, accurately, that 98% of the Republicans in the House tried to kill tax cuts for the middle class -- becuase the cuts weren't generous enough to the rich -- the better off they'll be.

Steve Benen 4:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

Bookmark and Share

IF THEY WERE LOOKING FOR COVER, THEY FOUND IT.... Proponents of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" have been looking to this week as the last, best chance to convince the Senate to do the right thing. The combination of the Pentagon's report on servicemembers' attitudes and a high-profile hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee would, if all went well, give Democrats the boost they need to finish their work.

So far, repeal advocates have reason to be pleased. The Pentagon's report was arguably even more encouraging than expected, and today's hearing, featuring testimony from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, and the co-chairmen of the Pentagon's Working Group who prepared the study, answered every possible objection. Every Republican rationale was raised, considered, and debunked.

If you missed the hearing, which will have a second day tomorrow, Igor Volsky did a great job compressing hours of exchanges into this six-minute clip.

But a point Greg Sargent raised seemed especially important: "Military leaders essentially pleaded with GOP Senators to support repealing DADT, arguing that the failure to do so would put the state of our military at serious risk. In his testimony this morning, Defense Secretary Robert Gates put this as clearly as you could ask for."

For Republicans open to even the slightest bit of reason, this should offer them all the cover they need. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense -- both of whom were appointed by a conservative Republican president, incidentally -- said approving the pending repeal provision is what's best for the U.S. military. Period. Full stop.

We already know that, for the clear majority of Senate Republicans, this is irrelevant. Just a few years after it was deemed outrageous and unpatriotic for elected politicians to ignore the judgment of our military leaders during a time of war, the GOP Senate caucus will no doubt try to kill DADT repeal anyway, because, well, they and their base really don't like gay people. That these gay people are willing to volunteer to put their lives on the line for the rest of us is apparently irrelevant.

But repeal proponents don't need all the Senate Republicans; they need a handful of Senate Republicans. Going into today, there were in upwards of five GOP members who were at least open to doing the right thing.

If they were paying attention today, looking for reassurance, the course ahead should be obvious.

Steve Benen 3:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

Bookmark and Share

THE FIGHT ON UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ISN'T OVER YET.... The deadline came and went on extended unemployment benefits, leaving millions of jobless Americans to go without much-needed aid, even in a struggling economy with high unemployment. A last-gasp effort in the Senate was killed Tuesday night by Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.).

But the issue hasn't completely gone away, and the White House is still hoping to see action on extended benefits.

In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Austan Goolsbee and council member Cecilia Rouse urged Congress to extend unemployment insurance benefits for millions of Americans who are out of work, citing a new report that argues not doing so would have dire consequences for the U.S. economy.

The council's report, which details how a failure to extend the aid would affect people on a state-by-state level, says nearly seven million Americans could lose coverage by the end of next year and that 600,000 jobs are at stake. Goolsbee contended the gross domestic product would be six-tenths of a percent point lower in December of next year if the benefits are not extended, slowing the nation's recovery from the worst recession since the Great Depression.

According to an earlier report by the National Employment Law Project, some two million workers nationally could lose benefits in December if they are not extended, an estimate the CEA also uses. The U.S. Joint Economic Committee estimates failure to extend the benefits program "would drain the economy of $80 billion in purchasing power and result in the loss of over one million jobs over the next year."

"The data is quite clear from many outside sources that people on unemployment insurance, when they lose the unemployment insurance, there's a very significant drop off in the amount of consumption spending that they do," Goolsbee said. "If you're going to have millions of people just before the holidays losing their benefits and then multiple millions in the months that follow losing their benefits, the impact on consumer spending is significant."

The report, including state-by-state numbers, is online here (pdf).

I certainly agree with the CEA's sentiment here, and can only dream of Congress doing the right thing, but taking a step back, I'm encouraged by the fact that this is still the subject of discussion at all. My fear was that Tuesday at midnight was the end of the debate -- benefits weren't extended, and policymakers were prepared to move on.

Today's efforts suggest the White House hasn't given up. If there's some kind of deal to be had on tax-cut capitulation, it'd be criminal not to include the unemployed in the mix.

Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (61)

Bookmark and Share

IF REPUBLICANS FEEL 'CHASTENED,' THEY'RE HIDING IT WELL.... The larger column was largely about the fiscal commission, but David Broder made a point today that struck me as hard to believe.

Also over are two years in which Obama and the Democratic Party pretended they could govern the nation on their own and Republicans thought they could score points simply by objecting.

Both sides have been sobered by the midterm elections and have emerged chastened and prepared to talk.

I genuinely wish I could see what Broder sees.

His take on the last two years is itself flawed -- Dems didn't "pretended they could govern the nation on their own"; they tried to reach out to Republicans and found a congressional minority that refused to compromise or even negotiate. Indeed, GOP leaders have conceded, publicly and on the record, that this was a deliberate strategy -- even in a time of crisis, Republicans decided it was important to deny Democrats victories for their own partisan purposes. Broder makes it sound as if Dems chose to shut Republicans out. That's not what happened.

But I'm especially confused by the notion that congressional Republicans have "emerged chastened and prepared to talk" over the last month.

The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Consider what we've seen in recent weeks:

* The White House told Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) the administration would agree to his demands on the pending arms control treaty, New START. Kyl soon after announced he would block ratification anyway.

* The White House invited GOP leaders over for a presidential chat on possible areas of common ground. They initially balked and said they were too busy.

* The White House announced a pay freeze for civilian federal workers, only to find an op-ed from Republican leaders the next day, vowing not to compromise on any of their priorities.

* The White House set up a working group to try to strike a compromise on the debate over tax policy. Senate Republicans responded by announcing they would hold the entire lame-duck session hostage until they got what they wanted.

* There was bipartisan support for a food-safety bill in the Senate, but exploiting a procedural glitch, Republican leaders intend to kill the legislation anyway.

* Looking ahead to next year, congressional Republicans haven't budged at all on any issue.

If there's even a shred of evidence that Republicans "have been sobered by the midterm elections and have emerged chastened and prepared to talk," I'd love to see it.

Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share

THE ACCIDENTAL TRUTH ON TAX RATES.... Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) compromise proposal on tax policy -- everyone making less than $1 million gets a tax cut, millionaires and billionaires go back to Clinton-era tax rates -- would give Republicans 90% of the tax package they want. But the GOP still won't accept it, because the party's obvious goal to protect the very wealthy, literally at all costs.

But during a floor debate yesterday, there was an interesting exchange. Schumer made his case for his compromise -- the third major Democratic compromise proposal on taxes -- and urged Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) to concede it's a good idea. The Republican refused, but the conservative Tennessean made an observation that's worth repeating.

"As I was listening to [Schumer], I was reminded that most of the people whose taxes he is trying to raise live in New York," Alexander said. "I mean they're not in Tennessee, we're a relatively low income state. So I admire him for his courage ... to be so specific that we're gonna raise taxes on just a small number of people, most of whom live on Wall Street in New York."

There's certainly some truth to that. There are, in fact, a lot of millionaires in and around Manhattan, and fewer in Tennessee. Schumer's plan would still guarantee tax cuts for everyone, but would raise the top rate on Wall Street's wealthiest workers, who happen to be his constituents.

The problem, of course, is that Alexander was undermining his own party's misleading talking points. To hear his Republican Party tell it, allowing top rates to go up on millionaires would be awful for small businesses and those poor mom-and-pop stores with seven-figure incomes.

Which is what makes Alexander's accidental accuracy so refreshing. Schumer's plan would, as the GOP senator acknowledge, "raise taxes on just a small number of people, most of whom live on Wall Street."

With that in mind, if that's true -- and it is -- why are Alexander and his Republican colleagues fighting so hard for this "small number of people," holding the chamber and middle-class tax cuts hostage until these Wall Street folks get a large tax break they don't need?

Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

Bookmark and Share

'CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM' IS CLEARLY THE WRONG NAME.... Yesterday, we talked about incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and his support for a constitutional amendment that would allow states to overturn federal laws they don't like.

Today, Dana Milbank notes that Cantor isn't the only one with radical constitutional ideas.

Republicans gained control of the House last month on a promise to "restore the Constitution." So it is no small irony that one of their first orders of business is an attempt to rewrite the Constitution.

On Tuesday, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), a member of the House GOP's majority transition committee, introduced a constitutional amendment that would allow a group of states to nullify federal laws with which they disagree.

"This repeal amendment gives states a weapon, a tool, an arrow in their quiver," he told a group of state legislators assembled at the Hyatt in downtown Washington. Of course, states have fired similar arrows before, and it led to a Civil War and Jim Crow -- but Bishop wasn't going to get into that.

That might sound like amusing snark from Milbank, but it's worth emphasizing that he happens to be literally right. Republicans aren't just endorsing bizarre legal concepts; they're also advocating constitutional concepts that were discredited generations ago.

And yet, Republicans have ambitious plans when it comes to the Constitution. During the campaign, we heard from a variety of bizarre candidates, many of whom won, who talked about scrapping the 17th Amendment, repealing the 16th Amendment, getting rid of at least one part of the 14th Amendment, "restoring" the "original" 13th Amendment, and proposing dozens of new amendments.

Similarly, these same officials intend to radically transform the country as we currently know it, identifying bedrocks of society, and declaring them not just wrong, but literally unconstitutional.

There are a variety of labels for all of this. "Constitutional conservatism" shouldn't be one of them.

Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

Bookmark and Share

LEADING GOP SENATOR ON BOARD WITH CULTURE WAR TRUCE.... Just a six months after Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) suggested it's time for a "truce" on hot-button, culture-war issues, it looks like a high-profile Republican senator is thinking along the same lines.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander on Friday will lay out an aggressive GOP agenda for next year that includes a host of tax cuts, trade agreements and other business-friendly proposals -- but no social policy items.

The Tennessee Republican will outline his proposals at the conservative Hudson Institute in a speech that is designed to provide a contrast to Democrats' progressive agenda of the past several years and to establish policy goals for Republicans. [...]

Unlike House GOP leaders who have sought to placate social conservatives with at least vague mentions of abortion and other social issues, Alexander's speech will avoid those matters altogether.

It strikes me as a little presumptuous that the third-ranking member of the Senate minority would even have a policy agenda -- does he know voters have elected a Democratic Senate for three consecutive cycles? -- but putting that aside, Alexander's decision to ignore his party's social agenda altogether is pretty interesting.

The speech isn't until tomorrow, so the religious right and the theocratic contingent within Tea Partiers haven't had much of a chance to respond, but I suspect the remarks will not be well received by much of the GOP base. When Daniels raised the specter of a culture-war "truce," a variety of social conservatives responded with borderline apoplexy. Given that Alexander is the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the religious right will likely be even less pleased now.

It's hard to say with certainty, but this is a fissure worth keeping an eye on. Just a few weeks ago, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) was asked on Fox News about the notion of a "truce on social issues" for awhile, so that policymakers could focus on economic issues. He replied that it's just not possible for someone to be "a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative."

It's safe to assume, then, that DeMint won't care for his colleague's remarks tomorrow.

I should also note that while what's missing from Alexander's speech is noteworthy, I'd be remiss if I neglected to mention his stated priorities. As he sees it, the country's focus should be on "jobs, debt, and terror." To that end, he wants to see policymakers slash taxes even more (making the debt worse), repeal the Affordable Care Act (making the debt worse), and eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (making it easier for consumers and investors to get screwed over).

Fortunately, Alexander's in the minority, and won't be in a position to make any of this actually happen.

Steve Benen 12:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

Bookmark and Share

THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The lawsuit hanging over Alaska's U.S. Senate race is now on an expedited schedule. Judge William Carey said yesterday, "We need to resolve this matter at this state court level just as soon as we can."

* In Missouri, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) appears to be in for a tough fight in 2012, with a new survey from Public Policy Polling showing the incumbent within two points -- up or down -- of the leading Republican candidates. Most notably, PPP has McCaskill trailing former Sen. Jim Talent (R) by two, 47% to 45%.

* In Massachusetts, Sen. Scott Brown's (R) head-shaking ignorance and confusion about current events doesn't appear to bother Bay State voters. A new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Brown, who'll seek a full term in 2012, leading his probable Democratic challengers, in margins ranging from 7 to 16 points.

* In still more Senate news, outgoing Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle (R) appears to be leaning towards a campaign against incumbent Sen. Daniel Akaka (D) in 2012.

* Based on expected Census Bureau data, the state of New York will likely lose a congressional seat or two, giving the Empire State its smallest House delegation in two centuries.

* In New Mexico, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D) says he's undecided about running for re-election in 2012. He'll decide "sometime in the first quarter of next year."

* While most Americans probably agree that the role of money in the political process is a problem, former RNC chairman Mike Duncan, eyeing a return to his previous post, believes the opposite. "There is not too much money in politics," he told a right-wing gathering yesterday. "There is not enough money."

Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

Bookmark and Share

THE ANNUAL PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES.... Believe me, I wouldn't keep pushing this if it weren't important.

This is Day Four of the Monthly's annual fundraising drive. Our most sincere thanks to those of you who've already contributed, and for those who haven't, here's a reminder that your tax-deductible donation can make a big difference.

If you're a regular, you know that the Washington Monthly offers the kind of cutting-edge reporting and analysis the country needs now more than ever, breaking big stories well ahead of major mainstream outlets.

But to keep us going strong, we need a little help. Your donation will not only help the magazine, but also help support this blog.

Also, this year, the publishers are adding a little additional incentive.

So give generously -- $25, $50, $100 -- and if you donate $150 or more, we'll send you a hardcover copy of Monthly founder Charles Peters' latest book, Lyndon B. Johnson, individually signed by the author. It's the latest in "The American Presidents" series. The New Yorker says it is "illuminating" and "a resonant portrait of a man of prodigious political abilities, who was driven, but ultimately undone, by his temperamental flaws."

While we already have print and online ads, this only covers part of our overall expenses, which means that we depend on contributions from readers to stay up and humming.

So, I hope we can count on your support. Just click here to help out. You can donate online, through PayPal, or through the mail.

Thanks.

Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share

TEA PARTY CAUCUS SURE DOES LOVE EARMARKS.... Well, that ought to be embarrassing.

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

"It's disturbing to see the Tea Party Caucus requested that much in earmarks. This is their time to put up or shut up, to be blunt," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. "There's going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks."

And continue they might. The caucus leader, unhinged Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), has already said she'll remain a staunch opponent of earmarks -- except for transportation projects in her Minnesota district, which she considers fully justified.

In fairness, the issue goes well beyond Bachmann. Rep. Joe "You lie!" Wilson (R-S.C.) requested $23.3 million in earmarks; Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) sought about $7 million in earmarks, and even Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) got in on the act, requesting nearly $7 million in earmarks himself.

Just to clarify, I don't much care either way. Whether these right-wing lawmakers support, oppose, seek, or refuse earmarks is really of no consequence. The whole fight strikes me as kind of silly.

But I do think there's something to be said for intellectual consistency, and think there's a problem when members of Congress align themselves with far-right zealots, taking a stand against earmarks, only to turn around and see those identical members of Congress requesting over $1 billion in earmarks.

There's also the larger entertainment factor -- do Tea Partiers even realize what their own allies have been up to?

Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

Bookmark and Share

WHEN THE EXCUSES WELL RUNS DRY.... The first of two days of Senate Armed Services Committee hearings got underway this morning, with lawmakers considering the latest evidence on scrapping the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

At this point, I'm honestly not sure what more there is to talk about. In light of the new Pentagon report on the attitudes of servicemen and women and their families, Fred Kaplan explains that John McCain and other anti-gay senators have officially run out of excuses.

Really, senator, what more is there to say?

The 257-page report -- dauntingly titled "Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated With the Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' " and written by a panel co-chaired by Jeh Charles Johnson, the Pentagon's general counsel, and Gen. Carter F. Ham, commander of the U.S. Army in Europe -- makes the case that McCain and others have been demanding. [...]

The evidence, the polling data of service men and women, the testimony of senior officers, the everyday experiences of living and fighting, the imperatives of national security, as well as the obvious moral standards of contemporary life -- all point to, at the very least, a shift in the burden of proof on whether DADT should be repealed. It's no longer valid, and it's clearly a pretense, to call for further studies, further surveys, closer questioning. If McCain and the others oppose repeal, they have to come up with some new reason -- or fall back on the oldest, most unpalatable reason -- why.

The reality, of course, is that we know the "why"; it's just an uncomfortable truth well-intentioned people are reluctant to say publicly. After all the studies, surveys, hearings, testimonials, court rulings, debates, and discharges, we're left a conclusion that's hard to avoid: opponents of repeal don't like gay and lesbian Americans, even when they're prepared to put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us.

To block repeal -- indeed, to refuse to allow the Senate to even vote up or down on funding the troops because of a repeal provision -- is to give in to bigotry. It's as simple as that.

As of yesterday morning, it appeared repeal was in deep trouble, as Republicans announced they'd hold the chamber hostage over tax cuts for millionaires, killing everything else, including the defense authorization bill. But by late yesterday afternoon, a few GOP senators -- Lugar, Murkowski, and possibly Collins -- hinted they could vote for the defense bill even before the tax issue is resolved.

We should know more fairly soon, and if the Armed Services Committee hearings go as expected, the testimony should give the larger effort a significant boost.

Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

Bookmark and Share

EVEN 'REPEAL AND REPLACE' ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE FAR-RIGHT.... The health care strategy for congressional Republicans isn't exactly a secret. As the leadership has explained, they intend to gut the Affordable Care Act, scrapping the entirety of the law, and replacing it with a GOP-friendly version with details to be worked out later.

It's a pretty aggressive far-right tactic, which probably won't work especially well -- "repeal and replace" would need to get through the Senate (which it won't) and get presidential approval (which is out of the question).

But as it turns out, some notable right-wing congressional Republicans don't think it's good enough.

Tea Party lawmakers are balking at the House Republican leadership's plan to simultaneously repeal and replace President Obama's healthcare law.

The resistance from conservative lawmakers is a clear indication of the challenge Republican leaders face in their uphill battle to rescind the law. The emerging friction in the GOP conference also reflects the difficult transition from campaigning in the minority party to governing in the majority.

Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Steve King (R-Iowa) say Republicans should repeal the law without attaching a proposal to replace it.

In other words, for the truly unhinged wing of the GOP, it's not enough to simply get rid of popular health care benefits that help families and businesses; Republicans have to kill the provisions and then consider some new system at a later date.

I continue to think this will be one of the more interesting areas of intra-party strife for the GOP in the new year. Even Republican leaders don't seem sure of themselves -- two weeks ago, in incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told party activists the caucus would push "a full repeal" of the health care reform bill. This week, The Hill reported that Cantor won't seek to "completely scrap the healthcare reform law."

This is likely to get a little messy. Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), who's likely to chair the House Rules Committee in the next Congress, said last week that a "full" repeal isn't really the plan, taking a similar line to what Cantor said on Monday. Obviously, Bachmann, King, and their wild-eyed cohorts will deem that unacceptable.

For that matter, if the Bachmann/King line is evidence of the base's perspective, Tea Party zealots won't tolerate anything short of a full repeal, either.

There are a few areas of serious intra-party strife next year. The approach to health care policy should be considered near the top.

Steve Benen 9:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

Bookmark and Share

GEORGE WILL'S UNFOUNDED ADMIRATION FOR JON KYL.... George Will turns his attention today to the pending arms control treaty, New START, and seems pleased with Republican obstructionist tactics. The column, not surprisingly, has more than a few flaws.

Will argues, for example, that the administration has prioritized the treaty because President Obama "needs a success somewhere." Is that really the best Will can do? Is it not possible that the president agrees with a half-dozen former Secretaries of State and Defense, the Pentagon, and the Joint Chiefs about the national security importance of New START?

I won't go paragraph by paragraph here, but I was also struck by Will's praise for the confused Senate Minority Whip.

Deeply informed and rationally skeptical, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) is arguing from the position of increased strength created on Nov. 2: Come January, there will be six more Republican senators. He implicitly -- and lucidly -- treats Russia itself as of secondary importance in the treaty. He is using his enhanced leverage primarily to increase the administration's commitment to modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal: All nuclear weapons decay, and no U.S. weapon has been tested since 1992.

This is wrong on multiple levels. For one thing, Kyl isn't "deeply informed." On the contrary, he's proven to be strikingly confused about a subject he has little familiarity with. In August, eight months after inspections of Russia's long-range nuclear bases stopped, Kyl conceded he was wrong about the relevant details -- he assumed the inspections were ongoing while he played games with the treaty. Even David Broder, not exactly a liberal attack dog, lamented the high price we're having to pay for Kyl's "ignorance."

As for the administration's commitment to modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, there's a detail Will's column neglected to mention: the Obama administration has already given Kyl what he requested (and then some). Instead of taking "yes" for an answer, the conservative senator balked anyway, betraying White House officials who negotiated with him in good faith.

What's more, Will also forgot to let readers know that Kyl is so committed to the seriousness of the treaty and the larger issue, he effectively admitted yesterday that he'll be more inclined to let the Senate do its duty if Dems give Republicans a bunch of tax breaks for the wealthy.

Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

Bookmark and Share

HOW NOT TO NEGOTIATE.... E.J. Dionne noted in his column this morning that President Obama has an awkward strategy of "offering preemptive concessions," which doesn't seem to make anyone happy.

We've seen enough of these examples to characterize it as a trend, if not a bad habit. The White House should have used tax cuts in the stimulus debate as an incentive to pick up Republican support, but Obama and his team instead offered them from the outset, and then negotiated backwards. On energy, the president offered expanded nuclear power and oil drilling -- top GOP demands -- in exchange for nothing. On the budget, Obama announced spending and pay freezes -- high on the Republicans' wish list -- and got literally nothing in return.

And this week, all evidence suggests the White House will grudgingly cave to Republican demands on ineffective and expensive tax cuts, and whether Dems will get anything in return remains unclear.

In isolation, it's possible to come up with plausible rationales for the individual moves. Maybe Obama went with the pay freeze to preempt a GOP drive to do something more drastic, like firing large portions of the federal workforce. Maybe he included a huge tax cut in the stimulus from the outset to keep conservative Dems on board with the larger plan. Maybe the president would approach all of these debates from a stronger position if he had any confidence in congressional Democrats to stick together when the going got tough, and if there were more than two Republicans in Congress willing to even consider crossing party lines.

But taken together, Ezra Klein is entirely right to question the president's skills as a poker player.

"The best negotiator I ever came across was [former Reagan and Bush chief of staff] Jim Baker," says Paul Begala, who served as an adviser to President Clinton. "He began every negotiation with this sentence: 'Nothing is agreed to till everything is agreed to.' So no one can pocket anything, and no one suffers for making the first move." To many Democrats, Republicans have simply proven the wisdom of Baker's strategy: They keep pocketing these gains without giving the White House any credit, while both the Democrats and Obama take lashings from their base for being insufficiently principled and tactically incompetent.

"You don't go out and say you're going to freeze federal pay on your own," says one angry Hill staffer. "You go sit across a table from someone, say, 'I'm willing to do this, but this is what you've got to give me.' That's how this works."

The obvious question, then, is why Obama keeps making this mistake. Maybe he's trying to impress voters with his reasonableness and willingness to meet Republicans half-way? Perhaps, but there's no evidence that the public is even aware of these developments, better yet inclined to give the president credit.

Maybe he's trying to coax congressional Republicans by making the first step, encouraging them follow his conciliatory lead? It's possible, but after two years of scorched-earth tactics intended to destroy the Obama presidency at all costs, I'm comfortable concluding that this doesn't work.

Ezra added, "The going theory -- which you hear both inside and outside the White House -- is that this is what happens when a president who wants to be bipartisan gets stuck in a partisan moment. Obama remains intent on proving his interest in working across the aisle but impatient with negotiations that will go nowhere and produce nothing."

The answer, then, is to learn from the mistakes and adjust the strategy. Despite the flawed approach to negotiations, the Obama White House has racked up some extraordinary accomplishments in less than two years, and helped get a country that was spiraling downwards back on track. Now is the perfect time to take stock, acknowledge the lessons learned, and realize which tactics worked better than others. That Congress is poised to become breathtakingly ridiculous in the new year only makes this need more acute.

The president and his team can start by realizing that "preemptive concessions" are a mistake -- and that a one-sided commitment to bipartisanship is a recipe for failure.

Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (61)

Bookmark and Share
 




 

 

Contribute to Washington Monthly

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly


Place Your Link Here

--- Links ---

Drug Rehab

Krill Oil

Rehab

Addiction Treatment Centers

Alcohol Treatment Center

Loans

Long Distance Moving Companies

FREE Phone Card

Engagement Rings

Flowers

Personal Loan

Personal Loans

Addiction Treatment

Phone Cards

Less Debt = Financial Freedom

Addiction Treatment Programs

Bad Credit Loans