History is Happening Now

February 17, 2009

Get Ready for a Filabuster

Filed under: Uncategorized — Ian @ 10:31 pm

The idea that Democrats should feel compelled to make concessions in order to gain Republican support isn’t very popular among Obama supporters. When they look at President Obama’s first big political battle — his successful push to get Congress to pass a $787 billion economic rescue bill — they bemoan the concessions Senate Democrats made in order to win three measley Republican votes.

Of course, without support from those three Republicans — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania — Democrats wouldn’t have been able to prevent a Republican filabuster.

But the prevailing mood among lefties is: Bring it On! Bring on the filabuster! Let’s have Americans turn on the television every night and listen to Democrats blame Republicans for refusing to rescue our economy! Let’s show the American people just how obstructionist and unreasonable the Republicans really are!

Well, it looks like we may get our collective wish:

DENVER — President Obama has not ruled out a second stimulus package, his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said on Tuesday, just before Mr. Obama signed his $787 billion recovery package into law with a statement that it would “set our economy on a firmer foundation.”

The president said he would not pretend “that today marks the end of our economic problems.”

“Nor does it constitute all of what we have to do to turn our economy around,” Mr. Obama said at the signing ceremony in the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. “But today does mark the beginning of the end, the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans scrambling in the way of layoffs.”

Mr. Gibbs, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on the way to Denver, said, “I think the president is going to do what’s necessary to grow this economy.” While “there are no particular plans at this point for a second stimulus package,” he added, “I wouldn’t foreclose it.”

Here is my prediction: If Obama puts forth a second bill, none of the House and Senate Republicans who voted against the first stimulus package will even consider supporting a second passage. That leaves three Republicans — Collins, Snowe and Specter — who might come on board for a second bill, but I would put the chances of two of them immediately betraying their party a second time at close to zero. They would probably see a second bill as an opportunity to rejoin their party in hopes of avoiding a serious primary challenge when they run for reelection.

This means Democrats will probably be able to get a second stimulus bill passed in the House, but in the Senate, Democrats will be a vote or two shy of the 60 votes needed to stop Republicans from stopping the bill. Democrats (hopefully) won’t back down from advancing the bill — and Republicans won’t back down from opposing it — which means filabuster!

A filabuster is a special kind of political game — a tug of war where the rope is the American people. Every night, for as long as the filabuster lasts, Democrats and Republicans will go on television and try to pull the American people toward their position. Theoretically, a filabuster can end when one side wins the tug of war — that is, when the American people are so moved to one side of the argument that the other side caves for fear of losing votes in the next election. A filabuster can also end when both sides decide to negotiate a compromise that will allow them both to claim victory — but the media will usually declare a “winner,” even if a compromise is officially declared. It is a dangerous, high-stakes game.

Let’s say Democrats put forward a second bill. Republicans mount a filabuster. Then, Democrats campaign so successfully for their bill that Republicans end up caving under the pressure of public opinion. This would be a profound political victory for Democrats. It would clearly demonstrate the political strength of Democrats and the corresponding weakness for Republicans — and establish a political narrative that will make it much harder for Republicans to stand in the way of future Democratic efforts, such as efforts to transform our health care system. For years afterwards, Americans would remember how stubborn Republicans were in opposing a bill that most Americans ultimately supported.

On the other hand, what if Republicans end up winning the argument, and Democrats are forced to cave? This would be disasterous. It would set the stage for Republican opposition to just about everything Democrats try to achieve in Congress between now at the 2010 elections.

My advice to Democrats in Congress: If you do put together a second stimulus package, make sure every single iota of spending in the bill is 100% saleable to the American people. There should be no condoms in the bill, no resodding of the National Mall (great as that might be for the economy), no military benefits for Filipino veterans, etc. A second stimulus bill should contain only those projects that 90% of Congressional Democrats are prepared to defend until they are blue in the face on national television.

Because failure is not an option.

Americans Love Partianship

Filed under: stimulus — Lee @ 5:55 pm

Democrats just finished fighting a rancorous and divisive battle in the House and the Senate to pass their economic stimulus bill, which Barack Obama will sign today.

The fight to pass this bill was nasty, personal, and resulted ultimately in the Republican minority fracturing off, and vehemently opposing the bill. The Democrat-initiated stimulus bill garnered zero Republican votes in the House, and 3 votes in the Senate. Obviously, after all this partisan combat, Americans must be utterly sick of Congressional Democrats, their stubbornness, their refusal to be reasonable and not pack their stimulus bill with mindless unnecessary “pork,” as the Michelle Malkins and Rush Limbaughs of the world would have it. Right?

Not if you believe a recent Gallup poll, which concludes:

Congress’ approval ratings have been below 30% pretty consistently since October 2005. There have been a few exceptions to this, with ratings as high as 37% in early 2007 after the Democrats took party control of Congress after their victories in the November 2006 midterm elections, but those quickly disappeared. More recently, approval ratings of Congress had been about 20% or lower, including an all-time low rating of 14% in July 2008.

This month’s sharp increase largely reflects a more positive Democratic review of Congress. Since the previous measure from early January, Barack Obama has been inaugurated as president, and now Democrats have party control of both the legislative and the executive branches of the federal government.

Democrats’ average approval ratings of Congress more than doubled from January (18%) to February (43%). Independents show a smaller increase, from 17% to 29%, while Republicans are now less likely to approve of Congress than they were in January.

This uptick in support is evident not only among Democrats, but also among self-described Independents:
gallup.gif

Moreover, Gallup writes:

Gallup has been measuring public approval of Congress on a monthly basis since January 2001. During that time, there have been only two month-to-month increases larger than the 12-point jump observed this month.

The largest single-month increase was a 42-point rally in congressional support after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, from 42% in a Sept. 7-10, 2001, poll to 84% in mid-October 2001. Gallup found similar increases in ratings of other government institutions around that time.

The next-largest jump of 14 points occurred after Democrats took party control of both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate in early 2007. There was also a 10-point increase from March to April 2003, which spanned the time of the beginning of the U.S. war with Iraq.

Imagine if the stimulus had passed more or less as progressive economists, basing their assessments on nonpartisan CBO figures, had wanted — and not in the eviscerated form in which it went through. Democrats would think even more highly of Congress, and I have no reason to believe Independents wouldn’t be on board with that uptick of support, glad that Congress had attempted to take decisive action to halt this terrible economic slump. That’s speculation on my part, but reasonable speculation, I think, based on these numbers.

Madoff of Mesopotamia

Filed under: 6 — Lee @ 5:21 am

Patrick Cockburn delivers a disturbing report over at The Independent:

In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US -directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff’s notorious Ponzi scheme.

Also:

In one case, auditors working for SIGIR discovered that $57.8m was sent in “pallet upon pallet of hundred-dollar bills” to the US comptroller for south-central Iraq, Robert J Stein Jr, who had himself photographed standing with the mound of money. He is among the few US officials who were in Iraq to be convicted of fraud and money-laundering.

Despite the vast sums expended on rebuilding by the US since 2003, there have been no cranes visible on the Baghdad skyline except those at work building a new US embassy and others rusting beside a half-built giant mosque that Saddam was constructing when he was overthrown. One of the few visible signs of government work on Baghdad’s infrastructure is a tireless attention to planting palm trees and flowers in the centre strip between main roads. Those are then dug up and replanted a few months later.

Iraqi leaders are convinced that the theft or waste of huge sums of US and Iraqi government money could have happened only if senior US officials were themselves involved in the corruption. In 2004-05, the entire Iraq military procurement budget of $1.3bn was siphoned off from the Iraqi Defence Ministry in return for 28-year-old Soviet helicopters too obsolete to fly and armoured cars easily penetrated by rifle bullets. Iraqi officials were blamed for the theft, but US military officials were largely in control of the Defence Ministry at the time and must have been either highly negligent or participants in the fraud.

Read the whole thing, of course, but this doesn’t look good.

Powered by WordPress