Health Care Summit Reaction

On March 1, 2010, In Media, Obama, Politics, Senate, By Grahame

About two weeks ago I wrote a post in anticipation of the February 25th Health Care Summit in the context of President Obama’s political style – the “Long Game”. His style was described as that of a chess player always thinking farther ahead than his political opponents, drawing them in “treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows”, as Mark Schmitt articulated it.

In my post I described how Democrats in Washington were going to try to use the Summit to push Health Care Reform the extra few inches it needs to get passed. Thus, the audience for the Summit was not the public as much as it was the Congressional Democrats who needed to be persuaded to fight for this legislation, and who needed to be persuaded that Republicans had no real ideas that would turn into votes.

The hope is that this summit will give Democrats enough political breathing room (read: spine) to force the House of Representatives to pass the Senate version of HCR and the Senate to fix some problems with their bill through reconciliation. If that happens, Obama will have his victory. As Sullivan would say, “meep, meep“.

(Whoa, I just quoted myself. A blog first. How meta!)

(more…)

 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

A Clever Post Title Involving Evan Bayh’s Name

On February 23, 2010, In Filibuster, Politics, Senate, By Grahame

Last week the Senate and the Democratic Party were shaken up by the announcement that Evan Bayh, Democratic Senator from Indiana, would retire at the end of his term instead of running for re-election this fall despite $13 million in his campaign warchest and a 20 point lead in the polls. He cited the failure of the Senate to function as his main reason for leaving – ignoring the fact that his brand of centrism helped create the deadlock. Bayh, a “centrist” in name but seemingly a simple political animal in action, had an uncanny ability to annoy the living hell out of the more liberal wing of the Democratic party, his departure was met with something other than anger or dismay from both sides of the political spectrum. I personally couldn’t have been happier to show him the door, despite the chances of his seat turning red in November increasing with his departure.

Because the Washington media loves those like Bayh who position themselves as bipartisan or centrist (especially when it comes to the issue of the deficit), progressives derided his so-called “centrism” as mere political positioning that helped Republicans obstruct Democratic initiatives, and met his exit with a flurry of blog posts with titles like “Bye, Bayh” or “Bayh Low” (“Bayh” is pronounced “Bye” or “Buy” – thus explaining my overly complicated attempt at a joke in my blog title). Ezra Klein called him an “ordinary politician” and a “minor deficit hypocrite”. Jonathan Chait goes farther, and notes that “If Bayh’s loss is a “brain drain,” then the Senate is in even worse shape than I thought.”

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

RIP Filibuster, Jan. 2011? Don’t Count On It

On February 1, 2010, In Filibuster, Politics, Senate, By Grahame

It stands to reason that the complexities of the Senate’s procedures coupled with anger over the stalling of the Health Care Reform bill would lead to some very creative ideas about how to kill the filibuster, and with it, the Senate’s ridiculous supermajority requirement. One argument I have heard many times is that 51 Senators (or 50 plus the Vice President) can basically do anything they want. Now, there is an article by Ian Millhiser in the American Prospect arguing basically that fact:

What the Senate is not allowed to do, however, is tell future senators what rules must apply to their proceedings. Because Reichelderfer prohibits a previous Congress from tying the hands of a future Congress, the rules governing Senate procedure in 2010 cannot bind a newly elected Senate in 2011. The old Senate rules essentially cease to exist until the new Senate ratifies them, so a determined bloc of 51 senators could eliminate the filibuster altogether by demanding a rules change at the beginning of a new session. Once the new Senate begins to operate under the old rules, however, this can function as a ratification of the old rules — essentially locking those rules in place for another two years.

Millhiser is basically arguing that two Supreme Court decisions, Newton v. Commissioners in 1879 and Reichelderfer v. Quinn in 1932, make it possible for each new Senate to eliminate the filibuster, since the new Senate (the next one beginning in January 2011) isn’t beholden to any Senate procedures from previous Senates. (more…)

Tagged with: • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

Understanding The Filibuster In The 21st Century

On January 26, 2010, In Filibuster, Politics, Senate, By Grahame

Earlier today over at TalkingPointsMemo, a very useful article appeared that clarified most of the questions I had about the filibuster and the procedures as they currently stand.

Sure, in recent years, threats of filibuster have become more and more common — and getting 60 votes for key pieces of legislation has seemed to become evermore necessary. But at the same time, we rarely actually see senators filibustering, at least not like Jimmy Stewart’s character did in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Why?

The whole piece is worth a close read – though the title of the article gets to the gist of the matter: “How 41 Senators Control The Country Without Filibustering”. There currently are very few actual filibusters – the mere threat of one is enough to derail legislation (as we are currently seeing with the Health Care Reform legislation that has already passed both Chambers of Congress). (more…)

Tagged with: • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

More Press Given To Insane Senate Holds

On January 19, 2010, In Politics, Senate, By Grahame

I wrote about this about a week ago, but here are the actual numbers. From Ann Lowery at Foreign Policy:

But President Barack Obama’s first year has brought an unusual number of holds, and on unusually prominent positions. One year into the Bush administration, there were 70 appointees awaiting confirmation. One year into the Obama administration, there are 177. And dozens of those holds are directly affecting the agencies responsible for the United States’ security and foreign policy, amid two wars and an amped-up terrorism threat. The United States has no ambassador to Ethiopia, no head of the Office of Legal Counsel, no director at the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, no agricultural trade representative.

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

What Happens Tomorrow?

On January 19, 2010, In Politics, Senate, By Grahame

So has anyone heard? There is an election tomorrow. It is the special election to see who will serve out the remainder of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s term in Massachusetts’ Senate seat. To the surprise of just about everyone, the incredibly blue state of Massachusetts (they gave President Obama %61.8 of the vote in November of 2008) is most likely going to give the majority of its vote to a Republican candidate, State Senate Scott Brown, who opposes just about every item on the President’s agenda, while turning heavily against the Democratic candidate, Mass. Attorney General Martha Coakley. For a more complete rundown of what the polls look like going into the election tomorrow, check out Nate Silver’s analysis. The key point:

Overall, while I would probably take Coakley’s side of a 3:1 wager, her situation looks to be increasingly difficult. She is basically relying upon getting solid turnout from a “silent majority” of voters who have done little to make themselves seen and heard. We know that there are a huge number of potential such voters in Massachusetts, which remains a very blue state and which until the past three weeks had not behaved unusually in any obvious way. But the pollsters are no longer seeing and hearing from them.

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response

Who Needs An Undersecretary Of Domestic Finance During A Recession?

On January 12, 2010, In Politics, Senate, By Grahame

For all the words that have been written about the ridiculousness of the filibuster, it may not even be the most dysfunctional aspect of the the world’s greatest deliberative body. The popular replacement for this dubious honor has to go to Senate “holds”, where one Senator can anonymously put a hold, or indefinite delay, on any executive appointment that needs Senate confirmation. This was recently brought to the foreground after the attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day, which highlighted some problems with the Transportation Security Administration. The biggest problem? There is no one in charge of the TSA. The reason? Because Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) put a hold on President Obama’s nominee, Errol Southers, because DeMint doesn’t like Southers’ position on worker unionization. Then there is this:

President Obama has nominated a variety of well-qualified officials to fill key posts in the Treasury Department, including positions with jurisdiction over tax policy and international finance. Their nominations would be approved if the Senate were allowed to vote on them.

But that’s not happening, because Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) isn’t satisfied with — get this — enforcement of prohibitions on internet gambling. Kyl wanted enforcement in January, the administration said June, so Kyl effectively responded, “No Treasury Department officials for you.”

As Matt Yglesias points out, it might be a good idea to have an Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs or an Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets, especially during a time of world-wide economic crisis. But one Senator who disagrees with a completely unrelated issue can leave one of the most important Departments short-handed just to make a point to the President.

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • • • • • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response
Go To Top »