If you're wondering why we aren't pumping out post after post on events of legislative significance in the U.S. Senate, here's why: nothing's going on.
Yes, the Senate voted down the Ryan budget. Yes, the Senate voted not to take up President Obama's initial budget proposal. And yes, the Senate voted down a Republican bill to expand drilling and a Democratic bill to reduce big oil tax cuts. While everyone is getting angry and excited about Senator so-and-so's position on the Ryan budget or anything else, however, it's important to note that none of these measures were expected to pass at the time of the vote and are therefore insignificant in terms of actually governing.
Voting serves two important functions: (1) to produce a coalition in favor of making something a law and (2) to require Senators to take a public stand on an issue. And when votes are expected to fail but take place anyway, Senators who might think more carefully about the consequences don't -- because there's no chance of actually legislating. Instead, virtually every recent vote in the U.S. Senate is a way of telling the electorate where Senators stand and what the distinctions are between parties and candidates.
There are two plausible reasons for this "voting for the peanut gallery" trend. First, the 2012 elections are coming up. We live in a time when the most vulnerable Republican senators can't take positions far from the party line for fear of empowering a primary challenger. At the same time, the extreme positions Senators must take in a primary may alienate key constituencies in a general election. Therefore, voting on various bills is a way of forcing Senators to take a position that will put them between a rock and a hard place in the campaign.
Secondly, taking party line votes that are designed to fail is a way of staking out positions in the general economic debate. Democrats want to magnify Republican attitudes toward Medicare by allowing a vote on the issue through the Ryan budget, and also encourage Americans watching the debate to view those plans with distaste. Democrats also want to demonstrate that Republicans are willing to put virtually every Democratic program on the cutting board, but are unwilling to tackle corporate greed or the wealthy through tax reform. Republicans want the American people to see that Democrats are stalling on the budget and not willing to take necessary measures to cut the deficit. All of this affects the prospects of future economic legislation and the nature of the economic debate once the 2012 campaign gets started.
While we do hope there will be legislation truly worth covering at this point, it is clear that in Congress, the 2012 elections have already begun.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Why Congress Keeps Failing To Exercise Oversight Over War
Ever since the beginning of this republic, there has been a dynamic tension between the power of the Senate and the power of the executive branch in foreign policy making and the declaration of war. Congress has sought to roll back some of the executive's power in the face of grave mistakes (particularly in Vietnam and Iraq) through legislation like the War Powers Resolution. Congress has also tried to constrain wartime budgets or set timetables for withdrawal. Therefore, Congress can exercise considerable power in foreign policy if it chooses.
So why does Congress fail to insist that it have a say in military action? The answer is simple. Much of Congress is too busy giving the President support to insist on constitutional guarantees. Even without a declaration of war, the United States went to war in Vietnam and Iraq with a broad majority in Congress. The loudest voices supporting intervention in Libya came from Senator John Kerry (Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and Senator John McCain (ranking member, Senate Armed Services Committee), drowning out lonely voices in the minority like Senator Richard Lugar (ranking member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
The executive should have broad power to shape foreign policy and protect the United States. But Senate oversight should be compulsory in cases where the executive branch wants to take military action without a pressing threat to national security or vital interests. This does not mean that the United States should never act without such interests, but it does mean that the Senate should retain its role as a check and balance in this great constitutional system. Further, the Senate should insist on protecting minority rights and hearing out those few Senators with legitimate concerns about military intervention.
Also see: http://lugar.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=332967&&
So why does Congress fail to insist that it have a say in military action? The answer is simple. Much of Congress is too busy giving the President support to insist on constitutional guarantees. Even without a declaration of war, the United States went to war in Vietnam and Iraq with a broad majority in Congress. The loudest voices supporting intervention in Libya came from Senator John Kerry (Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and Senator John McCain (ranking member, Senate Armed Services Committee), drowning out lonely voices in the minority like Senator Richard Lugar (ranking member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
The executive should have broad power to shape foreign policy and protect the United States. But Senate oversight should be compulsory in cases where the executive branch wants to take military action without a pressing threat to national security or vital interests. This does not mean that the United States should never act without such interests, but it does mean that the Senate should retain its role as a check and balance in this great constitutional system. Further, the Senate should insist on protecting minority rights and hearing out those few Senators with legitimate concerns about military intervention.
Also see: http://lugar.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=332967&&
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Why Senator Lugar Deserves Another Term
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) has become the target of both extremists on the right and opportunists on the left. Richard Mourdock attempts to portray Senator Lugar as a traitor to his party, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has supported former Representative Joe Donnelly and tried to put Senator Lugar in a bind on certain issues in the Senate.
These efforts are deeply disappointing. Senator Lugar is one of the few senators who is not only a politician, but a statesman. His grasp of foreign policy is unparalleled. And there is no question that his opponents on both sides would do a lesser job in the U.S. Senate.
Senator Lugar is conservative. He co-sponsored a bill to repeal health care and wants action on deficit reduction. But he understands that senators come to Washington not only to advance party ideology, but to legislate and govern with common sense on behalf of constituents.
On issues that opponents construe as Senator Lugar's departure from the conservative camp, the actual fact of the matter is that these opponents use a false definition of "conservative." It's not a betrayal of the Republican Party to support the New START Treaty or shape reductions in nuclear and biological weapons. In fact, Ronald Reagan did practically the same thing by signing the INF Treaty with the Soviets. At the time, conservative organizations suggested Reagan was appeasing the Russians and compared him to Neville Chamberlain (https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/the-conservative-caucus-in-1988-reagan-is-chamberlain/). But common sense Republicans passed the treaty. Senator Lugar is practically the only foreign policy realist left in the Senate today, and it would undermine the U.S. national interest to take his voice away form Washington.
This is a record that both Democrats and Republicans should get behind. Senator Lugar is a thinker and a statesman. In this time, we need fewer ideologues and more legislators. And in case Democrats were motivated by the thought of finally having a liberal Democrat in Senator Lugar's seat, they should take a close look at Joe Donnelly's record. Here's a conservative Democrat who barely votes with Democrats and voted against the DREAM Act, which Senator Lugar co-sponsored in the 111th Congress. Democrats wouldn't gain much from having Joe Donnelly in the Senate, but they would lose an effective partner and an important voice.
The great British parliamentarian Edmund Burke said, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment." Senator Lugar not only works hard for his constituents, but exercises independent and intelligent judgment - a trait the Senate sorely needs.
These efforts are deeply disappointing. Senator Lugar is one of the few senators who is not only a politician, but a statesman. His grasp of foreign policy is unparalleled. And there is no question that his opponents on both sides would do a lesser job in the U.S. Senate.
Senator Lugar is conservative. He co-sponsored a bill to repeal health care and wants action on deficit reduction. But he understands that senators come to Washington not only to advance party ideology, but to legislate and govern with common sense on behalf of constituents.
On issues that opponents construe as Senator Lugar's departure from the conservative camp, the actual fact of the matter is that these opponents use a false definition of "conservative." It's not a betrayal of the Republican Party to support the New START Treaty or shape reductions in nuclear and biological weapons. In fact, Ronald Reagan did practically the same thing by signing the INF Treaty with the Soviets. At the time, conservative organizations suggested Reagan was appeasing the Russians and compared him to Neville Chamberlain (https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/the-conservative-caucus-in-1988-reagan-is-chamberlain/). But common sense Republicans passed the treaty. Senator Lugar is practically the only foreign policy realist left in the Senate today, and it would undermine the U.S. national interest to take his voice away form Washington.
This is a record that both Democrats and Republicans should get behind. Senator Lugar is a thinker and a statesman. In this time, we need fewer ideologues and more legislators. And in case Democrats were motivated by the thought of finally having a liberal Democrat in Senator Lugar's seat, they should take a close look at Joe Donnelly's record. Here's a conservative Democrat who barely votes with Democrats and voted against the DREAM Act, which Senator Lugar co-sponsored in the 111th Congress. Democrats wouldn't gain much from having Joe Donnelly in the Senate, but they would lose an effective partner and an important voice.
The great British parliamentarian Edmund Burke said, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment." Senator Lugar not only works hard for his constituents, but exercises independent and intelligent judgment - a trait the Senate sorely needs.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Floor Fight Watch: Will the DREAM Act Pass?
The DREAM Act appears to be back on the table again, after failing to pass in the lame duck Congress that passed the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the New START Treaty. But will it pass? We think the answer is: doubtful.
The DREAM Act is a bill that appeals strongly to the Democratic base. That's why more uninformed liberals in the party might accuse the Senate rules or the Republicans of preventing its passage. But in fact, the DREAM Act failed by five votes in the last Congress. How many Democrats defected to vote against cloture? That's right: five. Sens. Ben Nelson, Kay Hagan, Max Baucus, Jon Tester, and Mark Pryor voted against, and Sen. Joe Manchin didn't even want to be in the chamber for the vote - citing a Christmas party as his excuse.
So, in a Congress with a smaller Democratic majority, we're unlikely to see passage. Furthermore, Republicans who did support the bill - Sens Richard Lugar, Lisa Murkowski, and Bob Bennett (Bennett lost his seat in 2010) - are under tremendous pressure from both the left and the right in a campaign cycle. Richard Lugar, a co-sponsor, recently backed away from his support under intense targeting by a right wing opponent and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. That's absolutely shameful, as Sen. Lugar's Democratic opponent is Joe Donnelly, who voted AGAINST the DREAM Act in the House.
Why is the DREAM Act on the table again if it can't pass? Well, we think no one is trying to pass the bill. The important thing for Democrats is to have the debate on the bill to illuminate positions during the campaign cycle. The White House may also have thought it was the best way to capitalize on the momentum from the death of Osama Bin Laden, because the idea of immigration as a security issue would have been harder than ever to stick to the President, thereby making opponents of the DREAM Act look like extreme bigots. This shows that Democrats are primarily targeting vulnerable moderate Republicans like Sen. Lugar by forcing them to defend their positions on the issue.
This pattern is unfortunate because Senator Richard Lugar is one of the best Senators in the business. But, that's just politics.
The DREAM Act is a bill that appeals strongly to the Democratic base. That's why more uninformed liberals in the party might accuse the Senate rules or the Republicans of preventing its passage. But in fact, the DREAM Act failed by five votes in the last Congress. How many Democrats defected to vote against cloture? That's right: five. Sens. Ben Nelson, Kay Hagan, Max Baucus, Jon Tester, and Mark Pryor voted against, and Sen. Joe Manchin didn't even want to be in the chamber for the vote - citing a Christmas party as his excuse.
So, in a Congress with a smaller Democratic majority, we're unlikely to see passage. Furthermore, Republicans who did support the bill - Sens Richard Lugar, Lisa Murkowski, and Bob Bennett (Bennett lost his seat in 2010) - are under tremendous pressure from both the left and the right in a campaign cycle. Richard Lugar, a co-sponsor, recently backed away from his support under intense targeting by a right wing opponent and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. That's absolutely shameful, as Sen. Lugar's Democratic opponent is Joe Donnelly, who voted AGAINST the DREAM Act in the House.
Why is the DREAM Act on the table again if it can't pass? Well, we think no one is trying to pass the bill. The important thing for Democrats is to have the debate on the bill to illuminate positions during the campaign cycle. The White House may also have thought it was the best way to capitalize on the momentum from the death of Osama Bin Laden, because the idea of immigration as a security issue would have been harder than ever to stick to the President, thereby making opponents of the DREAM Act look like extreme bigots. This shows that Democrats are primarily targeting vulnerable moderate Republicans like Sen. Lugar by forcing them to defend their positions on the issue.
This pattern is unfortunate because Senator Richard Lugar is one of the best Senators in the business. But, that's just politics.
Monday, May 9, 2011
What Will Speaker John Boehner Say On The Debt Ceiling Tonight?
Speaker of the House John Boehner will speak in front of representatives of the financial industry tonight in New York. What will the Speaker say about the national debt and the economy tonight?
The Washington Post says that Boehner is "set to deliver a sermon of fiscal austerity and federal debt Monday evening before the titans of the nation's financial industry." The article suggests that the speech will primarily outline Boehner's demands at the negotiating table with the group of senators, representatives, and executive officials working on deficit issues.
According to The New York Times, though, Boehner's speech will focus primarily on the debt ceiling, and suggest that everything is on the table except raising taxes. It will insist that action on the debt ceiling will require corresponding spending cuts. This doesn't seem like the most advantageous position. Republicans know that an outright refusal to raise the debt ceiling would be politically risky. Further, there is broad momentum for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Boehner's insistence that everything is on the table except raising taxes is not actually a position of compromise. For Republicans, almost everything is on the table for spending cuts in the first place.
We think that the smart thing to do politically would be to take the initiative. President Obama did this with his speech at George Washington University several weeks ago, in which he called for a bipartisan working group under Vice President Biden and changed the debate by framing the issue as Democrats on the side of cutting the deficit by taking moderate spending cuts and not taking increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans off the table. Boehner would want to set out a bold alternative that changes the debate in the same way. It seems clear that as long as the nation is talking about the deficit in terms of whether taxing the rich is reasonable, the Republicans are at a disadvantage. Boehner could outline a separate proposal that shows that Republicans can cut the budget without raising taxes. Boehner could borrow the Senate Gang of Six's emphasis on reforming the tax code instead of outright raising taxes as a starting point.
The Washington Post says that Boehner is "set to deliver a sermon of fiscal austerity and federal debt Monday evening before the titans of the nation's financial industry." The article suggests that the speech will primarily outline Boehner's demands at the negotiating table with the group of senators, representatives, and executive officials working on deficit issues.
According to The New York Times, though, Boehner's speech will focus primarily on the debt ceiling, and suggest that everything is on the table except raising taxes. It will insist that action on the debt ceiling will require corresponding spending cuts. This doesn't seem like the most advantageous position. Republicans know that an outright refusal to raise the debt ceiling would be politically risky. Further, there is broad momentum for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Boehner's insistence that everything is on the table except raising taxes is not actually a position of compromise. For Republicans, almost everything is on the table for spending cuts in the first place.
We think that the smart thing to do politically would be to take the initiative. President Obama did this with his speech at George Washington University several weeks ago, in which he called for a bipartisan working group under Vice President Biden and changed the debate by framing the issue as Democrats on the side of cutting the deficit by taking moderate spending cuts and not taking increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans off the table. Boehner would want to set out a bold alternative that changes the debate in the same way. It seems clear that as long as the nation is talking about the deficit in terms of whether taxing the rich is reasonable, the Republicans are at a disadvantage. Boehner could outline a separate proposal that shows that Republicans can cut the budget without raising taxes. Boehner could borrow the Senate Gang of Six's emphasis on reforming the tax code instead of outright raising taxes as a starting point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)