Weekend Review - Washington D. C. - Dec 5, 2008
Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Be sure to catch the conclusion at the end of this post. Congress may not be officially in session but they are still have been "busy bodies." This week we have watched as the Detroit auto manufacturers returned for a second time "hats in hand" to beg for American taxpayer money to bail them out. Not only did they overcharge us in the past for their autos and the repair parts needed over the years, now they wish for us to pay for their poor marketing and engineering decisions, high executive salaries, and the high cost of their union wages.
The Wall Street Journal discussed the challenges facing Democrats as they look forward to running both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue next year. The Journal writes, “One-party rule may sound like a guarantee of harmonious action, but the president and Congress often have different interests, agendas and rhythms. History is full of cautionary examples. President Jimmy Carter inherited a Congress with even bigger Democratic majorities than Mr. Obama’s, but relations were rocky. Bill Clinton, too, came to power with a Democrat-controlled Congress, but quickly bickered with lawmakers over health reform and proceeded to lose the House in 1994. . . . tensions spring from the very nature of Congress and the presidency. Presidents may chafe at Congress’s deliberate pace, which requires numerous hearings for any complex initiative. And committee chairmen tend to guard their turf, resenting intrusions by new presidents. Beyond this, congressional Democrats are hardly a monolithic bloc, and factions are often at odds -- from conservative ‘blue dogs’ to antiwar activists, California environmentalists to coal-industry loyalists.”
President-elect Obama and Democrats in Congress seem to be eager to pass a large government spending package sold as an economic stimulus, but even this reveals potential tensions between the White House and Capitol Hill. Obama has said he wants to cut wasteful spending, but his options for that are limited, as The Boston Globe noted. And, The Globe pointed out, “such savings are relatively small compared to a stimulus program that might cost as much as $700 billion over two years.” Yet Congressional Democrats continue to talk up stimulus legislation. However, The New York Times reported last week that they’ve decided not to call it a “stimulus” any more. It’s now going to be call an “economic recovery program,” since “stimulus” has not proven to be a very reassuring word to the public. Democrats may find, though, that the more challenging words they’ll have to grapple with next year include “deficit,” “debt,” and “priorities.”
In another article, The Wall Street Journal reported, “Democratic congressional leaders, eager to trumpet that change has come to Washington, are looking to enact quickly a series of popular bills in January in such areas as renewable energy, children’s health care and embryonic stem-cell research.” The Journal story goes on to note Democrats are considering attempts to swiftly pass “an array of bills they consider ‘low-hanging fruit’” early next year.
What bills are included in this array? A litany of bad ideas and troubling policies that were repeatedly rejected over the last two years. According to The Journal, Democrats are looking at new attempts to pass a mandate “requiring that electric utilities derive 15% of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2020,” guaranteed to drive up electricity rates, especially in the South, a twice-vetoed bill funding embryo-destructive stem cell research, and, of course, an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) designed to drive more people into government-run insurance programs.
Why the rush on these questionable bills? The WSJ writes, “Congress’s approval ratings have been at historic lows, and Democratic leaders are aware that if they do not show major achievements quickly, they risk losing a large number of seats in the next election.” Of course, to accomplish all of these things, Democrats will need to remember that Senate Republicans have a voice and they can’t simply steamroll their way to accomplishments.
But another factor has been overlooked recently in all the discussion of President-elect Obama’s first 100 days and the ambitions of Democrats in Congress: Democrats’ historic mismanagement of Congress over the last two years. Since early 2007, Democrats have repeatedly had trouble keeping their own members in line and running Capitol Hill anywhere near smoothly.
Roll Call had a few stories that illustrated the Democrats’ ongoing problems. First, there was a story full of quotes from Democrat Senate aides and Democrat senators discussing the anger that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has provoked by trying to distribute subcommittee chairmanships to newly-elected Democrats. As one might expect, there are a lot of senior Democrat Senators who aren’t enthusiastic about giving up some positions.
Meanwhile, in the House, no one seems to know what will be happening next week concerning loans to domestic auto companies. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer “gave a definitive response of ‘no’ when asked if the chamber would schedule votes even if Democratic leaders are unable to reach a bipartisan agreement on a multibillion-dollar rescue package for auto manufacturers.” However, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters, “I believe that an intervention will happen . . . .” But there has been no news on any sort of agreement on what to do among Democrats, leaving plans up in the air.
If Democrats really want to “show major achievements,” they’d do well to address some of the problems over the last few years, most notably their mismanagement and poor track record of considering the views of Republicans.
The New York Times reports that Democrats are already planning a key component of their massive spending proposal for next year, a “so-called green-jobs program.” Democrats in Congress spent a lot of time over the last year talking about “green-collar” jobs, though they never really explained what made a job “green-collar” or how government spending created them. Nonetheless, according to The New York Times “The green component of the much larger stimulus plan would cost at least $15 billion a year, and perhaps considerably more, depending on how the projects were defined, aides working on the package said.”
However, the story notes that “[s]ome experts said the record of government’s intervention in energy markets and new technologies was not promising” and goes on to discuss the cost of such programs in the past. The Times asked David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation about the idea and he wondered where the money for such programs would come from: “Are you going to take $100 billion from some other part of the economy, are you going to tax some people to pay for it? Are you just going to print it or borrow it? The money has to come from somewhere.”
And of course, even some prominent Democrats are skeptical of the idea. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who was critical of Senate Democrats’ proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies earlier this year, “said he was wary of big government spending programs without sufficient oversight or expertise,” according to the NYT. Bingaman said, “Just buying smart meters [to monitor and reduce home energy use] for everybody doesn’t really move the ball very far.”
In other news, Roll Call reported that thanks to GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss’ win in Georgia on Tuesday, Democrats likely will not be able to take a three-seat majority on Senate committees in the next Congress. A senior GOP aide told Roll Call, “Obviously, when you get to the point where we’re at now, which is in excess of 41 [seats], it forces the majority to be much more reasonable in their requests.” A smaller majority for Democrats on committees means they’ll have to be more responsive to Republican ideas about legislation and will have a more difficult time pushing controversial bills through to the floor.
WRAP-UP FOR THE WEEK: While many prominent Democrats insist that they will do something about the domestic auto industry, news reports today make it clear that they remain in complete disarray on this subject. The Hill reports today, “Lawmakers have yet to reach a compromise on the rescue package requested by the Detroit companies and [Democrat Sen. Chris] Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, painted a dismal portrait of their progress . . . .” And Michigan Sen. Carl Levin complained, “It’s very cumbersome for Congress to act. There were so many different approaches thrown out there.”
The AP examined the competing pressures on Democrats yesterday in an analysis piece about the rift between big labor and environmental groups on money for Detroit, noting “[t]he intramural fight helps explain why President-elect Barack Obama has stayed vague on his views on the details of the bailout and Democratic leaders have seemed uncertain about whether to push one through.”
Writing in The Detroit News, Henry Payne observes that this battle is showing up in rifts between California Democrats and their Michigan counterparts. Payne points to a letter California Sen. Diane Feinstein wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposing a plan backed by Levin to use $25 billion in existing money automakers have available for earth-friendly retooling. Payne wonders if this is because California lawmakers are looking out for struggling alternative car makers like Tesla Motors.
All of this makes it unsurprising, then, that Democrats would much rather avoid divisions and difficult decisions and dump the whole issue on President Bush. Politico reports that yesterday “House and Senate leaders released a letter to President Bush again urging him to intervene in the auto crisis by using funds available to the Treasury under the financial markets rescue fund enacted this fall.” Why? according to Politico,“This is the safer political course for Democrats given the voter antipathy to more bailouts.”
Of course, what to do with the auto industry isn’t the only thing Democrats can’t seem to agree on. There isn’t even consensus as to whether both chambers will even participate in next week’s planned lame duck session. While Reid has scheduled the Senate to return Monday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the House wouldn’t bother having votes unless there is agreement on a package for auto makers. Meanwhile, Roll Call notes that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is considering working on yet another version of a stimulus package next week, even though no one on the Senate side has suggested such a thing.
AGAIN - confusion and disarray reign as the Democrats’ mis-management of the 110th Congress continues all the way to the very end. It doesn’t look very encouraging for the prospects of the 111th Congress.
Tags: auto industry, bailout, bailouts, Democrats, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Republicans, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Wall Street Journal discussed the challenges facing Democrats as they look forward to running both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue next year. The Journal writes, “One-party rule may sound like a guarantee of harmonious action, but the president and Congress often have different interests, agendas and rhythms. History is full of cautionary examples. President Jimmy Carter inherited a Congress with even bigger Democratic majorities than Mr. Obama’s, but relations were rocky. Bill Clinton, too, came to power with a Democrat-controlled Congress, but quickly bickered with lawmakers over health reform and proceeded to lose the House in 1994. . . . tensions spring from the very nature of Congress and the presidency. Presidents may chafe at Congress’s deliberate pace, which requires numerous hearings for any complex initiative. And committee chairmen tend to guard their turf, resenting intrusions by new presidents. Beyond this, congressional Democrats are hardly a monolithic bloc, and factions are often at odds -- from conservative ‘blue dogs’ to antiwar activists, California environmentalists to coal-industry loyalists.”
President-elect Obama and Democrats in Congress seem to be eager to pass a large government spending package sold as an economic stimulus, but even this reveals potential tensions between the White House and Capitol Hill. Obama has said he wants to cut wasteful spending, but his options for that are limited, as The Boston Globe noted. And, The Globe pointed out, “such savings are relatively small compared to a stimulus program that might cost as much as $700 billion over two years.” Yet Congressional Democrats continue to talk up stimulus legislation. However, The New York Times reported last week that they’ve decided not to call it a “stimulus” any more. It’s now going to be call an “economic recovery program,” since “stimulus” has not proven to be a very reassuring word to the public. Democrats may find, though, that the more challenging words they’ll have to grapple with next year include “deficit,” “debt,” and “priorities.”
In another article, The Wall Street Journal reported, “Democratic congressional leaders, eager to trumpet that change has come to Washington, are looking to enact quickly a series of popular bills in January in such areas as renewable energy, children’s health care and embryonic stem-cell research.” The Journal story goes on to note Democrats are considering attempts to swiftly pass “an array of bills they consider ‘low-hanging fruit’” early next year.
What bills are included in this array? A litany of bad ideas and troubling policies that were repeatedly rejected over the last two years. According to The Journal, Democrats are looking at new attempts to pass a mandate “requiring that electric utilities derive 15% of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2020,” guaranteed to drive up electricity rates, especially in the South, a twice-vetoed bill funding embryo-destructive stem cell research, and, of course, an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) designed to drive more people into government-run insurance programs.
Why the rush on these questionable bills? The WSJ writes, “Congress’s approval ratings have been at historic lows, and Democratic leaders are aware that if they do not show major achievements quickly, they risk losing a large number of seats in the next election.” Of course, to accomplish all of these things, Democrats will need to remember that Senate Republicans have a voice and they can’t simply steamroll their way to accomplishments.
But another factor has been overlooked recently in all the discussion of President-elect Obama’s first 100 days and the ambitions of Democrats in Congress: Democrats’ historic mismanagement of Congress over the last two years. Since early 2007, Democrats have repeatedly had trouble keeping their own members in line and running Capitol Hill anywhere near smoothly.
Roll Call had a few stories that illustrated the Democrats’ ongoing problems. First, there was a story full of quotes from Democrat Senate aides and Democrat senators discussing the anger that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has provoked by trying to distribute subcommittee chairmanships to newly-elected Democrats. As one might expect, there are a lot of senior Democrat Senators who aren’t enthusiastic about giving up some positions.
Meanwhile, in the House, no one seems to know what will be happening next week concerning loans to domestic auto companies. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer “gave a definitive response of ‘no’ when asked if the chamber would schedule votes even if Democratic leaders are unable to reach a bipartisan agreement on a multibillion-dollar rescue package for auto manufacturers.” However, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters, “I believe that an intervention will happen . . . .” But there has been no news on any sort of agreement on what to do among Democrats, leaving plans up in the air.
If Democrats really want to “show major achievements,” they’d do well to address some of the problems over the last few years, most notably their mismanagement and poor track record of considering the views of Republicans.
The New York Times reports that Democrats are already planning a key component of their massive spending proposal for next year, a “so-called green-jobs program.” Democrats in Congress spent a lot of time over the last year talking about “green-collar” jobs, though they never really explained what made a job “green-collar” or how government spending created them. Nonetheless, according to The New York Times “The green component of the much larger stimulus plan would cost at least $15 billion a year, and perhaps considerably more, depending on how the projects were defined, aides working on the package said.”
However, the story notes that “[s]ome experts said the record of government’s intervention in energy markets and new technologies was not promising” and goes on to discuss the cost of such programs in the past. The Times asked David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation about the idea and he wondered where the money for such programs would come from: “Are you going to take $100 billion from some other part of the economy, are you going to tax some people to pay for it? Are you just going to print it or borrow it? The money has to come from somewhere.”
And of course, even some prominent Democrats are skeptical of the idea. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who was critical of Senate Democrats’ proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies earlier this year, “said he was wary of big government spending programs without sufficient oversight or expertise,” according to the NYT. Bingaman said, “Just buying smart meters [to monitor and reduce home energy use] for everybody doesn’t really move the ball very far.”
In other news, Roll Call reported that thanks to GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss’ win in Georgia on Tuesday, Democrats likely will not be able to take a three-seat majority on Senate committees in the next Congress. A senior GOP aide told Roll Call, “Obviously, when you get to the point where we’re at now, which is in excess of 41 [seats], it forces the majority to be much more reasonable in their requests.” A smaller majority for Democrats on committees means they’ll have to be more responsive to Republican ideas about legislation and will have a more difficult time pushing controversial bills through to the floor.
WRAP-UP FOR THE WEEK: While many prominent Democrats insist that they will do something about the domestic auto industry, news reports today make it clear that they remain in complete disarray on this subject. The Hill reports today, “Lawmakers have yet to reach a compromise on the rescue package requested by the Detroit companies and [Democrat Sen. Chris] Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, painted a dismal portrait of their progress . . . .” And Michigan Sen. Carl Levin complained, “It’s very cumbersome for Congress to act. There were so many different approaches thrown out there.”
The AP examined the competing pressures on Democrats yesterday in an analysis piece about the rift between big labor and environmental groups on money for Detroit, noting “[t]he intramural fight helps explain why President-elect Barack Obama has stayed vague on his views on the details of the bailout and Democratic leaders have seemed uncertain about whether to push one through.”
Writing in The Detroit News, Henry Payne observes that this battle is showing up in rifts between California Democrats and their Michigan counterparts. Payne points to a letter California Sen. Diane Feinstein wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposing a plan backed by Levin to use $25 billion in existing money automakers have available for earth-friendly retooling. Payne wonders if this is because California lawmakers are looking out for struggling alternative car makers like Tesla Motors.
All of this makes it unsurprising, then, that Democrats would much rather avoid divisions and difficult decisions and dump the whole issue on President Bush. Politico reports that yesterday “House and Senate leaders released a letter to President Bush again urging him to intervene in the auto crisis by using funds available to the Treasury under the financial markets rescue fund enacted this fall.” Why? according to Politico,“This is the safer political course for Democrats given the voter antipathy to more bailouts.”
Of course, what to do with the auto industry isn’t the only thing Democrats can’t seem to agree on. There isn’t even consensus as to whether both chambers will even participate in next week’s planned lame duck session. While Reid has scheduled the Senate to return Monday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the House wouldn’t bother having votes unless there is agreement on a package for auto makers. Meanwhile, Roll Call notes that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is considering working on yet another version of a stimulus package next week, even though no one on the Senate side has suggested such a thing.
AGAIN - confusion and disarray reign as the Democrats’ mis-management of the 110th Congress continues all the way to the very end. It doesn’t look very encouraging for the prospects of the 111th Congress.
Tags: auto industry, bailout, bailouts, Democrats, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Republicans, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 9:49 AM - Post Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home