"The idea that it is outside the rules to proceed within the rules is a very unique view on the rules... The point is this: If you've got 51 votes for your position, you win."
-- Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH),defending the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass legislation in 2005.
Depending on which side of America’s ideological chasm you stand, President Barack Obama’s Health Care Summit was either a success or a dismal failure. If your expectations were that genuine compromise would come from the meeting, you were bound to be disappointed. If you thought that the President and the Democrats would suddenly throw out a year of work and start building a bill based on RNC talking points, then surely this was a failure. From a standpoint of policy, the summit did not achieve anything. In changing votes, and winning over hearts and minds it failed.
But it was a political success for the President and opened strategic and tactical opportunities for him that would otherwise be blocked off. In addition, the Republicans lost one of their best arguments against the Obama bill.
Since the beginning of the debate the Republicans kept saying “We have ideas, but the Democrats simply won’t listen!” They have used this is a major argument to stir up opposition to Obama’s proposal. They kept saying that they would support any proposal that included their ideas that they claimed had widespread support of the American people.
But Obama knew his opponents and called their bluff.
In the days leading up to the summit, the White House released several substantive proposals. This was at once an invitation and a trap for the Republicans. It invited the Republicans to respond with ideas of their own. This invitation though, left the Republicans in a loose/loose position. If they made any proposals, the Democrats might actually include them in the legislation, which they in turn would then have to support. Supporting Obama on anything has become political suicide for a party whose base has been reduced to its extreme right wing.
If they didn’t respond with proposals of their own they would appear to be more interested in hurting Obama politically than taking care of business. That would keep their base happy, but would reinforce their obstructionist image with the majority of voters, who actually support Obama’s health care reforms.
They ducked the choice and argued about the shape of the meeting table instead.
On the day of the summit they missed one final opportunity to escape the trap. But they stepped right into it. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could have proposed something that would have been large enough and reasonable enough that the Democrats would have to include it. But, It could have been crafted so that it would have gotten token Republican support, but would have alienated more even more Democrats.
Any Republican support would leave Obama without his best argument to use the reconciliation process to pass his reforms. He would have had to press ahead outside the budget process. But gaining the token support of say Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) at the cost of Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc) the Democrats still wouldn’t have enough votes to break a filibuster and pass the bill.
Unfortunately for the Republicans and fortunately for the 30 million people whom they don’t want to insure, McConnell is not that imaginative.
On the day of the summit Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va) lugged in a full copy of the bill and all the Republican talking points. The rest of the Republicans followed suit with their paint-by-numbers, RNC inspired comments. The Democrats spent their time correcting the Republican’s facts and reminding them that this was a policy discussion and not a political ad. By the time Rep John Boehner (R-Ohio) ran through his final round of Republican clichés it was obvious that they had come ill prepared, with no ideas to put on the table. The only one they had that the Democrats accepted was a proposal to use undercover “shoppers” to uncover Medicare fraud.
Because the Republicans had nothing substantive to say, the Democrats are free to pursue the reconciliation strategy to pass health care reform. It appears the Democrats will do just that. The Senate and House will pass the Senate version of the health care reform. Then they will follow that up with individual “fixes” to the new law that will have wide spread support and force the Republicans and conservative Democrats into either supporting these proposals or taking very public, unpopular votes.
Through lack of imagination, falling for their own rhetoric and overplaying their hand the Republicans took themselves out of the game. Obama is now free to move ahead as he chooses and there is nothing the Republicans can do but watch. The President bluffed them and won – and so did Health Care Reform.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
A Man of Character
If the gods had intended for people to vote, they would have given us candidates.
- Howard Zinn American Historian – 1922 – 2010
Howard Zinn, meet John Edwards.
Few American politicians have self-destructed with such flair, imagination and ego as John Edwards. The only other one who comes close is Richard Nixon.
To read the accounts in “The Politician”, Edwards comes across as mentally unbalanced in his belief that his affair with Rielle Hunter would not come to light, would not hurt his chances of winning the Presidency, or hurt his party.
As Bob Dole said in his 1996 campaign against Clinton “Character matters.” It does, but not in the way that Dole meant.
If you want to be President you have to have an amazing ego to decide to run, and then to go and solicit the support and buckets of money to make it happen. This is true whether you are a bottom feeder like Tom Tancredo or Dennis Kucinich or a top tear candidate like Obama, Clinton, McCain and Romney. Once candidates breaks through to that tier of plausibility their egos are stroked by a vast machine of consultants, staffers and groupies. At every turn they are asked their opinion on life or death matters of world and national import. Their product becomes their opinion.
This is the context we need to examine a candidate’s character – how do they view themselves in this environment.
Does a candidate’s ego consume them and leave them a hollow human being like it did Edwards? Are they so determined to prove themselves better than their father that they take on a messianic quality like W? Is a candidate so use to success that they are afraid to fail and so don’t risk anything like Obama? Or like Clinton, maybe they want to be loved so much that when they do fail they spend the rest of their Presidency risking little in policy initiatives in order to be liked by the most people.
In 2008, the Presidential candidates gave evidence of how their view of themselves would affect how they would govern. McCain was so cocky that he was sure Sarah Palin would be a good running mate, simply because, with a fighter pilot’s recklessness, he chose her.
Obama was quite different. In the campaign he came off as brilliant, eloquent man, who moved people through the power of his words. His whole candidacy grew out of his eloquence, whether it was standing in downtown Chicago opposing Iraq, or his speech to the Democratic Convention on 2004, the whole push for Obama was borne not out of any great accomplishments but out of his ability to move people with his words. Whenever he was challenged, a beautiful speech would put it all right and everyone would fall in line.
Today we can see this as forewarning for how Obama would govern. A good example is how he has dealt with Health Care reform. His main activity on the topic seems to have been his two speeches, one dedicated to health care reform and the other the State of the Union. He has this view, which he himself admits, that people will fall into line behind a policy if the reasoning for that policy is sound. He seems surprised this is not the case.
Reports are Edwards and Hunter are engaged. He seems oblivious to the damage that he caused. He betrayed his wife, his supporter and his staff, not through avarice but through ego. The same ego that drove him to believe he could get away with his affair also drove him to be a candidate. His ego drove him mad.
But each candidate for President must have an ego that borders on insanity. This is not how the Founders thought of the Chief Executive. He was to be a trusted “man of leisure” who had time to concentrate on society’s greater good. He wasn’t supposed to be a man or woman driven an insatiable desire to seek high office.
They would disappointed that today, the main requirement to be a candidate for President, is madness.
- Howard Zinn American Historian – 1922 – 2010
Howard Zinn, meet John Edwards.
Few American politicians have self-destructed with such flair, imagination and ego as John Edwards. The only other one who comes close is Richard Nixon.
To read the accounts in “The Politician”, Edwards comes across as mentally unbalanced in his belief that his affair with Rielle Hunter would not come to light, would not hurt his chances of winning the Presidency, or hurt his party.
As Bob Dole said in his 1996 campaign against Clinton “Character matters.” It does, but not in the way that Dole meant.
If you want to be President you have to have an amazing ego to decide to run, and then to go and solicit the support and buckets of money to make it happen. This is true whether you are a bottom feeder like Tom Tancredo or Dennis Kucinich or a top tear candidate like Obama, Clinton, McCain and Romney. Once candidates breaks through to that tier of plausibility their egos are stroked by a vast machine of consultants, staffers and groupies. At every turn they are asked their opinion on life or death matters of world and national import. Their product becomes their opinion.
This is the context we need to examine a candidate’s character – how do they view themselves in this environment.
Does a candidate’s ego consume them and leave them a hollow human being like it did Edwards? Are they so determined to prove themselves better than their father that they take on a messianic quality like W? Is a candidate so use to success that they are afraid to fail and so don’t risk anything like Obama? Or like Clinton, maybe they want to be loved so much that when they do fail they spend the rest of their Presidency risking little in policy initiatives in order to be liked by the most people.
In 2008, the Presidential candidates gave evidence of how their view of themselves would affect how they would govern. McCain was so cocky that he was sure Sarah Palin would be a good running mate, simply because, with a fighter pilot’s recklessness, he chose her.
Obama was quite different. In the campaign he came off as brilliant, eloquent man, who moved people through the power of his words. His whole candidacy grew out of his eloquence, whether it was standing in downtown Chicago opposing Iraq, or his speech to the Democratic Convention on 2004, the whole push for Obama was borne not out of any great accomplishments but out of his ability to move people with his words. Whenever he was challenged, a beautiful speech would put it all right and everyone would fall in line.
Today we can see this as forewarning for how Obama would govern. A good example is how he has dealt with Health Care reform. His main activity on the topic seems to have been his two speeches, one dedicated to health care reform and the other the State of the Union. He has this view, which he himself admits, that people will fall into line behind a policy if the reasoning for that policy is sound. He seems surprised this is not the case.
Reports are Edwards and Hunter are engaged. He seems oblivious to the damage that he caused. He betrayed his wife, his supporter and his staff, not through avarice but through ego. The same ego that drove him to believe he could get away with his affair also drove him to be a candidate. His ego drove him mad.
But each candidate for President must have an ego that borders on insanity. This is not how the Founders thought of the Chief Executive. He was to be a trusted “man of leisure” who had time to concentrate on society’s greater good. He wasn’t supposed to be a man or woman driven an insatiable desire to seek high office.
They would disappointed that today, the main requirement to be a candidate for President, is madness.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Cash is King
If those in charge of our society - politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television - can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.
- Howard Zinn, American Historian – 1922 – 2010
$44,214,960.
That is the amount of money ATT has contributed to political campaigns over the past 10 years. ATT is the number one “heavy hitter” on OpenSecrets.org’s list of top 10 corporate campaign donors. (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/). ATT splits its donations almost equally between Democrats and Republicans.
Rounding out the top five are: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ($41,941,811 – almost all of it to Democrats); National Association of Realtors ($35,595,518 – evenly split between Democrats and Republicans); Goldman Sachs ($31,437,825 – primarily to Democrats); and the American Association for Justice (formerly the Trial Lawyers Association – $31,424,029 – overwhelmingly to Democrats).
So even without the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v The Federal Elections Commission, which struck down limits on independent campaign contributions by corporations, there was, and is, a lot of money flowing into candidates all across the country. As the dollar amounts above show, it is not as if the 2002 campaign finance reform laws stymied contributions. Contributions to campaigns by OpenSecrets.org top five “heavy hitters,” actually went up the last two Presidential election cycles.
Writing for the majority in his decision on Citizens, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited “the substantial, nationwide chilling effect caused” by a ban on corporate contributions. The Supreme Court did uphold disclosure requirements and the ban on soft money. They also held that corporations and candidates could not coordinate their efforts.
The reaction to Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens has been swift and pointed. President Obama called out the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech. Sen. Chuck Schumer is planning Senate hearings to help develop laws to mitigate some of the impact of the ruling.
But Citizens doesn’t mean that corporations will suddenly open their wallets and make contributions.
They are already doing so.
Whether through direct funding like that listed above, or through PACS and “Research” institutes or “Concerned Citizens” groups, corporations are pumping a lot of money for and against candidates and trying to influence legislation in Congress. The ads that ran both for both sides on Obama’s health care plan are excellent examples of this.
But the justices also left themselves a large opening to overturn virtually any law regulating campaign finance. In the past the Supreme Court ruled that corruption due to “undue access” or “influence” justified campaign finance reform laws. In Citizens the Supreme Court reversed that stance and ruled: “The fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt.” In following that rule, the only contributions that could be constitutionally outlawed would be any contribution with a direct “quid pro quo.”
The Supremes could use this rule to overturn limits on PACs expenditures. In SpeechNow.org v The Federal Election Commission, currently before a DC Circuit Court, SpeechNow.org is arguing that a PAC should be able run campaign ads without adhering to the dollar limits set by the FEC. They argue that it is neither making any expenditures in favor of any one candidate, nor is it coordinating its expenditures with a campaign. Therefore they should be treated just like corporations are treated in Citizens. A ruling in SpeechNow’s favor would open the floodgates of PAC money into an election.
The political party that stands to gain the most is the Republicans. As you can see, Democrats are heavy beneficiaries of the top five corporate donors over the past ten years. Republicans are already cash strapped this election cycle and the Democrats are fairly flush. The Republicans will be able to solicit more money from corporations, and if SpeechNow.org wins its case, Republicans can also tap into their vast network of PACS and interests groups.
In a strange way this ruling returns the country to an ideal held dear by our country’s founders. The founders felt that only men with land and money should be able to vote. Their reasoning was that these men would have some stake in the country and would always vote in a rational way to protect their interests. The founders were afraid that those without land or money could easily be manipulated into a mob – and they were afraid of the mob. That is why the United States was founded as a Republic to be lead by wealthy, educated members of a ruling class, and not as a Democracy where the majority – the mob – rules.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens ensures only those with vast amounts of money will be able to govern. Those people would make decisions in their own best interest – just as the founders intended.
- Howard Zinn, American Historian – 1922 – 2010
$44,214,960.
That is the amount of money ATT has contributed to political campaigns over the past 10 years. ATT is the number one “heavy hitter” on OpenSecrets.org’s list of top 10 corporate campaign donors. (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/). ATT splits its donations almost equally between Democrats and Republicans.
Rounding out the top five are: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ($41,941,811 – almost all of it to Democrats); National Association of Realtors ($35,595,518 – evenly split between Democrats and Republicans); Goldman Sachs ($31,437,825 – primarily to Democrats); and the American Association for Justice (formerly the Trial Lawyers Association – $31,424,029 – overwhelmingly to Democrats).
So even without the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v The Federal Elections Commission, which struck down limits on independent campaign contributions by corporations, there was, and is, a lot of money flowing into candidates all across the country. As the dollar amounts above show, it is not as if the 2002 campaign finance reform laws stymied contributions. Contributions to campaigns by OpenSecrets.org top five “heavy hitters,” actually went up the last two Presidential election cycles.
Writing for the majority in his decision on Citizens, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited “the substantial, nationwide chilling effect caused” by a ban on corporate contributions. The Supreme Court did uphold disclosure requirements and the ban on soft money. They also held that corporations and candidates could not coordinate their efforts.
The reaction to Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens has been swift and pointed. President Obama called out the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech. Sen. Chuck Schumer is planning Senate hearings to help develop laws to mitigate some of the impact of the ruling.
But Citizens doesn’t mean that corporations will suddenly open their wallets and make contributions.
They are already doing so.
Whether through direct funding like that listed above, or through PACS and “Research” institutes or “Concerned Citizens” groups, corporations are pumping a lot of money for and against candidates and trying to influence legislation in Congress. The ads that ran both for both sides on Obama’s health care plan are excellent examples of this.
But the justices also left themselves a large opening to overturn virtually any law regulating campaign finance. In the past the Supreme Court ruled that corruption due to “undue access” or “influence” justified campaign finance reform laws. In Citizens the Supreme Court reversed that stance and ruled: “The fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt.” In following that rule, the only contributions that could be constitutionally outlawed would be any contribution with a direct “quid pro quo.”
The Supremes could use this rule to overturn limits on PACs expenditures. In SpeechNow.org v The Federal Election Commission, currently before a DC Circuit Court, SpeechNow.org is arguing that a PAC should be able run campaign ads without adhering to the dollar limits set by the FEC. They argue that it is neither making any expenditures in favor of any one candidate, nor is it coordinating its expenditures with a campaign. Therefore they should be treated just like corporations are treated in Citizens. A ruling in SpeechNow’s favor would open the floodgates of PAC money into an election.
The political party that stands to gain the most is the Republicans. As you can see, Democrats are heavy beneficiaries of the top five corporate donors over the past ten years. Republicans are already cash strapped this election cycle and the Democrats are fairly flush. The Republicans will be able to solicit more money from corporations, and if SpeechNow.org wins its case, Republicans can also tap into their vast network of PACS and interests groups.
In a strange way this ruling returns the country to an ideal held dear by our country’s founders. The founders felt that only men with land and money should be able to vote. Their reasoning was that these men would have some stake in the country and would always vote in a rational way to protect their interests. The founders were afraid that those without land or money could easily be manipulated into a mob – and they were afraid of the mob. That is why the United States was founded as a Republic to be lead by wealthy, educated members of a ruling class, and not as a Democracy where the majority – the mob – rules.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens ensures only those with vast amounts of money will be able to govern. Those people would make decisions in their own best interest – just as the founders intended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)