Rachel Maddow was up in arms yesterday on her show about the President's stimulus bill that was passed by the House. Despite efforts by the President to include elements in the bill to appeal to Republicans (tax cuts, etc.) at the expense of more spending on infrastructure, alternative energy and unemployment benefits, not one Republican voted for the bill. Not one. Amazing...
How is it possible that every single one of the 178 Republicans held together to oppose the bill? Even with Obama's popularity, eleven Democrats went against him on this one. And yet no GOPer had the gall to oppose the mighty John Boehner. I suppose this is due to circling the wagons when under attack, along with the fact that only the Republican-est of Republican districts elected Republicans this time around.
So what can be done to fight such solidarity among the GOP in opposition to Obama's attempts at bipartisanship? What can we derive from the saga of the stimulus plan regarding Obama's plan for doing so? It would appear that, as Ms. Maddow fears, that the President screwed up. He gave the Republicans part of what they wanted and yet got not one single vote in return. I have an alternative and more hopeful interpretation.
The outcome of Congressional votes is seldom in doubt. Most times, the exact vote of every single Congressman is known beforehand. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, surely knew that, despite their concessions, they wouldn't have any GOP support. And yet the Democrats decided to include the tax cuts in the bill. This is part, I think, of a plan by the Administration to crush the Republican Party once and for all.
It's important to Obama's popularity that he be seen as a new sort of politician. He can't be seen as a blithely partisan figure. He has to make these sorts of attempts to build bipartisan consensus. He still manages to have the stimulus be seen as an entirely Democratic accomplishment, but he now has the added advantage of making the Republican Party look ridiculously obstructionist and out-of-touch, refusing to give even one vote in exchange for substantial concessions by the President.
If the economy recovers by November 2010, the Republicans are doomed. Like, Whig- and Federalist-level doomed. They're already down 77 in the House, and 18 in the Senate, with way more Republican Senate seats up for re-election in 2010 than those currently held by Democrats, meaning they are more likely than not to lose even more seats. A growing economy after an all-Democrat stimulus bill means they will lose so many more seats that they will become irrelevant.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
This is nice and all...
but does Aretha Franklin realize that every second of this bullshit is another second W is President?
Monday, January 5, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Baggage Fees and Government Cheese
(Posting during another electronic medical records class. I still haven't figured out how to include links, so I'll clean these posts up later. sorry)
Earlier this year, most airlines began charging passengers $15 for their first checked bag, as well as increasing fees for subsequent bags. The reason given by the airlines when they introduced these fees was increased fuel costs at a time when oil was $147 a barrel.
At the time of this post, oil is trading at $38.97, which is down over 70% from its peak earlier this year. Jet fuel prices have fallen 60% since July. And yet, airlines are still charging the same fees that they added to "cover increased fuel prices".
Why haven't these charges been rescinded? It's because consumers have already gotten used to the idea of being charged for baggage; they aren't mad about it anymore, so airlines will keep making them pay it, even though the supposed rationale for the fee is long gone.
Similar to the inertia of baggage fees, government programs, once enacted, are very difficult to get rid of because people become accustomed to them. Social Security and Medicare were controversial programs when they were first enacted, and it wouldn't have caused a huge political upheaval if they were never passed. Now that we have these entitlements, however, there would be senior citizens rioting in the streets if the programs were seriously threatened.
This concept shows the potential for huge and long-lasting change Obama and the Democrats in the next few years. Government-subsidized health insurance is a hot issue right now, but once people have a government insurance card in their wallet, they'll be much more likely to favor the program and support candidates who will protect it.
Earlier this year, most airlines began charging passengers $15 for their first checked bag, as well as increasing fees for subsequent bags. The reason given by the airlines when they introduced these fees was increased fuel costs at a time when oil was $147 a barrel.
At the time of this post, oil is trading at $38.97, which is down over 70% from its peak earlier this year. Jet fuel prices have fallen 60% since July. And yet, airlines are still charging the same fees that they added to "cover increased fuel prices".
Why haven't these charges been rescinded? It's because consumers have already gotten used to the idea of being charged for baggage; they aren't mad about it anymore, so airlines will keep making them pay it, even though the supposed rationale for the fee is long gone.
Similar to the inertia of baggage fees, government programs, once enacted, are very difficult to get rid of because people become accustomed to them. Social Security and Medicare were controversial programs when they were first enacted, and it wouldn't have caused a huge political upheaval if they were never passed. Now that we have these entitlements, however, there would be senior citizens rioting in the streets if the programs were seriously threatened.
This concept shows the potential for huge and long-lasting change Obama and the Democrats in the next few years. Government-subsidized health insurance is a hot issue right now, but once people have a government insurance card in their wallet, they'll be much more likely to favor the program and support candidates who will protect it.
Two Cher-related Questions
Why is it that T-Pain gets credit for starting the whole "digital voice modification" thing when Cher was doing it years ago in that unbelievably irritating "Do You Believe" song?
What is this Beyonce "If I Were a Boy" song if not an attempt by Mrs. Jay-Z to add herself to the hallowed ranks of Judy Garland and Cher as favorite artists to impersonate for drag performers?
What is this Beyonce "If I Were a Boy" song if not an attempt by Mrs. Jay-Z to add herself to the hallowed ranks of Judy Garland and Cher as favorite artists to impersonate for drag performers?
Monday, December 15, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Obama/Dems Need to Be More Aggressive
This whole Blagojevich thing has not been handled well at all by the Obama transition team. Journalists are trying to figure out what the President-elect knew and when he knew it, which is never a good thing to have journalists asking about you. And, as discussed previously, the transition team's response has not done much to assuage concerns.
Obviously it would have been much better if, upon first hearing Blagojevich's ridiculous demands, the Obama team would have called up U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald's office, which was publicly investigating the Governor for months, to inform Fitzgerald of Blagojevich's corruption. That would have kept any of Blagojevich's stink from being passed on to the transition.
Similarly, Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress need to be more aggressive and publicly confrontational in fighting Senate Republicans over the auto bailout. Yesterday, the bailout passed the House mainly due to Democrat support. Its fate in the Senate, where 60% of Senators must support the bill (or at least support a vote on the bill), is murky, with Republicans led by Richard Selby (R-AL) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) threatening a filibuster even though the bailout is supported by the GOP White House.
I say, let 'em filibuster, and make 'em actually keep talking on the floor of the Senate; in recent years when a cloture vote fails to end debate, the Senate just moves on to something else, instead of making Senators actually filibuster, which is a shame. Such drama on the Senate floor would lay bare the clear conflicts of interest at play on this issue.
Alabama is home to three Honda and Hyundai plants, which the state attracted by giving the Japanese manufacturer's a bunch of tax breaks and subsidies. So Sens. Selby and Sessions are more than happy to abandon their apparent love for the removing government influence over the free market when it benefits their own state, but not when it helps save millions (or hundreds of thousands, depending on whose analysis you believe) of American manufacturing jobs. Republicans would also benefit from a weakened United Auto Workers, which reliably supports Democratic candidates all over the country.
By drawing attention to Republican opposition to the bailout, Democrats can either a) generate enough public support to get the bill passed, or b) clearly establish that it is Republicans who killed the bill and allowed the companies to fail. Seems like a win-win.
Obviously it would have been much better if, upon first hearing Blagojevich's ridiculous demands, the Obama team would have called up U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald's office, which was publicly investigating the Governor for months, to inform Fitzgerald of Blagojevich's corruption. That would have kept any of Blagojevich's stink from being passed on to the transition.
Similarly, Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress need to be more aggressive and publicly confrontational in fighting Senate Republicans over the auto bailout. Yesterday, the bailout passed the House mainly due to Democrat support. Its fate in the Senate, where 60% of Senators must support the bill (or at least support a vote on the bill), is murky, with Republicans led by Richard Selby (R-AL) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) threatening a filibuster even though the bailout is supported by the GOP White House.
I say, let 'em filibuster, and make 'em actually keep talking on the floor of the Senate; in recent years when a cloture vote fails to end debate, the Senate just moves on to something else, instead of making Senators actually filibuster, which is a shame. Such drama on the Senate floor would lay bare the clear conflicts of interest at play on this issue.
Alabama is home to three Honda and Hyundai plants, which the state attracted by giving the Japanese manufacturer's a bunch of tax breaks and subsidies. So Sens. Selby and Sessions are more than happy to abandon their apparent love for the removing government influence over the free market when it benefits their own state, but not when it helps save millions (or hundreds of thousands, depending on whose analysis you believe) of American manufacturing jobs. Republicans would also benefit from a weakened United Auto Workers, which reliably supports Democratic candidates all over the country.
By drawing attention to Republican opposition to the bailout, Democrats can either a) generate enough public support to get the bill passed, or b) clearly establish that it is Republicans who killed the bill and allowed the companies to fail. Seems like a win-win.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Oh yeah, I forgot...
In the taped calls, Blagojevich says at some point, when discussing who he thought was Obama's preferred candidate to take his old Senate seat, "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation."
Let me tell you, that's a great bit of tape for Democrats
Let me tell you, that's a great bit of tape for Democrats
Obama's First Potential Scandal
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested by the FBI this morning. According the the press release put out by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who is the man who successfully prosecuted former Cheney Chief of Staff Scooter Libby, he was attempting to sell Obama's Senate seat, which as Illinois Gov he is solely responsible for appointing the new Senator. Let me summarize the issue as briefly as I can:
Gov. Blagojevich was being investigated by the Feds for corruption, getting campaign contributions from lots of rich folk, including our old friend Tony Rezko, in exchange for your standard slate of government contracts and other favors. As part of his investigation, Fitzgerald, who is widely thought to be the best prosecutor in the country, tapped Blagojevich's personal and office phones, as well as his office and a conference room at "Friends of Blagojevich", his political organization. The Illinois legislature passed an ethics law to make it tougher for Blagojevich to raise money, starting January 1, 2009, so time was a-wastin'.
As it became clear that Obama was going to win, giving Blagojevich the opportunity to appoint his successor to the Senate. Appointing himself to the seat would benefit him, so he made clear to anyone who would listen that he was open to offers. Bribes he was asking for included:
1. Being appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Energy, or an ambassador
2. Getting his wife a well-paying position on a corporate board
3. A high-paying job for himself with a political committee and/or a non-profit group
4. Campaign funds
So yeah, it's illegal to ask people for that stuff in exchange for an official decision.
There are two ways this can come back to sting Obama. First off, there's Rezko's involvement. There was a real estate deal involving Rezko and the Obamas in the past that, while probably not anything that will ever be a big deal, it hurts any time "Obama" and "Rezko" are in the same news story.
The more serious issue is a discrepancy between Obama's statements on this issue and those of David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist. In an interview with the Chicago Fox affiliate a couple weeks ago, Axelrod said that Obama had "talked to the governor" about who would replace him. Today, Obama said "I had no contact with the governor or his office." If Obama indeed has spoken with Blagojevich in the past month or two, Fitzgerald would have a recording of the conversation. Let's hope Obama's telling the truth. I think he is, actually. It seems unlikely that Obama would actually personally talk to pretty much anyone directly, especially a corrupt governor. So Axelrod just meant that Obama's people talked to Blagojevich and/or his people.
During Obama's comments today about the issue, he said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Notice that he stopped himself from saying "we were not aware", correcting to "I was not aware". So clearly his team knew what was going on, but Obama at least has plausible deniability. Depending on how close it gets to the man himself, he could be politically hurt, leaving him less able to pass his agenda. Health insurance reform and funding for green energy, infrastructure and higher education got a little less likely. We'll find out how much less.
Gov. Blagojevich was being investigated by the Feds for corruption, getting campaign contributions from lots of rich folk, including our old friend Tony Rezko, in exchange for your standard slate of government contracts and other favors. As part of his investigation, Fitzgerald, who is widely thought to be the best prosecutor in the country, tapped Blagojevich's personal and office phones, as well as his office and a conference room at "Friends of Blagojevich", his political organization. The Illinois legislature passed an ethics law to make it tougher for Blagojevich to raise money, starting January 1, 2009, so time was a-wastin'.
As it became clear that Obama was going to win, giving Blagojevich the opportunity to appoint his successor to the Senate. Appointing himself to the seat would benefit him, so he made clear to anyone who would listen that he was open to offers. Bribes he was asking for included:
1. Being appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, Energy, or an ambassador
2. Getting his wife a well-paying position on a corporate board
3. A high-paying job for himself with a political committee and/or a non-profit group
4. Campaign funds
So yeah, it's illegal to ask people for that stuff in exchange for an official decision.
There are two ways this can come back to sting Obama. First off, there's Rezko's involvement. There was a real estate deal involving Rezko and the Obamas in the past that, while probably not anything that will ever be a big deal, it hurts any time "Obama" and "Rezko" are in the same news story.
The more serious issue is a discrepancy between Obama's statements on this issue and those of David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist. In an interview with the Chicago Fox affiliate a couple weeks ago, Axelrod said that Obama had "talked to the governor" about who would replace him. Today, Obama said "I had no contact with the governor or his office." If Obama indeed has spoken with Blagojevich in the past month or two, Fitzgerald would have a recording of the conversation. Let's hope Obama's telling the truth. I think he is, actually. It seems unlikely that Obama would actually personally talk to pretty much anyone directly, especially a corrupt governor. So Axelrod just meant that Obama's people talked to Blagojevich and/or his people.
During Obama's comments today about the issue, he said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." Notice that he stopped himself from saying "we were not aware", correcting to "I was not aware". So clearly his team knew what was going on, but Obama at least has plausible deniability. Depending on how close it gets to the man himself, he could be politically hurt, leaving him less able to pass his agenda. Health insurance reform and funding for green energy, infrastructure and higher education got a little less likely. We'll find out how much less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)