Former Republican Congressman and current MSNBC host Joe Scarborough is out with a vicious new post encouraging Republicans to "man up" and take Sarah Palin down a peg. As if trying to get the ball rolling, he precedes this suggestion with a few choice volleys of his own.
"Republicans have a problem," Scarborough writes at Politico. "The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected."
Scarborough's main beef with Palin seems to be that, in his view, she just is not serious enough to be considered a viable GOP candidate for president in 2012, and despite the supposed general acceptance of this as fact, Republicans sit idly, afraid to speak out, while Palin basks in the pre-campaign limelight.
To make matters worse, Scarborough prods, Palin does all of this while demeaning the legacies of GOP standard-bearers that many hold dear, people such as former presidents Reagan, whom she casually downplayed as "an actor," as well as George H.W. and Barbara Bush, whom she deemed "blue bloods."
Goooooooooooooooooooooooooo Joe!!! Palin splits the vote and does the party no good.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
GOP Blocks Ban On Earmarks
By a nearly 3-2 margin, the Senate voted Tuesday to let lawmakers keep sprinkling bills with home-state pet projects like roads, bridges, water treatment plants, grants to local police departments and special interest tax breaks. But with anti-earmark GOP reinforcements arriving in January, the curtain may soon come down on the practice.
Most Democrats and a handful of Republicans joined in a 56-39 majority to reject a ban on funding for home-state projects not included in the budget proposal that the president submits to Congress each year.
Earmark critics, nonetheless, rejoiced in the vote, noting their side had increased by 10 senators since they lost a 68-29 vote on the same question earlier this year. Any votes next year should be closer because a band of anti-earmark Republicans will join the Senate in January. Earmark opponent Jim DeMint, R-S.C., predicted his side will have 45 votes next time.
Senate Republicans bowed to tea party activists after the midterm elections and passed a party resolution declaring GOP that senators would give up earmarks. House Republicans who took 63 seats away from Democrats on Nov. 2 to become the majority in January also have given up the practice.
Most Democrats and a handful of Republicans joined in a 56-39 majority to reject a ban on funding for home-state projects not included in the budget proposal that the president submits to Congress each year.
Earmark critics, nonetheless, rejoiced in the vote, noting their side had increased by 10 senators since they lost a 68-29 vote on the same question earlier this year. Any votes next year should be closer because a band of anti-earmark Republicans will join the Senate in January. Earmark opponent Jim DeMint, R-S.C., predicted his side will have 45 votes next time.
Senate Republicans bowed to tea party activists after the midterm elections and passed a party resolution declaring GOP that senators would give up earmarks. House Republicans who took 63 seats away from Democrats on Nov. 2 to become the majority in January also have given up the practice.
Tax Cuts Again and Unemployment Blocked by GOP
President Obama suggested Tuesday that a group of congressional leaders he has asked to work out a compromise on expiring tax cuts will also try to work out a compromise on expiring unemployment benefits.
"We discussed working together to keep the government running this year -- and running in a fiscally responsible way," Obama said. "And we discussed unemployment insurance, which expires today. I've asked that Congress act to extend this emergency relief without delay to folks who are facing tough times by no fault of their own."
Obama first asked lawmakers to reauthorize extended unemployment benefits at the beginning of October, but Congress has failed to prevent the benefits from lapsing at least temporarily. Now it looks as though a deal crafted by the four members of Congress tasked with compromising on tax cuts may be the only way.
Senate Democrats asked Tuesday afternoon for a yearlong reauthorization of Emergency Unemployment Compensation and Extended Benefits programs, which together provide up to 73 weeks of benefits beyond the 26 weeks provided by states. Republicans blocked the request, leaving no clear path forward for a reauthorization. (Democrats blocked a counter-request to reauthorize the benefits while offsetting their deficit impact with spending cuts.)
"We discussed working together to keep the government running this year -- and running in a fiscally responsible way," Obama said. "And we discussed unemployment insurance, which expires today. I've asked that Congress act to extend this emergency relief without delay to folks who are facing tough times by no fault of their own."
Obama first asked lawmakers to reauthorize extended unemployment benefits at the beginning of October, but Congress has failed to prevent the benefits from lapsing at least temporarily. Now it looks as though a deal crafted by the four members of Congress tasked with compromising on tax cuts may be the only way.
Senate Democrats asked Tuesday afternoon for a yearlong reauthorization of Emergency Unemployment Compensation and Extended Benefits programs, which together provide up to 73 weeks of benefits beyond the 26 weeks provided by states. Republicans blocked the request, leaving no clear path forward for a reauthorization. (Democrats blocked a counter-request to reauthorize the benefits while offsetting their deficit impact with spending cuts.)
Monday, November 29, 2010
President Barack Obama announced a proposal Monday to freeze pay for federal workers over the next two years, one of several "very tough decisions" coming from the administration as it attempts to rein in government spending and address the looming federal deficit.
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
President Barack Obama announced a proposal Monday to freeze pay for federal workers over the next two years, one of several "very tough decisions" coming from the administration as it attempts to rein in government spending and address the looming federal deficit.
"In these challenging times. we want the best and brightest to join and make a difference, but these are also times where all of us are called on to make sacrifices," Obama said in a statement at the White House. "And I'm asking civil servants to do what they have always done. Play their part."
The freeze, which requires congressional approval, applies to civilian federal employees -- including non-military personel serving at the Department of Defense. The White House says the move will save $2 billion during the rest of the current fiscal year and $28 billion over the next five years.
Obama noted the difficulty of the decision in his remarks Monday, saying "this is not just a line-item on a federal ledger. These are people's lives."
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Cheat Sheet - Breaking News, World, U.S. & Entertainment - The Daily Beast
Cheat Sheet - Breaking News, World, U.S. & Entertainment - The Daily Beast: "Once again, it looks like “don’t ask, don’t tell” is here to stay. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said today on Fox News Sunday that a bill to repeal the controversial ban on gays in the military “isn’t going anywhere.” Graham continued: “I don’t think there’s anywhere near the votes to repeal DADT on the Republican side.” Representing the other side of the aisle, Missouri’s Claire McCaskill, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said a repeal would have no negative affect on the military.
Read it at Politico"
Read it at Politico"
Cheat Sheet - Breaking News, World, U.S. & Entertainment - The Daily Beast
Cheat Sheet - Breaking News, World, U.S. & Entertainment - The Daily Beast: "Charlie Rangel thinks the House is being just a little too harsh on him. The 80-year-old Democratic representative, who was found guilty of 11 ethics violations by a House panel, is fighting against the censure which the committee recommended as punishment. In a handy document to be passed around by his staff, “10 Reasons Why Charles B. Rangel Should Not Receive Censure,” the congressman argues that censure, in which a guilty House member is made to stand up in front of the entire assembly and receive a verbal rebuke from the speaker of the House, is too serious for the types of infractions he has been found guilty of. Instead, he wants a less serious reprimand to be issued—and the chance to address the full House beforehand.
Read it at Politico"
Read it at Politico"
Romney Could Beat Obama In 2012
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Fred Karger would be the first gay candidate to run for president from a major political party
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Vet, 77, Busted For Obama Death Threat | The Smoking Gun
Vet, 77, Busted For Obama Death Threat | The Smoking Gun: "NOVEMBER 24--A 77-year-old South Carolina man whose home was stocked with an arsenal of guns told Secret Service agents that he wanted to shoot Barack Obama “for what he has done to this country,” according to a criminal complaint charging him with threatening the president’s life.
Michael Bowden allegedly first spoke of killing Obama last week during a “routine check-up” at a Veterans Administration clinic in Spartanburg. Bowden, pictured in the mug shot at right, told a nurse that he “was thinking of traveling to Washington, DC, to shoot the President (Obama) because he is not doing enough to help African Americans,” according to an affidavit sworn by Agent Mark Booth.
In an interview last Wednesday with three federal investigators, Bowden acknowledged threatening Obama’s life at the VA facility."
No I am not kidding. But is this necessary?
Michael Bowden allegedly first spoke of killing Obama last week during a “routine check-up” at a Veterans Administration clinic in Spartanburg. Bowden, pictured in the mug shot at right, told a nurse that he “was thinking of traveling to Washington, DC, to shoot the President (Obama) because he is not doing enough to help African Americans,” according to an affidavit sworn by Agent Mark Booth.
In an interview last Wednesday with three federal investigators, Bowden acknowledged threatening Obama’s life at the VA facility."
No I am not kidding. But is this necessary?
The Two Most Essential, Abhorrent, Intolerable Lies Of George W. Bush's Memoir
The Two Most Essential, Abhorrent, Intolerable Lies Of George W. Bush's Memoir: "WASHINGTON -- These days, when we think of George W. Bush, we think mostly of what a horrible mess he made of the economy. But his even more tragic legacy is the loss of our moral authority, and the transformation of the United States of America from global champion of human rights into an outlaw nation.
History is likely to judge Bush most harshly for two things in particular: Launching a war against a country that had not attacked us, and approving the use of cruel and inhumane interrogation techniques.
And that's why the two most essential lies -- among the many -- in his new memoir are that he had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq, and that he had a legitimate reason to torture detainees.
Neither is remotely true. But Bush must figure that if he keeps making the case for himself -- particularly if it goes largely unrebutted by the traditional media, as it has thus far -- then perhaps he can blunt history's verdict.
It may even be working. Extrapolating from the response to the book, former vice president Dick Cheney on Tuesday told a crowd gathered for Bush's presidential library groundbreaking in Dallas that 'judgments are a little more measured than they were' and that 'history is coming around.'
The 'Decision' to Go to War"
What a Guy!!!
History is likely to judge Bush most harshly for two things in particular: Launching a war against a country that had not attacked us, and approving the use of cruel and inhumane interrogation techniques.
And that's why the two most essential lies -- among the many -- in his new memoir are that he had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq, and that he had a legitimate reason to torture detainees.
Neither is remotely true. But Bush must figure that if he keeps making the case for himself -- particularly if it goes largely unrebutted by the traditional media, as it has thus far -- then perhaps he can blunt history's verdict.
It may even be working. Extrapolating from the response to the book, former vice president Dick Cheney on Tuesday told a crowd gathered for Bush's presidential library groundbreaking in Dallas that 'judgments are a little more measured than they were' and that 'history is coming around.'
The 'Decision' to Go to War"
What a Guy!!!
Monday, November 22, 2010
Barbara Bush Jabs Sarah Palin: 'I Hope She Stays' In Alaska (VIDEO)
Barbara Bush Jabs Sarah Palin: 'I Hope She Stays' In Alaska (VIDEO): "Barbara Bush has shared her thoughts on Sarah Palin, and it sounds as if she hopes the former Alaska governor decides against running for president.
'I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful, and I think she's very happy in Alaska,' Bush said, before adding, 'and I hope she'll stay there.'
The former first lady made the comments in an interview with Larry King, which will air Monday night on 'Larry King Live.'
Barbara Bush is not the only prominent Republican woman to speak poorly of Palin in recent days. On Monday, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whom Sarah Palin vociferously opposed during the state's most recent -- and still ongoing -- Senate election, said that the former governor lacks the 'leadership qualities' and 'intellectual curiosity' necessary to be president.
In the interview with Larry King, Barbara Bush also said that she 'loved' her son George W. Bush's new book.
When asked about the Tea Party in the same interview, former President George H. W. Bush said that 'some of [their] ideas make a lot of sense,' but added that he is 'confused by it' and said he does not 'know what it really is.'"
'I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful, and I think she's very happy in Alaska,' Bush said, before adding, 'and I hope she'll stay there.'
The former first lady made the comments in an interview with Larry King, which will air Monday night on 'Larry King Live.'
Barbara Bush is not the only prominent Republican woman to speak poorly of Palin in recent days. On Monday, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whom Sarah Palin vociferously opposed during the state's most recent -- and still ongoing -- Senate election, said that the former governor lacks the 'leadership qualities' and 'intellectual curiosity' necessary to be president.
In the interview with Larry King, Barbara Bush also said that she 'loved' her son George W. Bush's new book.
When asked about the Tea Party in the same interview, former President George H. W. Bush said that 'some of [their] ideas make a lot of sense,' but added that he is 'confused by it' and said he does not 'know what it really is.'"
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Merry Christmas For The GOP
pp
Now does this mean that crime will go up? Of Courrrrrrrrrrrssssssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Now does this mean that crime will go up? Of Courrrrrrrrrrrssssssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Poison vote looms for tea party freshmen: Raise the national debt limit? - Yahoo! News
Poison vote looms for tea party freshmen: Raise the national debt limit? - Yahoo! News: "Washington – Even though a vote to raise the national debt limit – now just under $14.3 trillion – is months away, House Republican leaders are already preparing their caucus for what could be the toughest vote for a bumper freshman class.
About half of the 85-member Republican House freshman class ran with backing from tea party groups – all of them on a platform to curb or cap government spending. Many of these candidates slammed Democrats they defeated for previous votes to increase the debt limit – votes, they said, that enabled big government spending.
Now, they face the other side of the issue: A vote against raising the debt limit means the government could run out of money. Will fiscal responsibility look so appealing if the government essentially shuts down?"
About half of the 85-member Republican House freshman class ran with backing from tea party groups – all of them on a platform to curb or cap government spending. Many of these candidates slammed Democrats they defeated for previous votes to increase the debt limit – votes, they said, that enabled big government spending.
Now, they face the other side of the issue: A vote against raising the debt limit means the government could run out of money. Will fiscal responsibility look so appealing if the government essentially shuts down?"
Millionaires to Obama: Tax us - Yahoo! News
Millionaires to Obama: Tax us - Yahoo! News: "Anti-tax activists everywhere have been loudly arguing for an extension of George W. Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in the United States. Now a group of millionaires is arguing the opposite.
More than 40 of the nation's millionaires have joined Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength to ask President Obama to discontinue the tax breaks established for them during the Bush administration, as Salon reports.
'For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled,' their website states. 'We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.'
The group includes many big-time Democratic donors such as Gail Furman, trial lawyer Guy Saperstein and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's ice cream (pictured). The list remains open to millionaires who want to sign on."
More than 40 of the nation's millionaires have joined Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength to ask President Obama to discontinue the tax breaks established for them during the Bush administration, as Salon reports.
'For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled,' their website states. 'We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.'
The group includes many big-time Democratic donors such as Gail Furman, trial lawyer Guy Saperstein and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's ice cream (pictured). The list remains open to millionaires who want to sign on."
Thursday, November 18, 2010
ThinkProgress » Boehner’s Home State Tea Party Slams His Secret Plot To Kill The Congressional Ethics Office
ThinkProgress » Boehner’s Home State Tea Party Slams His Secret Plot To Kill The Congressional Ethics Office: "This November, the future House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) rode the Tea Party rhetoric to power, promising to gut “business as usual” on Capitol Hill. Touting an earmark ban and public access to bills as clear moves toward transparency, Boehner seemed demonstrably clear on another accountability issue – congressional ethics. “I think the American people expect that their members of Congress should be held to a high ethical standard,” he said in August.
In spite of that expectation, Boehner is threatening to axe the Office of Congressional ethics. Established in March of 2008 after the Jack Abramoff scandal, the Office of Congressional Ethics is responsible for “launching investigations of wrongdoings by House Members” in order to “stiffen the spine of the House ethics committee.” Operating as an inspector general of sorts, the OCE has “won praise for reviving the House’s notoriously moribund and secretive ethics process.”
Despite strong conservative support for OCE, “GOP leaders are gearing up to kill the fledgling” OCE. In doing so, Boehner is clashing head-on with the rhetoric of many newly-elected Republicans and the driving force behind them — the Tea Party. In Boehner’s home-state, the Tea Party has not only noticed this fact, but has issued him a warning:
The Ohio Liberty Council, the main umbrella organization for 58 Tea Party groups in the state, supports efforts to strengthen the OCE and is warning House GOP leaders that any attempt to weaken it will upset Tea Party activists"
In spite of that expectation, Boehner is threatening to axe the Office of Congressional ethics. Established in March of 2008 after the Jack Abramoff scandal, the Office of Congressional Ethics is responsible for “launching investigations of wrongdoings by House Members” in order to “stiffen the spine of the House ethics committee.” Operating as an inspector general of sorts, the OCE has “won praise for reviving the House’s notoriously moribund and secretive ethics process.”
Despite strong conservative support for OCE, “GOP leaders are gearing up to kill the fledgling” OCE. In doing so, Boehner is clashing head-on with the rhetoric of many newly-elected Republicans and the driving force behind them — the Tea Party. In Boehner’s home-state, the Tea Party has not only noticed this fact, but has issued him a warning:
The Ohio Liberty Council, the main umbrella organization for 58 Tea Party groups in the state, supports efforts to strengthen the OCE and is warning House GOP leaders that any attempt to weaken it will upset Tea Party activists"
Republican Push To Defund NPR Fails (VIDEO)
Republican Push To Defund NPR Fails (VIDEO): "WASHINGTON -- The Republican campaign to take away all federal funding from National Public Radio (NPR) was over before it began, with GOP lawmakers' procedural trick to force a vote on the issue failing on Thursday. It was the first GOP-ordered House vote since the election.
The proposal to defund NPR was the latest winning item on the Republicans' gimmicky YouCut site, which allows the public to pick the cuts they would like to see receive an up-or-down vote on the House floor. In order to get these votes, they try to make a procedural vote on an unrelated piece of legislation the vote on the YouCut item.
'This week's winning YouCut proposal is sponsored by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), and would terminate all taxpayer funding of National Public Radio (NPR), saving taxpayers potentially tens of millions of -- perhaps even over a hundred million -- dollars,' read a release from Rep. Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) office. 'Implementing this initiative would signal that the days of bailing out irresponsible decision-makers at taxpayers' expense are over."
The proposal to defund NPR was the latest winning item on the Republicans' gimmicky YouCut site, which allows the public to pick the cuts they would like to see receive an up-or-down vote on the House floor. In order to get these votes, they try to make a procedural vote on an unrelated piece of legislation the vote on the YouCut item.
'This week's winning YouCut proposal is sponsored by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), and would terminate all taxpayer funding of National Public Radio (NPR), saving taxpayers potentially tens of millions of -- perhaps even over a hundred million -- dollars,' read a release from Rep. Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) office. 'Implementing this initiative would signal that the days of bailing out irresponsible decision-makers at taxpayers' expense are over."
No Plans In Senate For A Vote On Unemployment Benefits
No Plans In Senate For A Vote On Unemployment Benefits: "Senate Democrats have not figured out a way to get around Republican opposition to reauthorizing extended unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless.
'We are still in the process of trying to establish the schedule of the lame duck session, in terms of the remaining days of the session, so no specifics, but think we all understand that this is something that is going to have to be done,' said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) during a conference call with reporters on Wednesday.
The benefits are set to expire at the end of the month, jeopardizing a lifeline for two million people during the holidays. But it's not likely the benefits will be reauthorized before they lapse, since Congress will go home for Thanksgiving next week, meaning this week is the last chance to prevent an interruption in benefits. Reed said there is no plan for a vote."
GOP plans a not so merry christmas for many.
'We are still in the process of trying to establish the schedule of the lame duck session, in terms of the remaining days of the session, so no specifics, but think we all understand that this is something that is going to have to be done,' said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) during a conference call with reporters on Wednesday.
The benefits are set to expire at the end of the month, jeopardizing a lifeline for two million people during the holidays. But it's not likely the benefits will be reauthorized before they lapse, since Congress will go home for Thanksgiving next week, meaning this week is the last chance to prevent an interruption in benefits. Reed said there is no plan for a vote."
GOP plans a not so merry christmas for many.
Paycheck Fairness Act Fails to Win Key Votes from Maine Senators
Paycheck Fairness Act Fails to Win Key Votes from Maine Senators: "Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins both backed last year's Lilly Ledbetter Act, which lifted the statute of limitations on wage discrimination cases. But this time, they filibustered with their party, and the bill fell two votes short of the 60 needed to advance. The tally was 58 to 41.
'We're disappointed in the vote in the Senate--both the votes of our individual Maine senators, who can really make a difference and in others who have failed to stand up as well,' says Sarah Standiford, executive director of the Maine Women's Lobby. She says the bill's failure not only hurts women, but families struggling in a recession.
'The recovery of the American middle class really begins and ends with well-paying jobs, and women are increasingly the sole breadwinners for their famlies,' she says. 'So it's really not just a matter of fairness, but also the key to a family's ability to make ends meet that women bring home the pay that they deserve.'
The federal government reports that women make 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. The bill would have made it easier for women to file class action suits against employers, and would have lifted the cap on damages. It also called on businesses to share salary information with the government.
But Maine's senators sided with the business community in opposing the measure, saying it would add to their costs."
I guess no fair pay for women is still in fashion.
'We're disappointed in the vote in the Senate--both the votes of our individual Maine senators, who can really make a difference and in others who have failed to stand up as well,' says Sarah Standiford, executive director of the Maine Women's Lobby. She says the bill's failure not only hurts women, but families struggling in a recession.
'The recovery of the American middle class really begins and ends with well-paying jobs, and women are increasingly the sole breadwinners for their famlies,' she says. 'So it's really not just a matter of fairness, but also the key to a family's ability to make ends meet that women bring home the pay that they deserve.'
The federal government reports that women make 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. The bill would have made it easier for women to file class action suits against employers, and would have lifted the cap on damages. It also called on businesses to share salary information with the government.
But Maine's senators sided with the business community in opposing the measure, saying it would add to their costs."
I guess no fair pay for women is still in fashion.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Hispanic lawmakers seek DREAM Act vote
Hispanic lawmakers seek DREAM Act vote: "WASHINGTON — Congressional Hispanic Caucus leaders huddled with President Barack Obama on Tuesday to discuss immigration issues and the lame-duck Congress, but no clear strategy emerged.
Obama and Hispanic Democrats reiterated their support for the DREAM Act, which would provide a path for citizenship for immigrant youths illegally brought into the United States before they were 16, and both called for the House and Senate to vote on the measure before Congress adjourns for the year.
“We need a clear Democratic commitment in order to persuade Republicans, who are needed to get us over the finish line, to step forward,” said Rep. LuÃs Gutierrez, D-Ill."
The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (The "DREAM Act") is a piece of proposed federal legislation in the United States that was first introduced in the United States Senate on August 1, 2001[1] and most recently re-introduced there and the United States House of Representatives on March 26, 2009. This bill would provide certain inadmissible or deportable alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. as minors, and have been in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning. The alien students would obtain temporary residency for a six year period. Within the six year period, a qualified student must have "acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or [have] completed at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States," or have "served in the uniformed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, [have] received an honorable discharge."[2] Military Enlistment contracts require an eight year commitment.[3] "Any alien whose permanent resident status is terminated [according to the terms of the Act] shall return to the immigration status the alien had immediately prior to receiving conditional permanent resident status under this Act." [4]
There are issues with this!
Obama and Hispanic Democrats reiterated their support for the DREAM Act, which would provide a path for citizenship for immigrant youths illegally brought into the United States before they were 16, and both called for the House and Senate to vote on the measure before Congress adjourns for the year.
“We need a clear Democratic commitment in order to persuade Republicans, who are needed to get us over the finish line, to step forward,” said Rep. LuÃs Gutierrez, D-Ill."
The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (The "DREAM Act") is a piece of proposed federal legislation in the United States that was first introduced in the United States Senate on August 1, 2001[1] and most recently re-introduced there and the United States House of Representatives on March 26, 2009. This bill would provide certain inadmissible or deportable alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. as minors, and have been in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning. The alien students would obtain temporary residency for a six year period. Within the six year period, a qualified student must have "acquired a degree from an institution of higher education in the United States or [have] completed at least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States," or have "served in the uniformed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, [have] received an honorable discharge."[2] Military Enlistment contracts require an eight year commitment.[3] "Any alien whose permanent resident status is terminated [according to the terms of the Act] shall return to the immigration status the alien had immediately prior to receiving conditional permanent resident status under this Act." [4]
There are issues with this!
Steele Isolated At His Own Committee, Harshly Rebuked By Former Staffers
Steele Isolated At His Own Committee, Harshly Rebuked By Former Staffers: "WASHINGTON -- Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's already rocky tenure got even more turbulent on Tuesday after the committee's political director quit his post and then penned and leaked a stinging letter rebuking his former boss.
The five-page letter, authored by longtime GOP operative Gentry Collins, accused Steele of gross mismanagement of RNC finances, failure to manage Republican Party operations, and misfiring on key elections during the 2010 cycle. The RNC responded in due course with a statement touting the major -- indeed, historic -- advances that the party made during the just-completed cycle.
But by the time that response was put out for public consumption, the bruises were hard to cover up. Cindy Costa, an RNC member who has long been a Steele critic, called the Collins memo both 'disconcerting' and an affirmation of her position that a new chairman is needed."
About Time!
The five-page letter, authored by longtime GOP operative Gentry Collins, accused Steele of gross mismanagement of RNC finances, failure to manage Republican Party operations, and misfiring on key elections during the 2010 cycle. The RNC responded in due course with a statement touting the major -- indeed, historic -- advances that the party made during the just-completed cycle.
But by the time that response was put out for public consumption, the bruises were hard to cover up. Cindy Costa, an RNC member who has long been a Steele critic, called the Collins memo both 'disconcerting' and an affirmation of her position that a new chairman is needed."
About Time!
Sarah Palin Thinking of Running for President, and Tells Barbara Walters She Could Beat President Obama in 2012 - ABC News
Sarah Palin Thinking of Running for President, and Tells Barbara Walters She Could Beat President Obama in 2012 - ABC News: "Sarah Palin says she is seriously considering a run for the White House, and she believes she could beat President Obama in 2012, the former Alaska governor told ABC News' Barbara Walters.
'I'm looking at the lay of the land now, and ... trying to figure that out, if it's a good thing for the country, for the discourse, for my family, if it's a good thing,' Palin said in an interview scheduled to air in full Dec. 9 on ABC as part of Walters' '10 Most Fascinating People' of 2010.
Asked Walters: 'If you ran for president, could you beat Barack Obama?'
'I believe so,' Palin said."
Surprise!!
'I'm looking at the lay of the land now, and ... trying to figure that out, if it's a good thing for the country, for the discourse, for my family, if it's a good thing,' Palin said in an interview scheduled to air in full Dec. 9 on ABC as part of Walters' '10 Most Fascinating People' of 2010.
Asked Walters: 'If you ran for president, could you beat Barack Obama?'
'I believe so,' Palin said."
Surprise!!
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Dick Cheney: History "Beginning to Come Around" on Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Dick Cheney: History "Beginning to Come Around" on Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News: "At groundbreaking ceremony in Dallas for the George W. Bush Presidential Center today, former Vice President Dick Cheney said 'history is beginning to come around' to a more positive view of former President George W. Bush.
Cheney said that Mr. Bush, whose approval rating upon leaving office was just 22 percent, always understood that 'judgments are a little more measured' with the passage of time. He added that Americans 'can tell a decent, goodhearted stand up guy when they see him.'
Cheney lauded Mr. Bush as a president who refused 'to put on airs,' stating that he was thrilled to find that the most powerful person he knew was 'among the least pretentious.' He said Mr. Bush was someone who could 'walk with kings, yet keep the common touch,' added that 'there were no affectations about him at all - he treats everyone as an equal.'
He spoke admiringly of Mr. Bush's actions in the wake of the Sept. 11th attacks, telling the former president that 'because you were determined to throw back the enemy, we did not suffer another 9/11 or something even worse.'"
Cheney said that Mr. Bush, whose approval rating upon leaving office was just 22 percent, always understood that 'judgments are a little more measured' with the passage of time. He added that Americans 'can tell a decent, goodhearted stand up guy when they see him.'
Cheney lauded Mr. Bush as a president who refused 'to put on airs,' stating that he was thrilled to find that the most powerful person he knew was 'among the least pretentious.' He said Mr. Bush was someone who could 'walk with kings, yet keep the common touch,' added that 'there were no affectations about him at all - he treats everyone as an equal.'
He spoke admiringly of Mr. Bush's actions in the wake of the Sept. 11th attacks, telling the former president that 'because you were determined to throw back the enemy, we did not suffer another 9/11 or something even worse.'"
John McCain Attacks Rand Paul's 'Isolationism' In Willingness To Cut Defense Spending
John McCain Attacks Rand Paul's 'Isolationism' In Willingness To Cut Defense Spending: "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed concern Monday that some new Republican legislators would be defined by their 'protectionism and isolationism,' two views that the Vietnam War veteran feared would result in a butting of heads within the party on Afghanistan and defense spending.
'I think there are going to be some tensions within our party,' McCain said during a conference put on by Foreign Policy Initiative, a DC-based think tank. 'I worry a lot about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party.'
A prime example, McCain continued, was Rand Paul, Kentucky's next U.S. Senator.
'I admire his victory, but ... already he has talked about withdrawals [and] cuts in defense,' McCain said.
Indeed, Paul appears to have taken after the more libertarian side of foreign policy issues, much like his father, Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R)."
'I think there are going to be some tensions within our party,' McCain said during a conference put on by Foreign Policy Initiative, a DC-based think tank. 'I worry a lot about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party.'
A prime example, McCain continued, was Rand Paul, Kentucky's next U.S. Senator.
'I admire his victory, but ... already he has talked about withdrawals [and] cuts in defense,' McCain said.
Indeed, Paul appears to have taken after the more libertarian side of foreign policy issues, much like his father, Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R)."
Social Conservatives Spar With Tea Party, Gay GOP Groups
Social Conservatives Spar With Tea Party, Gay GOP Groups: "Social conservatives are hitting back Tuesday at a recently released letter by a coalition of Tea Party and gay Republican groups encouraging incoming Republican legislators to forgo a lofty social agenda in place of one focused on fiscal conservatism.
'Social issues should be at the very top of the list of priorities for the new Congress, along with sensible fiscal policies,' Concerned Women for America leader Penny Nance responded in her own letter. 'I'd like to know which one -- support for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, eliminating taxpayer dollars from funding embryonic stem cell research, or defunding Planned Parenthood -- the signers of the GOProud letter have a problem with.'
On Monday, a letter signed by the leaders of 16 Tea Party groups and GOProud was sent to incoming Republican leaders asking them to announce a cease fire on their pursuit of social and cultural issues."
It is going to heat up!
'Social issues should be at the very top of the list of priorities for the new Congress, along with sensible fiscal policies,' Concerned Women for America leader Penny Nance responded in her own letter. 'I'd like to know which one -- support for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, eliminating taxpayer dollars from funding embryonic stem cell research, or defunding Planned Parenthood -- the signers of the GOProud letter have a problem with.'
On Monday, a letter signed by the leaders of 16 Tea Party groups and GOProud was sent to incoming Republican leaders asking them to announce a cease fire on their pursuit of social and cultural issues."
It is going to heat up!
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Jim Swilley, Georgia Megachurch Pastor, Comes Out To Congregation After Gay Teen Suicides
And I think the issue here is that there are more gay people out there then most think. I think we should have equal rights for a change. You know the one nation under God thing, with justice and liberty for all. Where did I read that?
Jim Swilley, Georgia Megachurch Pastor, Comes Out To Congregation After Gay Teen Suicides: "Jim Swilley, the pastor of a Georgia megachurch, recently revealed to his congregation that he is gay. The 52-year-old father of four said that his wife, to whom he was married for more than 20 years, encouraged him to come out years ago, but at the time, he told her: 'These words will never come out of my mouth.'
However, the recent spate of teen suicides, particularly that of Rutgers student Tyler Clementi, prompted him to change his mind. 'For some reason his situation was kind of the tipping point with me,' Swilley told CNN's Don Lemon this weekend.
'There comes a point in your life where you say 'How much time do we have left in our lives? Are we going to be authentic or not?''"
Jim Swilley, Georgia Megachurch Pastor, Comes Out To Congregation After Gay Teen Suicides: "Jim Swilley, the pastor of a Georgia megachurch, recently revealed to his congregation that he is gay. The 52-year-old father of four said that his wife, to whom he was married for more than 20 years, encouraged him to come out years ago, but at the time, he told her: 'These words will never come out of my mouth.'
However, the recent spate of teen suicides, particularly that of Rutgers student Tyler Clementi, prompted him to change his mind. 'For some reason his situation was kind of the tipping point with me,' Swilley told CNN's Don Lemon this weekend.
'There comes a point in your life where you say 'How much time do we have left in our lives? Are we going to be authentic or not?''"
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Jack Johnson Hid $80k In Wife's Bra As FBI Listened In
Jack Johnson Hid $80k In Wife's Bra As FBI Listened In: "ANNAPOLIS, Md. — A married pair of top officials in a Maryland county is accused of tampering with evidence after FBI agents said they recorded the husband telling his wife to flush a $100,000 check from a real estate developer down the toilet and to stuff almost $80,000 in cash in her underwear.
Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson, whose second term expires next month, and his wife, Leslie, who was recently elected to the County Council, were charged with witness and evidence tampering and destruction, alteration and falsification of records in a federal investigation.
The charges grew out of a 5-year-old investigation into allegations of real estate developers in the county offering rewards to county officials in exchange for personal and business favors."
Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson, whose second term expires next month, and his wife, Leslie, who was recently elected to the County Council, were charged with witness and evidence tampering and destruction, alteration and falsification of records in a federal investigation.
The charges grew out of a 5-year-old investigation into allegations of real estate developers in the county offering rewards to county officials in exchange for personal and business favors."
Sarah Palin's Unfavorability Numbers Hit New High, Survey Finds
Sarah Palin's Unfavorability Numbers Hit New High, Survey Finds: "The number of Americans viewing Sarah Palin unfavorably has hit the highest point since she burst onto the national stage over two years ago, according to a poll out Friday.
The Gallup survey conducted in the days after the Nov. 2 election found more than half of Americans -- 52 percent -- hold a negative opinion of the former Alaska governor. Only 40 percent viewed her favorably, which ties her lowest score from about a year ago.
Palin, the GOP's vice presidential candidate in 2008, is among Republican names being floated as a possible presidential pick in two years time. The poll found she might have a good chance of capturing the nomination: fully 80 percent of Republicans have a positive opinion of her."
The Gallup survey conducted in the days after the Nov. 2 election found more than half of Americans -- 52 percent -- hold a negative opinion of the former Alaska governor. Only 40 percent viewed her favorably, which ties her lowest score from about a year ago.
Palin, the GOP's vice presidential candidate in 2008, is among Republican names being floated as a possible presidential pick in two years time. The poll found she might have a good chance of capturing the nomination: fully 80 percent of Republicans have a positive opinion of her."
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Another GOP Civil War Brewing In 2012 - Hotline On Call
Another GOP Civil War Brewing In 2012 - Hotline On Call: "Just a week after Election Day, Republicans are already chomping at the bit to get the ball rolling for 2012 Senate contests.
And judging from the number of Republican contenders who have already floated their names out there, it looks like the GOP could be facing another busy and stressful, primary calendar -- both in races where they are challenging Democrats and in states where they will be defending seats.
The GOP faces a wide playing field in 2012, as 21 Democrats and two independents who caucus with Democrats are up for re-election. With only 10 Republican held seats up, that gives Republicans ample opportunity to win the seats necessary to gain a majority.
But there are early signs that the same intra-party feuds that limited huge pickups in the Senate in 2010 are re-emerging for 2012. Members who would be likely locks for re-election - Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar (R) and Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) -- could well face serious primary challenges from Tea Party candidates. And Democratic members who look vulnerable - like Montana's Jon Tester - could benefit from ideologically divided Republican fields.
If crowded fields do, in fact, form, they will present the possibility of a sequel where candidates favored by the National Republican Senatorial Committee -- like those seen this year in Delaware, Kentucky, and Colorado - end up losing to less-electable candidates. In those states, establishment Republicans ran into problems as their endorsed candidates went down in primaries. Republicans believe they could have comfortably won the Colorado and Delaware Senate races if their favored candidates prevailed."
And judging from the number of Republican contenders who have already floated their names out there, it looks like the GOP could be facing another busy and stressful, primary calendar -- both in races where they are challenging Democrats and in states where they will be defending seats.
The GOP faces a wide playing field in 2012, as 21 Democrats and two independents who caucus with Democrats are up for re-election. With only 10 Republican held seats up, that gives Republicans ample opportunity to win the seats necessary to gain a majority.
But there are early signs that the same intra-party feuds that limited huge pickups in the Senate in 2010 are re-emerging for 2012. Members who would be likely locks for re-election - Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar (R) and Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) -- could well face serious primary challenges from Tea Party candidates. And Democratic members who look vulnerable - like Montana's Jon Tester - could benefit from ideologically divided Republican fields.
If crowded fields do, in fact, form, they will present the possibility of a sequel where candidates favored by the National Republican Senatorial Committee -- like those seen this year in Delaware, Kentucky, and Colorado - end up losing to less-electable candidates. In those states, establishment Republicans ran into problems as their endorsed candidates went down in primaries. Republicans believe they could have comfortably won the Colorado and Delaware Senate races if their favored candidates prevailed."
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Debt Commission Report Targets Social Security, Medicare
Debt Commission Report Targets Social Security, Medicare: "Today's upcoming report by the White House's fiscal commission is expected to include recommendations to raise the retirement age for Social Security and cut Medicare benefits -- two policy prescriptions that will be met with deep opposition from Democrats and some Republicans -- according to a source who has been briefed on the proposal.
The chairmen of the commission will unveil their overarching recommendations for debt and deficit reduction on Wednesday afternoon, weeks before the official unveiling is expected.
The findings are not the final report of the commission, officially known as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Rather they are the specific suggestions of its two chairs, former Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. The ultimate findings will require the support of 14 members of the 18-member commission. And at this juncture it is unclear if the votes are there, sources familiar with deliberation say.
In the process of pursuing their reforms for Social Security and Medicare, the commission chairs are expected to suggest that the end result will be a 70 percent cut in benefits and 30 percent increase in revenues, according to the source familiar with the upcoming announcement.
'What a crazy proposal, what a crazy proposal,' said a Democratic source briefed on the findings. 'I expect that the White House is going to distance itself big-time from this, saying this is just the chairman not the commission.'"
The chairmen of the commission will unveil their overarching recommendations for debt and deficit reduction on Wednesday afternoon, weeks before the official unveiling is expected.
The findings are not the final report of the commission, officially known as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Rather they are the specific suggestions of its two chairs, former Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. The ultimate findings will require the support of 14 members of the 18-member commission. And at this juncture it is unclear if the votes are there, sources familiar with deliberation say.
In the process of pursuing their reforms for Social Security and Medicare, the commission chairs are expected to suggest that the end result will be a 70 percent cut in benefits and 30 percent increase in revenues, according to the source familiar with the upcoming announcement.
'What a crazy proposal, what a crazy proposal,' said a Democratic source briefed on the findings. 'I expect that the White House is going to distance itself big-time from this, saying this is just the chairman not the commission.'"
GOP: Pork for Everyone!! Give me that bacon!
We are talking big bucks and few are going to turn them down!
Bring on that PORK. See what your state did at the link below.
http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/rankings.html
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
Bring on that PORK. See what your state did at the link below.
http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/rankings.html
Palin Lashes Out At WSJ Reporter, Misquotes Story
If she had a friend, they would help her get it straight but who would listen?
Palin Lashes Out At WSJ Reporter, Misquotes Story: "In what can only be called a valiant effort, Sarah Palin has defended her monetary policy remarks from the Wall Street Journal's pointed criticism.
On her Facebook page, Palin claims the WSJ reporter who has pointed out a factual error in her speech is himself in the wrong. 'Do Wall Street Journal Reporters Read the Wall Street Journal?,' her Facebook note asks.
In remarks delivered at a Phoenix convention, and first leaked by the The National Review, Palin criticized the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing policy, in which the bank will purchase up to $600 billion of new U.S. government debt (as part of a plan that could reach $900 billion), and urged Fed chairman Ben Bernanke to 'cease and desist.'
As HuffPost's Shahien Nasiripour noted Monday, the Federal Reserve operates independently of any other government body, and so political criticism of it is unusual."
Palin Lashes Out At WSJ Reporter, Misquotes Story: "In what can only be called a valiant effort, Sarah Palin has defended her monetary policy remarks from the Wall Street Journal's pointed criticism.
On her Facebook page, Palin claims the WSJ reporter who has pointed out a factual error in her speech is himself in the wrong. 'Do Wall Street Journal Reporters Read the Wall Street Journal?,' her Facebook note asks.
In remarks delivered at a Phoenix convention, and first leaked by the The National Review, Palin criticized the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing policy, in which the bank will purchase up to $600 billion of new U.S. government debt (as part of a plan that could reach $900 billion), and urged Fed chairman Ben Bernanke to 'cease and desist.'
As HuffPost's Shahien Nasiripour noted Monday, the Federal Reserve operates independently of any other government body, and so political criticism of it is unusual."
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), a rising star in the GOP Not Affraid of Bush
The GOP is going to have a war over this!
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), a rising star in the GOP recently elected to his sophomore term, said Tuesday that he would have no problem adding a probe of potential torture authorization under the Bush administration to a growing checklist of investigations drafted by newly empowered Republicans.
Here's the conversation from his talk on Tuesday with MSNBC:
RATIGAN: How far back do you think is appropriate? Because the one thing that's not on this list would be, for instance, a torture investigation.
CHAFFETZ: Well, it may be on the list as well. I'm not afraid of going after the Bush administration. I wasn't brought here by the establishment. When I ran for congressman in 2008, I'm just a freshman year, George W. Bush, Orrin Hatch, and Bob Bennett, three Republicans, they campaigned against me. So I don't mind going back and looking at 'em. So I don't have any hesitation there whatsoever.
Rep. Darrell Issa, who is likely to become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, spoke earlier this week about just how ambitious his plans for the panel were.
"I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks," Issa told Politico.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), a rising star in the GOP recently elected to his sophomore term, said Tuesday that he would have no problem adding a probe of potential torture authorization under the Bush administration to a growing checklist of investigations drafted by newly empowered Republicans.
Here's the conversation from his talk on Tuesday with MSNBC:
RATIGAN: How far back do you think is appropriate? Because the one thing that's not on this list would be, for instance, a torture investigation.
CHAFFETZ: Well, it may be on the list as well. I'm not afraid of going after the Bush administration. I wasn't brought here by the establishment. When I ran for congressman in 2008, I'm just a freshman year, George W. Bush, Orrin Hatch, and Bob Bennett, three Republicans, they campaigned against me. So I don't mind going back and looking at 'em. So I don't have any hesitation there whatsoever.
Rep. Darrell Issa, who is likely to become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, spoke earlier this week about just how ambitious his plans for the panel were.
"I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks," Issa told Politico.
Obama officials moving away from 2011 Afghan date | McClatchy
Not good news!
Obama officials moving away from 2011 Afghan date | McClatchy: "WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to de-emphasize President Barack Obama's pledge that he'd begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials have told McClatchy.
The new policy will be on display next week during a conference of NATO countries in Lisbon, Portugal, where the administration hopes to introduce a timeline that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan by 2014, the year when Afghan President Hamid Karzai once said Afghan troops could provide their own security, three senior officials told McClatchy, along with others speaking anonymously as a matter of policy.
The Pentagon also has decided not to announce specific dates for handing security responsibility for several Afghan provinces to local officials and instead intends to work out a more vague definition of transition when it meets with its NATO allies."
Obama officials moving away from 2011 Afghan date | McClatchy: "WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to de-emphasize President Barack Obama's pledge that he'd begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials have told McClatchy.
The new policy will be on display next week during a conference of NATO countries in Lisbon, Portugal, where the administration hopes to introduce a timeline that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan by 2014, the year when Afghan President Hamid Karzai once said Afghan troops could provide their own security, three senior officials told McClatchy, along with others speaking anonymously as a matter of policy.
The Pentagon also has decided not to announce specific dates for handing security responsibility for several Afghan provinces to local officials and instead intends to work out a more vague definition of transition when it meets with its NATO allies."
Kathleen Parker - The GOP can't be led by Sarah Palin. But can it live without her?
The GOP is going to have to find an answer. Good Luck!
Kathleen Parker - The GOP can't be led by Sarah Palin. But can it live without her?: "She who can rouse the base like none other is now She to Whom Respect Must Be Paid. Like it or not.
Many within the so-called party establishment don't quite know what to do about Palin. She's adored by Tea Partyers, to whom she conveniently attached herself as soon as she sensed a shift in the air. A rogue like Palin isn't going to let a rogue movement fill a stadium - or a desert - without her.
She also had some luck with her gambles on midterm endorsements, at least in the U.S. House and a couple of state elections, notably South Carolina Gov.-elect Nikki Haley. Palin's Mama Grizzly shtick, which followed her pit bull-with-lipstick shtick, apparently was effective. She had a less-stellar record in the Senate, with only six of her 11 anointed ones winning.
Thus, Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama recently had the audacity to assert what heretofore had been relegated to whispers behind closed doors: 'Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.'"
Kathleen Parker - The GOP can't be led by Sarah Palin. But can it live without her?: "She who can rouse the base like none other is now She to Whom Respect Must Be Paid. Like it or not.
Many within the so-called party establishment don't quite know what to do about Palin. She's adored by Tea Partyers, to whom she conveniently attached herself as soon as she sensed a shift in the air. A rogue like Palin isn't going to let a rogue movement fill a stadium - or a desert - without her.
She also had some luck with her gambles on midterm endorsements, at least in the U.S. House and a couple of state elections, notably South Carolina Gov.-elect Nikki Haley. Palin's Mama Grizzly shtick, which followed her pit bull-with-lipstick shtick, apparently was effective. She had a less-stellar record in the Senate, with only six of her 11 anointed ones winning.
Thus, Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama recently had the audacity to assert what heretofore had been relegated to whispers behind closed doors: 'Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.'"
GM posts strong earnings ahead of IPO - Business - Autos - msnbc.com
Looks like saving GM was a good idea!
GM posts strong earnings ahead of IPO - Business - Autos - msnbc.com: "DETROIT — Strong profits on new cars and trucks helped General Motors Co. earn $2 billion in the third quarter, enhancing the company's appeal as it nears next week's initial public stock offering.
The third-quarter earnings of $1.20 per share nearly match what GM made in the first two quarters of the year combined, aided by profits from overseas and healthy revenue from North America, the company said Wednesday. The earnings were boosted by higher prices from newly introduced models such as the Buick LaCrosse, a midsize luxury sedan."
GM posts strong earnings ahead of IPO - Business - Autos - msnbc.com: "DETROIT — Strong profits on new cars and trucks helped General Motors Co. earn $2 billion in the third quarter, enhancing the company's appeal as it nears next week's initial public stock offering.
The third-quarter earnings of $1.20 per share nearly match what GM made in the first two quarters of the year combined, aided by profits from overseas and healthy revenue from North America, the company said Wednesday. The earnings were boosted by higher prices from newly introduced models such as the Buick LaCrosse, a midsize luxury sedan."
Obama Approval Advances to 47%, Up From 43% Pre-Election
Obama Approval Advances to 47%, Up From 43% Pre-Election: "PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama earned a 47% approval rating from the American public in Gallup Daily tracking from Friday through Sunday, slightly higher than his 44% approval rating at the start of the week, and his 43% approval rating in the three days prior to and including Tuesday's midterm elections."
Who is surprised?
Who is surprised?
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Bush Interview
I am not sure I agree with some of the analysis on this.
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
Monday, November 8, 2010
Jim DeMint Emerges As Conservative Superpower With His 'Disciples,' But Faces Big GOP Backlash
Jim DeMint Emerges As Conservative Superpower With His 'Disciples,' But Faces Big GOP Backlash: "South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint -- who has achieved superstar status among conservatives and emerged as a prominent face of the Tea Party movement -- remains at odds with some members of his own party in the aftermath of the midterm elections that culminated last week.
Over the course of the campaign season, DeMint waded into a handful of high-profile Senate contests and endorsed Tea Party-backed candidates, some of whom were facing off against GOP incumbent lawmakers and establishment picks in primary races. While the South Carolina Senator cruised to victory in his own reelection bid against unlikely Democratic contender Alvin Greene, it was his active involvement in the other races that seemed to make him both a winner and a loser on election night.
Within the GOP it has reportedly been suggested that the rise of some of the conservative Senate hopefuls -- who ran with strong support from DeMint, but ultimately failed to come out on top in their respective fights -- may have cost the Republicans a chance at retaking control of the Senate."
It is the house divided thing again. You are seeing the beginning of self-destruction!
Over the course of the campaign season, DeMint waded into a handful of high-profile Senate contests and endorsed Tea Party-backed candidates, some of whom were facing off against GOP incumbent lawmakers and establishment picks in primary races. While the South Carolina Senator cruised to victory in his own reelection bid against unlikely Democratic contender Alvin Greene, it was his active involvement in the other races that seemed to make him both a winner and a loser on election night.
Within the GOP it has reportedly been suggested that the rise of some of the conservative Senate hopefuls -- who ran with strong support from DeMint, but ultimately failed to come out on top in their respective fights -- may have cost the Republicans a chance at retaking control of the Senate."
It is the house divided thing again. You are seeing the beginning of self-destruction!
Health Care Reform Challenge REJECTED By Supreme Court
Health Care Reform Challenge REJECTED By Supreme Court: "WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has turned down the first preliminary challenge to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
The decision Monday to reject an appeal from a former Republican state lawmaker in California was no surprise because a federal appeals court has yet to consider the case. The high court almost never reviews cases before the issues have been aired in lower courts.
Of more significance is the sign that all the justices took part in rejecting the appeal. New Justice Elena Kagan refused to say during her confirmation hearings whether she would take part in the court's deliberations over the health care law. Kagan was Obama's solicitor general before joining the court.
The court has noted Kagan's absence in more than two dozen other cases, suggesting that she voted on the health care appeal.
Kagan has stepped aside from cases in which she was involved as a Justice Department official before joining the court.
Justice Clarence Thomas also apparently voted on the case. Some critics have called on Thomas to step aside from the health care cases because his wife, Virginia Thomas, has been an outspoken opponent of the law in her role as founder of the conservative advocacy group Liberty Central.
___
The case is Baldwin v. Sebelius, 10-369."
Who is shocked about this?
The decision Monday to reject an appeal from a former Republican state lawmaker in California was no surprise because a federal appeals court has yet to consider the case. The high court almost never reviews cases before the issues have been aired in lower courts.
Of more significance is the sign that all the justices took part in rejecting the appeal. New Justice Elena Kagan refused to say during her confirmation hearings whether she would take part in the court's deliberations over the health care law. Kagan was Obama's solicitor general before joining the court.
The court has noted Kagan's absence in more than two dozen other cases, suggesting that she voted on the health care appeal.
Kagan has stepped aside from cases in which she was involved as a Justice Department official before joining the court.
Justice Clarence Thomas also apparently voted on the case. Some critics have called on Thomas to step aside from the health care cases because his wife, Virginia Thomas, has been an outspoken opponent of the law in her role as founder of the conservative advocacy group Liberty Central.
___
The case is Baldwin v. Sebelius, 10-369."
Who is shocked about this?
Soundbits for the Ages
Talking about I ain't got no answers!!! Funny how it works out if you get elected but you can say for sure if the GOP does what it says, the democratics will be back in power in 2 years
Palin Cost Us Control of the Senate!
If this is being said now, wait until next time!
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), recently tapped to become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, believes that despite the GOP's monumental electoral gains last week, the party left some vital Senate seats on the playing field thanks primarily to the work of Sarah Palin.
The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware," Bachus said. "Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate."
He said Tea Party candidates did well in U.S. House races, but in the U.S. Senate races, "They didn't do well at all."
While many have questioned claims by some, including self-proclaimed Tea Partiers such as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), that the conservative movement is to thank for Tuesday night's GOP gains, few have been so bold as to outright dish blame on party heavyweights such as Sarah Palin.
I think there is alot of truth to the above statments. A house divided can not stand.
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), recently tapped to become chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, believes that despite the GOP's monumental electoral gains last week, the party left some vital Senate seats on the playing field thanks primarily to the work of Sarah Palin.
The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware," Bachus said. "Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate."
He said Tea Party candidates did well in U.S. House races, but in the U.S. Senate races, "They didn't do well at all."
While many have questioned claims by some, including self-proclaimed Tea Partiers such as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), that the conservative movement is to thank for Tuesday night's GOP gains, few have been so bold as to outright dish blame on party heavyweights such as Sarah Palin.
I think there is alot of truth to the above statments. A house divided can not stand.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Boehner Takes a Swing at Health Care Reform
pp
What they want to repel:
They want to take health care away from the 30 million Americans that the new law would help, or repeal the restriction on denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, or remove the help to seniors for their perscriptions, or keep parents from providing insurance coverage for their kids until 26, or permit insurance companies to rescind policies because someone gets sick, or let those that have no coverage continue to add more than $1,200 in added costs to us insured to cover them instead of requiring them to have their own insurance...yeah, that is some smart ideas..even if the new plan would save us more than $1.5 trillion over the next 20 years. The GOP doesn' like the idea that the average person may be betting a benefit.
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
What they want to repel:
They want to take health care away from the 30 million Americans that the new law would help, or repeal the restriction on denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, or remove the help to seniors for their perscriptions, or keep parents from providing insurance coverage for their kids until 26, or permit insurance companies to rescind policies because someone gets sick, or let those that have no coverage continue to add more than $1,200 in added costs to us insured to cover them instead of requiring them to have their own insurance...yeah, that is some smart ideas..even if the new plan would save us more than $1.5 trillion over the next 20 years. The GOP doesn' like the idea that the average person may be betting a benefit.
Sharia Law in OK?
I had no idea this was a problem. Silly me, I thought the constitution covered it.
pp
pp
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
Mitch McConnell declares Pres. Obama 'GOP enemy No. 1'
WoW so much for bipartisanship. The cards are on the table!
pp
pp
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
HHS Updates Amount of Savings for Medicare Beneficiaries Under Reform Law
Under the healthcare reform law, beneficiaries in traditional Medicare will save an average of more than $3,500 in the next 10 years and those with high prescription drug costs will save as much as $12,300, according to a new HHS analysis.
The savings come from slowing the growth of cost-sharing in Medicare, mainly by closing the Part D coverage gap known as the "donut hole."
Next year, beneficiaries in the donut hole will receive 50 percent discounts on covered brand-name Part D prescription drugs and will have access to a number of recommended preventive services and annual wellness visits at no additional cost.
I wonder who is really against these savings?
The savings come from slowing the growth of cost-sharing in Medicare, mainly by closing the Part D coverage gap known as the "donut hole."
Next year, beneficiaries in the donut hole will receive 50 percent discounts on covered brand-name Part D prescription drugs and will have access to a number of recommended preventive services and annual wellness visits at no additional cost.
I wonder who is really against these savings?
Friday, November 5, 2010
Oblermann Suspended ( I smell a rat!)
This is a little too clean against Oblermann. There is an untold story here!
pp
This just happened to happen right?
pp
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
This just happened to happen right?
Bush Knew of Waterboarding?
Is Bush knew about waterboarding! Shouldn't he be in jail? Operate from the moral highground.
pp
pp
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
Southern White Democratics Neary Extinct
WASHINGTON — The white Southern Democrat – endangered since the 1960s civil rights era – is sliding nearer to extinction.
After this week's elections, the Democratic Party barely holds a presence in the region outside of majority-black urban areas such as Atlanta and Memphis. The carnage for the party was particularly brutal in the Deep South, where just one white Democrat survived across Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina.
The Republicans' effort to win over the South, rooted decades ago in a strategy to capitalize on white voters' resentment of desegregation, is all but complete.
Who is surprised by this?
"Right now in most of Dixie it is culturally unacceptable to be a Democrat. It's a damn shame, but that's the way it is," said Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, a campaign strategist for conservative Democrats such as Jim Webb of Virginia, one of the few remaining Southern Democratic senators.
The losses were particularly disappointing for the party after the baby steps it made in the South in 2006 and 2008, when it picked up a host of Republican-leaning House districts and won Senate seats in North Carolina and Virginia. Many thought the party had learned its lessons and had begun to reverse recent history by nominating conservative candidates who hit the right notes on divisive social issues such as abortion and smaller government.
None of it mattered Tuesday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/white-southern-democrats-_n_779345.html
After this week's elections, the Democratic Party barely holds a presence in the region outside of majority-black urban areas such as Atlanta and Memphis. The carnage for the party was particularly brutal in the Deep South, where just one white Democrat survived across Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina.
The Republicans' effort to win over the South, rooted decades ago in a strategy to capitalize on white voters' resentment of desegregation, is all but complete.
Who is surprised by this?
"Right now in most of Dixie it is culturally unacceptable to be a Democrat. It's a damn shame, but that's the way it is," said Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, a campaign strategist for conservative Democrats such as Jim Webb of Virginia, one of the few remaining Southern Democratic senators.
The losses were particularly disappointing for the party after the baby steps it made in the South in 2006 and 2008, when it picked up a host of Republican-leaning House districts and won Senate seats in North Carolina and Virginia. Many thought the party had learned its lessons and had begun to reverse recent history by nominating conservative candidates who hit the right notes on divisive social issues such as abortion and smaller government.
None of it mattered Tuesday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/white-southern-democrats-_n_779345.html
Thursday, November 4, 2010
What Did Congress Do The Last 18 Months?
In case you got confused!
MAKING COLLEGE MORE AFFORDABLE
COLLEGE COST REDUCTION AND ACCESS ACT (PL 110-84)
•Cuts the interest rates on need-based student loans in half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over four years, saving the typical student borrower $4,400 over the life of the loan
•Increases the maximum Pell Grant scholarship and expands eligibility to cover more low-income students
•Makes student loan payments more affordable for borrowers by guaranteeing that borrowers will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their discretionary income in loan repayments
•Provides loan forgiveness for public servants after 10 years of public service and loan repayment for military service members, first responders, law enforcement officers, and others
HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY ACT (PL 110-315)
•Makes it easier to apply for federal student aid, by streamlining the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) process down from 100 questions and creating a two-page FAFSA-EZ form
•Gives colleges incentives to rein in tuition increases
•Includes provisions to make textbook costs more manageable
•Makes college more affordable for low-income and non-traditional students by allowing students to receive Pell Grants year-round
STUDENT AID AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (PL 111-152)
•Makes the largest investment in college aid in history, at no cost to the taxpayer
•Invests $36 billion over 10 years to increase the maximum Pell Grant to $5,550 in 2010 and to nearly $6,000 by 2017; starting in 2013, the maximum grant will be linked to match the rising cost of living by indexing it to the Consumer Price Index
•Takes another step in making student loan payments more affordable for borrowers by providing that, starting in 2014, borrowers will not have to pay more than 10 percent of their discretionary income in loan repayments
•Invests $500 million a year for the next four years in improving our community colleges
•Is paid for by ending wasteful subsidies to banks through the federal guaranteed student loan programs
•Reduces the deficit by $10 billion over the next 10 years
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (PL 111-5)
•Improves higher education tax credits, by creating a new “American Opportunity” tax credit with a maximum of $2,500 rather than the previous maximum of $1,800
•Provides this new “American Opportunity” tax credit to more than 4 million low-income students who had not had any access to higher education tax credits in the past – by making it partially refundable
A NEW FOUNDATION FOR OUR ECONOMY
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE (PL 110-28)
•Provided the first minimum wage increase in 10 years -- raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour in three increments over two years
•This minimum wage increase has helped many of America’s young people, including those working in part-time and/or summer jobs as they are going to school
AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY AND SECURITY ACT (H.R. 2454, 111TH CONGRESS) – PASSED BY HOUSE
•Unleashes private sector investment in clean energy to create millions of new clean energy jobs that can’t be shipped overseas and to make America the global leader in clean energy technology
•Estimated to create 1.7 million clean energy jobs (along with Recovery Act)
•Reduces global warming by placing achievable, realistic limits on carbon emissions from electric utilities, oil refineries and other major sources
•Reduces our dangerous dependence on foreign oil that is funding terrorism
•Invests in cost-saving energy technology to save consumers money
•Keeps costs low for Americans; with EPA estimating the bill would cost the typical American household less than a postage stamp per day – or $98-$140 a year; even before cost-savings are factored in
HOME STAR JOBS ACT (H.R. 5019, 111TH CONGRESS) – PASSED BY HOUSE
•Provides immediate incentives for consumers to make their homes more energy-efficient
•According to the Alliance to Save Energy, creates 168,000 jobs in construction and manufacturing
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT (PL 110-140)
•Increases vehicle fuel efficiency standards (CAFÉ standards) to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the first congressional increase in 32 years – reducing global warming
•Provides new energy efficiency standards for buildings, homes, appliances, and lighting
•Makes an historic commitment to American-grown biofuels
•Creates a Green Job Corps, training workers for a ‘green’ revolution
DISASTER RELIEF AND YOUTH JOBS ACT (H.R. 4899, 111TH CONGRESS) – PASSED BY HOUSE
•Creates about 300,000 job opportunities for young people – critical with the unemployment rate for those ages 16 to 19 currently at 26.3 percent and those ages 20 to 24 currently at 14.9 percent.
•Gives disaster-stricken communities aid to rebuild their homes, infrastructure and local economies
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (PL 111-5)
•According to the nonpartisan CBO, has been responsible for up to 3.3 million jobs as of June 2010
•More than one-third of the Act has been tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans
•Invests in rebuilding America, including roads, bridges, and mass transit; in clean energy jobs, such as the smart power grid and advanced batteries; and in science and technology
•Significantly enhanced the tax credit for first-time homebuyers by removing the repayment requirement and increasing it to $8,000
WORKER, HOMEOWNERSHIP, & BUSINESS ASSISTANCE ACT (PL 111-92)
•Extends the homebuyer tax credit through April 30, 2010 (which otherwise would have expired on November 30, 2009) and expands the homebuyer tax credit to more families
•Boosts the economy with emergency relief for Americans hit by the recession
•Provides additional tax relief for small businesses through a net operating loss provision
HIRING INCENTIVES TO RESTORE EMPLOYMENT (HIRE) ACT (PL 111-147)
•Is estimated to create 300,000 jobs by providing a payroll tax holiday for businesses that hire workers who have been unemployed for eight weeks or longer, and an income tax credit of $1,000 for businesses that retain these employees; also unleashes tens of billions of dollars to rebuild infrastructure
LILY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT (PL 111-2)
•Helps to better ensure equal pay for women by rectifying a 2007 Supreme Court decision that had made it much more difficult for women and other workers to pursue pay discrimination claims
•Restores the longstanding interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
EDUCATION JOBS AND MEDICAID ASSISTANCE ACT (PL 111-226)
•Creates and saves about 319,000 jobs – saving 161,000 teacher jobs this coming school year and providing state aid that will create and save another 158,000 jobs, including police officers, firefighters, and private sector workers
•Closes tax loopholes that encourage corporations to ship American jobs overseas
AMERICA COMPETES ACT (INNOVATION AGENDA) (PL 110-69)
•Makes key investments to help ensure our global economic competitiveness for generations to come
•Puts us on a path to doubling funding for basic scientific research over the next 10 years
•Creates scholarships for 25,000 new highly qualified math and science teachers over the next 5 years
AMERICA COMPETES ACT REAUTHORIZATION (H.R. 5116, 111TH CONGRESS) – PASSED BY HOUSE
•Keeps our nation on the path to double funding for basic scientific research over 10 years
•Creates the next generation of entrepreneurs by improving science, math, technology, and engineering education at all levels
IMPROVING HEALTH CARE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (PL 111-148)
•Allows young people to stay on their parents’ health plan until their 26th birthday; this will help to cover the one in three young adults who are currently uninsured; (between now and 2014, this provision applies to a young person only if their employer doesn’t offer them coverage)
•Includes new patient protections that will save consumers money – such as eliminating lifetime limits on how much insurance companies cover if you get sick and phasing out annual limits
•Promotes preventive care by requiring insurers to cover preventive services without charging deductibles or co-payments, for those in new plans; also invests $15 billion in a Prevention and Public Health Fund
•Offers access to affordable health insurance to those without job-based coverage, starting in 2014, and provides substantial premium assistance to those who still can’t afford it; young adults are just starting jobs and careers, and often don’t have access to job-based coverage
•Is fully paid for, so the younger generation is not stuck with paying the bill for health reform; indeed, according to the nonpartisan CBO, the Act will reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (PL 111-5)
•Invests $10 billion in critical health research, in order to advance research capable of making breakthroughs in the areas of such illnesses as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancer, and heart disease
•Invests $19 billion to accelerate the adoption of Health Information Technology (HIT) systems by doctors and hospitals, in order to modernize the health care system, save billions of dollars, reduce medical errors and improve quality
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO (PL 111-139)
•Puts in federal statute a pay-as-you-go requirement, imposing tough fiscal discipline, that new policies that increase mandatory spending or reduce revenues must be fully offset with reduced spending or increased revenues elsewhere, giving this requirement the force of law
•When Statutory Pay-As-You-Go was in effect during the 1990s, helped to create the record budget surpluses the nation enjoyed under President Clinton
WEAPON SYSTEMS ACQUISITION REFORM ACT (PL 111-23)
•Saves taxpayers money by cracking down on Pentagon waste and cost overruns, which an independent watchdog says amount to $296 billion just for the 96 largest weapons systems
IMPROPER PAYMENTS ELIMINATION AND RECOVERY ACT (PL 111-204)
•Saves taxpayers money by helping identify, reduce and eliminate improper payments by federal agencies, as well as recovering lost funds, on behalf of U.S. taxpayers, that federal agencies have spent improperly
NEW CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTIONS
WALL STREET REFORM (PL 111-203)
•Establishes an independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that is able to act fast to:
◦Ensure American consumers get the clear, accurate information they need to shop for mortgages, credit cards, student loans, payday loans and other financial products, and
◦Protect them from hidden fees, abusive terms, and unfair and deceptive practices
CREDIT CARDHOLDERS’ BILL OF RIGHTS (PL 111-627)
•Provides tough protections for credit cardholders, including prohibiting retroactive interest rate hikes on existing balances and banning double-cycle billing (charging interest twice for balances paid on time)
A COMMITMENT TO OUR VETERANS
NEW GI BILL (PL 110-252)
•Provides full, four-year college scholarships for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, on a par with the educational benefits for veterans provided after World War II, covering up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public school
FY 2010 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-VA APPROPRIATIONS (PL 111-117)
•Strengthens health care for 6 million veterans, including 419,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, by investing 11% more for VA medical care; 70% of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are under 30
MAKING COLLEGE MORE AFFORDABLE
COLLEGE COST REDUCTION AND ACCESS ACT (PL 110-84)
•Cuts the interest rates on need-based student loans in half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over four years, saving the typical student borrower $4,400 over the life of the loan
•Increases the maximum Pell Grant scholarship and expands eligibility to cover more low-income students
•Makes student loan payments more affordable for borrowers by guaranteeing that borrowers will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their discretionary income in loan repayments
•Provides loan forgiveness for public servants after 10 years of public service and loan repayment for military service members, first responders, law enforcement officers, and others
HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY ACT (PL 110-315)
•Makes it easier to apply for federal student aid, by streamlining the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) process down from 100 questions and creating a two-page FAFSA-EZ form
•Gives colleges incentives to rein in tuition increases
•Includes provisions to make textbook costs more manageable
•Makes college more affordable for low-income and non-traditional students by allowing students to receive Pell Grants year-round
STUDENT AID AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT (PL 111-152)
•Makes the largest investment in college aid in history, at no cost to the taxpayer
•Invests $36 billion over 10 years to increase the maximum Pell Grant to $5,550 in 2010 and to nearly $6,000 by 2017; starting in 2013, the maximum grant will be linked to match the rising cost of living by indexing it to the Consumer Price Index
•Takes another step in making student loan payments more affordable for borrowers by providing that, starting in 2014, borrowers will not have to pay more than 10 percent of their discretionary income in loan repayments
•Invests $500 million a year for the next four years in improving our community colleges
•Is paid for by ending wasteful subsidies to banks through the federal guaranteed student loan programs
•Reduces the deficit by $10 billion over the next 10 years
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (PL 111-5)
•Improves higher education tax credits, by creating a new “American Opportunity” tax credit with a maximum of $2,500 rather than the previous maximum of $1,800
•Provides this new “American Opportunity” tax credit to more than 4 million low-income students who had not had any access to higher education tax credits in the past – by making it partially refundable
A NEW FOUNDATION FOR OUR ECONOMY
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE (PL 110-28)
•Provided the first minimum wage increase in 10 years -- raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour in three increments over two years
•This minimum wage increase has helped many of America’s young people, including those working in part-time and/or summer jobs as they are going to school
AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY AND SECURITY ACT (H.R. 2454, 111TH CONGRESS) – PASSED BY HOUSE
•Unleashes private sector investment in clean energy to create millions of new clean energy jobs that can’t be shipped overseas and to make America the global leader in clean energy technology
•Estimated to create 1.7 million clean energy jobs (along with Recovery Act)
•Reduces global warming by placing achievable, realistic limits on carbon emissions from electric utilities, oil refineries and other major sources
•Reduces our dangerous dependence on foreign oil that is funding terrorism
•Invests in cost-saving energy technology to save consumers money
•Keeps costs low for Americans; with EPA estimating the bill would cost the typical American household less than a postage stamp per day – or $98-$140 a year; even before cost-savings are factored in
HOME STAR JOBS ACT (H.R. 5019, 111TH CONGRESS) – PASSED BY HOUSE
•Provides immediate incentives for consumers to make their homes more energy-efficient
•According to the Alliance to Save Energy, creates 168,000 jobs in construction and manufacturing
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT (PL 110-140)
•Increases vehicle fuel efficiency standards (CAFÉ standards) to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the first congressional increase in 32 years – reducing global warming
•Provides new energy efficiency standards for buildings, homes, appliances, and lighting
•Makes an historic commitment to American-grown biofuels
•Creates a Green Job Corps, training workers for a ‘green’ revolution
DISASTER RELIEF AND YOUTH JOBS ACT (H.R. 4899, 111TH CONGRESS) – PASSED BY HOUSE
•Creates about 300,000 job opportunities for young people – critical with the unemployment rate for those ages 16 to 19 currently at 26.3 percent and those ages 20 to 24 currently at 14.9 percent.
•Gives disaster-stricken communities aid to rebuild their homes, infrastructure and local economies
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (PL 111-5)
•According to the nonpartisan CBO, has been responsible for up to 3.3 million jobs as of June 2010
•More than one-third of the Act has been tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans
•Invests in rebuilding America, including roads, bridges, and mass transit; in clean energy jobs, such as the smart power grid and advanced batteries; and in science and technology
•Significantly enhanced the tax credit for first-time homebuyers by removing the repayment requirement and increasing it to $8,000
WORKER, HOMEOWNERSHIP, & BUSINESS ASSISTANCE ACT (PL 111-92)
•Extends the homebuyer tax credit through April 30, 2010 (which otherwise would have expired on November 30, 2009) and expands the homebuyer tax credit to more families
•Boosts the economy with emergency relief for Americans hit by the recession
•Provides additional tax relief for small businesses through a net operating loss provision
HIRING INCENTIVES TO RESTORE EMPLOYMENT (HIRE) ACT (PL 111-147)
•Is estimated to create 300,000 jobs by providing a payroll tax holiday for businesses that hire workers who have been unemployed for eight weeks or longer, and an income tax credit of $1,000 for businesses that retain these employees; also unleashes tens of billions of dollars to rebuild infrastructure
LILY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT (PL 111-2)
•Helps to better ensure equal pay for women by rectifying a 2007 Supreme Court decision that had made it much more difficult for women and other workers to pursue pay discrimination claims
•Restores the longstanding interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
EDUCATION JOBS AND MEDICAID ASSISTANCE ACT (PL 111-226)
•Creates and saves about 319,000 jobs – saving 161,000 teacher jobs this coming school year and providing state aid that will create and save another 158,000 jobs, including police officers, firefighters, and private sector workers
•Closes tax loopholes that encourage corporations to ship American jobs overseas
AMERICA COMPETES ACT (INNOVATION AGENDA) (PL 110-69)
•Makes key investments to help ensure our global economic competitiveness for generations to come
•Puts us on a path to doubling funding for basic scientific research over the next 10 years
•Creates scholarships for 25,000 new highly qualified math and science teachers over the next 5 years
AMERICA COMPETES ACT REAUTHORIZATION (H.R. 5116, 111TH CONGRESS) – PASSED BY HOUSE
•Keeps our nation on the path to double funding for basic scientific research over 10 years
•Creates the next generation of entrepreneurs by improving science, math, technology, and engineering education at all levels
IMPROVING HEALTH CARE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (PL 111-148)
•Allows young people to stay on their parents’ health plan until their 26th birthday; this will help to cover the one in three young adults who are currently uninsured; (between now and 2014, this provision applies to a young person only if their employer doesn’t offer them coverage)
•Includes new patient protections that will save consumers money – such as eliminating lifetime limits on how much insurance companies cover if you get sick and phasing out annual limits
•Promotes preventive care by requiring insurers to cover preventive services without charging deductibles or co-payments, for those in new plans; also invests $15 billion in a Prevention and Public Health Fund
•Offers access to affordable health insurance to those without job-based coverage, starting in 2014, and provides substantial premium assistance to those who still can’t afford it; young adults are just starting jobs and careers, and often don’t have access to job-based coverage
•Is fully paid for, so the younger generation is not stuck with paying the bill for health reform; indeed, according to the nonpartisan CBO, the Act will reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion over the next 20 years
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (PL 111-5)
•Invests $10 billion in critical health research, in order to advance research capable of making breakthroughs in the areas of such illnesses as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancer, and heart disease
•Invests $19 billion to accelerate the adoption of Health Information Technology (HIT) systems by doctors and hospitals, in order to modernize the health care system, save billions of dollars, reduce medical errors and improve quality
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO (PL 111-139)
•Puts in federal statute a pay-as-you-go requirement, imposing tough fiscal discipline, that new policies that increase mandatory spending or reduce revenues must be fully offset with reduced spending or increased revenues elsewhere, giving this requirement the force of law
•When Statutory Pay-As-You-Go was in effect during the 1990s, helped to create the record budget surpluses the nation enjoyed under President Clinton
WEAPON SYSTEMS ACQUISITION REFORM ACT (PL 111-23)
•Saves taxpayers money by cracking down on Pentagon waste and cost overruns, which an independent watchdog says amount to $296 billion just for the 96 largest weapons systems
IMPROPER PAYMENTS ELIMINATION AND RECOVERY ACT (PL 111-204)
•Saves taxpayers money by helping identify, reduce and eliminate improper payments by federal agencies, as well as recovering lost funds, on behalf of U.S. taxpayers, that federal agencies have spent improperly
NEW CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTIONS
WALL STREET REFORM (PL 111-203)
•Establishes an independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that is able to act fast to:
◦Ensure American consumers get the clear, accurate information they need to shop for mortgages, credit cards, student loans, payday loans and other financial products, and
◦Protect them from hidden fees, abusive terms, and unfair and deceptive practices
CREDIT CARDHOLDERS’ BILL OF RIGHTS (PL 111-627)
•Provides tough protections for credit cardholders, including prohibiting retroactive interest rate hikes on existing balances and banning double-cycle billing (charging interest twice for balances paid on time)
A COMMITMENT TO OUR VETERANS
NEW GI BILL (PL 110-252)
•Provides full, four-year college scholarships for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, on a par with the educational benefits for veterans provided after World War II, covering up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public school
FY 2010 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-VA APPROPRIATIONS (PL 111-117)
•Strengthens health care for 6 million veterans, including 419,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, by investing 11% more for VA medical care; 70% of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are under 30
President Barack Obama’s First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political Difficulties
In case there was confusion:
During his first two years in office, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress compiled a substantial record of policy accomplishment—the economic stimulus, bringing the financial system back from the brink of collapse, rescuing two automakers, universal health care, sweeping reform of financial regulation, and major changes in student loan programs, among many others. Nevertheless, the political standing of both the president and congressional Democrats slipped steadily through much of this period, and the voters administered a substantial rebuke in the November 2010 midterm elections. While some contests remain unresolved, the Democrats have lost at least six Senate seats, at least ten governorships, and more than sixty House seats, the most for a mid-term election since 1938. By any measure, this is a substantial and consequential expression of public discontent.
What went wrong? There are four broad schools of thought. The first— popular among mainstream liberals, and the most supportive of the president—focuses on the unusual quantity and nature of problems that Obama inherited when he took the oath of office. Because economic downturns induced by financial crises differ fundamentally from ordinary cyclical recessions, recovery is slower and takes longer, generating sustained high unemployment. And because such crises destroy so much wealth, government must take costly steps to avert all-out disaster, expanding deficits and debt in ways that average citizens are bound to find alarming and hard to understand. As Brookings’s Thomas Mann puts it, summarizing this view,
The simple fact is that no leader or governing party thrives politically in difficult economic times. . . Citizens today are understandably scared, sour, and deeply pessimistic about our economic future. . . The well-documented successes of the financial stabilization and stimulus initiatives are invisible to a public reacting to the here and now, not to the counterfactual of how much worse it might have been. The painfully slow recovery from the global financial crisis and Great Recession have led most Americans to believe these programs have failed and as a consequence they judge the president and Congress harshly.[i]
In short, proponents of this view contend, Obama and the Democrats are mostly the victims of forces beyond their control. Although they did everything in their power to restart the engine of growth, the economic clock is running more slowly than is the political clock, generating widespread discontent and a huge voter backlash.
There is a political as well as an economic dimension to this thesis. A large part of Obama’s appeal to independents and moderates was his promise to reduce the level of partisanship in Washington. Unfortunately for him, he couldn’t deliver bipartisanship on his own, and (so runs the argument), the Republicans’ decision to oppose his every initiative, starting on Day One, made it impossible for him to redeem his pledge. The Republicans gambled that because Obama and the Democrats controlled the entire government, they would be blamed for continuing partisan wrangling. And the Republicans turned out to be right. Although it was not Obama’s fault, the public focused their discontent with continuing partisan rancor focused nonetheless on him and the Democratic leadership, not on the real source of their disappointment.
There is much to this, of course. There is little doubt that the Republicans decided early on (just when is a matter of dispute) to act as a disciplined and relentless opposition, or that this decision was a dagger aimed at the heart of Obama’s public standing.
Barack Obama first came to national prominence at the 2004 Democratic convention. Rejecting the division between “Red America” and “Blue America,” his spectacularly successful keynote address appealed to the public’s yearning for a politics of common purpose. During his presidential campaign, he continued this theme, promising to reduce partisan polarization in Washington. But he underestimated the depth of the division between the parties, misunderstood its source, and assumed, wrongly, that his personal mandate and persuasive powers would suffice to overcome it.
In reality, the divide between the parties and between red and blue America went well beyond incivility to embrace disagreements on core principles and conceptions of how the world works. Bridging this divide, if possible at all, would have taken much more than a change of tone in the White House. It would have required, as well, a policy agenda that breached traditional partisan bounds. But there was little in Obama’s agenda that corresponded to Bill Clinton’s heterodox positions on crime, welfare, trade, and fiscal restraint. Instead, Obama synthesized and advocated policies representing the consensus within the Democratic Party. Republicans rejected that agenda as a basis for reaching common ground.
It is an open question whether there was any feasible course Obama could have pursued in the early months that could have diminished the fierce partisan conflict of his first two years in office. Could he have made House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell an offer they couldn’t refuse, at least not without them being punished in the court of public opinion? Those arguing in the affirmative point to the process that produced the stimulus bill. Whatever the truth, the perception spread that Obama had subcontracted that bill to congressional Democrats, who proceeded to stuff it with a long-deferred wish-list of programs dear to their core constituents. His strategy minimized the prospects for serious bipartisanship, even if some Republicans had initially been inclined to move in that direction. Those arguing in the negative invoke the failed three-month effort in the Senate Finance Committee to produce a bipartisan health care bill. I must leave the assignment of responsibility to historians who will be armed with information and documents not now on the public record.
The second explanation, associated with the left wing of the Democratic Party, argues that Obama failed politically, not because he was too partisan, but because he wasn’t partisan enough; not because he went too far, but because he didn’t go far enough. The bill of particulars is roughly this: Obama misjudged the willingness of Republicans to meet him halfway and underestimated his ability to get his way without their help. As a result, the stimulus bill was both too small and poorly structured; months were spent negotiating health care with Senate Republicans who never had any intention of getting to yes; the public option was thrown away without a fight; and the time squandered on a needlessly prolonged struggle over the health care bill squeezed out other key items such as climate change and immigration reform. Adding executive insult to legislative injury, the president failed either to close Guantanamo or to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” and his Treasury allowed financial institutions and their leaders to survive and prosper without paying any price for their misdeeds. The result was a demoralized base and an emboldened opposition, with predictable electoral results.
There is something to this critique as well. Given the intensity of the polarization that predated his presidency, Obama did underestimate the difficulty of mitigating it. Even the White House’s strongest defenders concede that the health care debate went on much longer than it should have, with negative consequences for the rest of Obama’s agenda. And his administration’s kid-glove treatment of big banks and AIG was morally and politically tone-deaf.
For the most part, however, the critique from the left fails the test of political realism. The administration couldn’t have gotten a larger stimulus bill, even if it had pushed hard; nor could it have passed health reform with a public option, let alone the liberal beau ideal, a single-payer system. The reason is the same in both cases: not only were Republicans unanimously opposed, but so were many Democrats. What the liberals overlook is that unlike the Republican Party, Democrats are a diverse ideological coalition, split roughly 40/40/20 among liberals, moderates, and conservatives at the grassroots level. In the country as a whole, moreover, liberals constitute only one fifth of the electorate and cannot hope to succeed outside a coalition with Americans to their right. What sells in Marin County won’t in South Carolina, or even in most parts of the Midwest. Democrats representing more moderate or even conservative districts know that if they go beyond the limits that their constituents can accept, they will pay a high political price. And so it proved in 2010, with Democratic losses concentrated in the South and Midwest. Liberals in the House of Representatives will now painfully relearn the lesson that Rahm Emanuel patiently taught them in the past decade: by themselves, they do not constitute a majority and won’t, for the foreseeable future.
There is also a third explanation, a critique from the right: while Obama campaigned as a moderate conciliator, he governed as a liberal activist, undermining the possibility of bipartisan cooperation and preventing himself from overcoming the divide between Red and Blue America. His efforts to bring Republicans into the conversation were largely cosmetic and were inconsistent with the role he allowed House Democratic leaders to play in the legislative process. If he had been serious about tort reform and market-based mechanisms such as purchasing insurance across state lines, a basis would have existed for a different kind of negotiation about health reform. In a similar vein, the House version of cap-and-trade legislation made no concession to Republican objections and alternatives. Under these circumstances, Republicans had no choice but to oppose the president’s initiatives and to persuade the American people to give them a share of governing power to create the basis for a more equal conversation. The failure of the president’s economic programs to reduce unemployment and stem the flood of housing foreclosures gave them the opportunity to make their case, and the public responded.
As we’ll see, there are some elements of truth in this critique as well. There was indeed a tension at the heart of the Obama campaign between the rhetoric of post-partisanship and the substance of the agenda. Once in office, Obama could have tried harder to restrain Democratic partisanship in the House and to build Republican concerns into his health care proposals.
Nonetheless, one overriding fact undermines the plausibility of the critique from the right. After their defeat in 2008, Republicans quickly reached a consensus on the cause: voters had punished them, not because they had been too conservative, but rather because they hadn’t been conservative enough. They had come to Washington to cut spending and limit government, but under George W. Bush, they concluded, they had become the reverse—a party that used government programs to cement its majority. As a result, domestic spending rose more rapidly in the Bush years than it had in the Clinton years, and the party lost the confidence of its core supporters. By the time Obama took the oath of office, Republicans had decided to return to their ancestral faith--the straight and narrow path of limited government. Because the incoming administration’s response to the economic crisis would certainly not focus on tax cuts and spending restraint, Republicans were bound to confront its plans across the board. And so they did.
In this paper, I will argue for a fourth explanation. The gist of it is this: Yes, American history is replete with examples of presidents and parties who experience political difficulties in hard economic times, only to regain public esteem as the economy regains its balance. But there is more to the losses that President Obama and the Democratic Party suffered in November 2010: the public punished them, not only for high unemployment and slow growth, but also for what it regarded as sins of both commission and omission. The White House and congressional leaders pursued an agenda that the people mostly rejected while overlooking measures that might well have improved the economy more, and almost certainly would have been more popular, than what they did instead. In short, while Obama was dealt a bad hand, he proceeded to misplay it, making the political backlash even worse than it had to be.
The Seeds of Future Difficulties
Some of the seeds of future problems were sown during the campaign. To begin, Obama raised the expectations of many Americans so high that they were bound to be disappointed. The excitement that his campaign aroused proved to be a two-edged sword. While it mobilized many people—especially minorities and the young—who otherwise might not have voted, it also led them to expect change of a scope and speed that our political system rarely permits. When the normal checks and balances took hold in 2009, hope turned into doubt and then into disillusion.
Also symptomatic of future problems, there was an odd void at the center of Obama’s campaign. It featured soaring rhetoric about hope and change at one extreme and a long series of detailed policy proposals at the other. But there was something missing in between: a compelling, easily grasped narrative that offered a theory about our challenges and unified his recommendations for addressing them. In this respect, Obama’s campaign did not measure up to its acknowledged model, Ronald Reagan’s successful race for the presidency, framed by his remarkable acceptance speech at the 1980 Republican convention. Hope is a sentiment, not a strategy, and quickly loses credibility without a road map. Throughout his first two years in office, President Obama often struggled to connect individual initiatives to larger purposes.
Obama’s campaign was not only expansive but also ambiguous, and Obama knew it. After defeating Hilary Clinton, the presumptive nominee gave an interview to the New York Times. “I am like a Rorshach test,” he said. “Even if people find me disappointing ultimately, they might gain something.”[ii] The difficulty was that the hopes of his supporters were often contradictory. Some expected him to be a liberal stalwart, leading the charge for single-payer health insurance and the fight against big corporations; others assumed that his evident desire to transcend the red-blue divide pointed to a post-partisan presidential agenda implemented through bipartisan congressional cooperation. It would have been difficult to satisfy both wings of his coalition, and he didn’t. As he tacked back and forth during the first two years of his presidency, he ended up disappointing both.
There was a further difficulty. While Obama’s agenda required a significant expansion of the scope, power, and cost of the federal government, public trust in that government stood near a record low throughout his campaign, a reality his election did nothing to alter. A majority of the people chose to place their confidence in Obama the man but not in the institutions through which he would have to enact and implement his agenda. Although he was warned just days after his victory that the public’s mistrust of government would limit its tolerance for bold initiatives, he refused to trim his sails, in effect assuming that his personal credibility would outweigh the public’s doubts about the competence and integrity of the government he led.[iii] As events proved, that was a significant misjudgment.
It was reinforced by a fateful decision that Obama made during the presidential transition. Once elected, Obama in fact had not one but two agendas—the agenda of choice on which he had run for president and the agenda of necessity that the economic and financial collapse had forced upon him. The issue he then faced was whether the latter would require him to trim or delay the former, a question he answered in the negative. Denying any conflict between these agendas, he opted to pursue both simultaneously. A major health care initiative was piled on top of the financial rescue plan and the stimulus package, exacerbating the public’s sticker shock. And initiatives such as climate change legislation and comprehensive immigration reform remained in play long after it should have been clear that they stood no serious chance of enactment while pervasive economic distress dominated the political landscape.
From Latent Difficulties to Actual Problems: The Economic Challenge
As Obama took office, it was clear that the public’s overriding concern was the state of the economy and the job market. But throughout the 111th Congress, the White House and congressional Democrats failed to address that concern in a manner that the electorate regarded as satisfactory. After some promising signs in the fall of 2009 and spring of 2010, economic growth slowed to a crawl, the private sector generated jobs at an anemic pace, and unemployment remained stuck near 10 percent. The number of workers remaining jobless for six months or more soared to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Many older workers doubted that they would ever again be employed. Contributing to the sour mood, economic forecasters held out scant hopes of faster job generation through much of 2011. The administration did not help itself early in 2009 when its Council of Economic Advisors suggested that with the passage of the stimulus bill, unemployment would peak around 8.5 percent. (Instead, it reached 10.3 percent before subsiding slightly.)
Although many economists outside the administration argued that a financial crisis differed fundamentally from a cyclical downturn, administration officials struggled to integrate this premise into their economic program. They proceeded with a traditional demand-side stimulus, even though hard-pressed households were more concerned about reducing debt than expanding consumption. (In any event, a flood of inexpensive imports weakened the link between consumer demand and domestic job creation.) And the administration chose not to use TARP money to take devalued debt off the banks’ balance sheets, opting instead to allow them to rebuild capital through profits gained from record-low interest rates. In some respects, this replicated post-crash policies the Japanese government employed through the 1990s, with unsatisfactory results.
Home ownership is at the center of most middle-class families’ balance sheets and way of life. The wave of foreclosures that began in 2007 devastated entire communities. But here again, the administration’s initiatives fell short. Rebuffing calls for basic structural change—such as permitting bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages—the administration opted for a more modest approach that relied on lenders’ cooperation. This gamble on the efficacy of incrementalism did not pay off. Programs to renegotiate the terms of mortgages in or in danger of default reached only a small percentage of families in need of assistance, and in many cases the relief they received was not enough to prevent them from sliding back into default. By the fall of 2010, foreclosures reached a rate of more than one hundred thousand per month for the first time ever.
To make matters worse, a massive scandal erupted: it turned out that banks and other mortgage lenders were sending borrowers into foreclosure by the thousands without meeting basic legal requirements. (The term “robo-signer” quickly entered the lexicon of shame.) Policymakers were forced to consider a nation-wide foreclosure moratorium. Concerned about the impact on the financial system, the administration resisted, winning high marks for responsibility but probably reinforcing the impression that it cared more about large, wealthy institutions than about hard-pressed families.
The Politics of Agenda Management
The early phase of the Obama administration resembled nothing so much as the early days of a presidency that Obama held in low regard—namely, President Bill Clinton’s. Although the man from Hope had campaigned as a different kind of Democrat, his party’s congressional leaders persuaded him to downplay his signature bipartisan issue—welfare reform—in favor of a plan for comprehensive health insurance. Combined with the effort to eliminate barriers against gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, this shift helped convince many of Clinton’s moderate and independent supporters that they had been mislead, that he was an East Coast liberal masquerading as an Arkansas moderate. In addition, Clinton became wrapped up in the daily legislative process and began measuring success by the number of bills enacted. In the process, he lost control of the overall narrative.
Something similar happened to Obama, as the post-partisan candidate morphed into a more traditionally partisan president. He has acknowledged as much: the administration’s early legislative agenda, he says, “reinforced the narrative that the Republicans wanted to promote anyway, which was [that] Obama is not a different kind of Democrat—he’s the same old tax-and-spend liberal.” And the master orator of the campaign all but abandoned the presidential bully pulpit during the drawn-out struggle to enact key proposals. Said one top advisor, “It’s not what people felt they sent Barack Obama to Washington to do, to be legislator in chief.” David Plouffe, the former head of the president’s campaign and one of his closest political advisors, adds that “I do think he’s paid a political price . . . for having to be tied to Congress.”
Could it have been different? Another senior aide has been quoted as saying that “Here’s a guy who ran as an outsider to change Washington who all of a sudden realized that just to deal with these issues, we were going to have to work with Washington.” It’s hard to believe that this came as much of a surprise to Obama; it certainly didn’t to his chief of staff. The question was not whether the White House would have to work with Congress to move the president’s agenda; of course it would. It was rather whether the president would be dragged into the daily process or would be seen as remaining above it. President Ronald Reagan, Obama’s model of a transformational president, had to engage with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to enact key legislation, starting with the 1981 tax cuts. But he managed to do this without becoming “legislator in chief” and without losing control of the narrative. Reagan’s compromises—and there were many—were seen as occurring within a framework of principles and goals that never changed and that defined his political identity.[iv]
Not so for Obama, who failed to grasp fully the nature of the office he had won. Alone among the advanced democracies, the United States combines the functions of head of government and head of state in a single institution and human being. The American president is expected to be more than a legislator, more than a prime minister. He must also fill the role occupied by monarchs or ceremonial heads of state in other countries. He must be an explainer and a comforter, as circumstances require. And he must stand for, and represent, the country as a whole.
Rather than doing this, President Obama allowed himself to get trapped in legislative minutia, even as the country remained mired in a kind of economic slump that most Americans had never experienced and could not understand. Their reaction combined confusion and fear, which the president did little to allay. Ironically, a man who attained the presidency largely on the strength of his skills as a communicator did not communicate effectively during his first two years. He paid a steep political price for his failure.
From the beginning, the administration operated on two fundamental political premises that turned out to be mistaken. The first was that the economic collapse had opened the door to the comprehensive change Obama had promised. As incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously put it, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” In fact, as Emanuel himself came to realize, there was a tension between the steps needed to arrest the economic decline and the measures needed to actualize the president’s vision of fundamental change. The financial bailout and the stimulus package made it harder, not easier, to pass comprehensive health reform.
Second, the administration believed that success would breed success—that the momentum from one legislative victory would spill over into the next. The reverse was closer to the truth: with each difficult vote, it became harder to persuade Democrats from swing districts and states to cast the next one. In the event, House members who feared that they would pay a heavy price if they supported cap-and-trade legislation turned out to have a better grasp of political fundamentals than did administration strategists.
The legislative process that produced the health care bill was especially damaging. It lasted much too long and featured side-deals with interest groups and individual senators, made in full public view. Much of the public was dismayed by what it saw. Worse, the seemingly endless health care debate strengthened the view that the president’s agenda was poorly aligned with the economic concerns of the American people. Because the administration never persuaded the public that health reform was vital to our economic future, the entire effort came to be seen as diversionary, even anti-democratic. The health reform bill was surely a moral success; it may turn out to be a policy success; but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it was—and remains—a political liability.
Indeed, most of the Obama agenda turned out to be very unpopular. Of five major policy initiatives undertaken during the first two years, only one—financial regulatory reform—enjoyed majority support. In a September 2010 Gallup survey, 52 percent of the people disapproved of the economic stimulus, 56 percent disapproved of both the auto rescue and the health care bill, and an even larger majority—61 percent—rejected the bailout of financial institutions.[v] Democrats’ hopes that the people would change their minds about the party’s signature issue—universal health insurance—after the bill passed were not fulfilled. (It remains to be seen whether sentiment will change in coming years as provisions of the bill are phased in—that is, if they survive what will no doubt be stiff challenges in both Congress and the states.)
It isn’t hard to understand why the stimulus bill remained so unpopular: it neither fulfilled the administration’s promises nor met public expectations. As for the health care bill, cuts in Medicare needed to finance private insurance coverage for low and moderate income individuals alarmed many older voters, and the bill failed to address most people’s core health care concern—rising costs—in a manner that commanded confidence. The assistance to tottering financial institutions that began during the Bush administration affronted people’s moral sense: wrongdoers seemed to get off scot-free, and many people wondered why banks and insurance companies received hundreds of billions of dollars while average families struggled to make ends meet. And surprising many observers, it turned out that decades of shoddy products had undermined public support for once-iconic American auto makers. In the eyes of most people, what was good for General Motors was no longer good for the country—at least not when tax dollars were on the line.
Administration officials could and did argue that what they did was necessary and in the national interest. It is easy to sympathize with their view. Failing to prop up pivotal financial institutions would have risked a rerun of the 1930s. Allowing the domestic auto industry to go belly-up would have disrupted production and employment throughout the Midwest, already the most economically depressed region of the country. Not passing the stimulus bill would have forced hard-pressed state and local governments to slash spending and cut their workforces in sectors such as public safety and education, exacerbating unemployment. And so forth.
Clearly, though, the administration failed to persuade most Americans, who viewed its program as costly, unnecessary, and unproductive if not outright damaging. The administration often seemed to believe that its policies spoke for themselves and that their merits were obvious. We will never know whether a different strategy of public explanation could have produced a better result.
We do know this: the administration quite consciously chose to disregard the immediate political consequences of enacting its agenda. In his now-famous interview with the New York Times, President Obama put it this way: “We probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. There was probably a perverse pride in my administration—and I take responsibility for this . . .—that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular.” If so, by the fall of 2010 he had come to understand the shortcomings of this stance: “anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can’t be neglect[ful] of marketing and P.R. and public opinion.”[vi] It remains to be seen whether the president has fully grasped the implications of this “intersection”: in our democracy, popular sentiment necessarily influences, not only strategies of persuasion, but also the selection and sequence of problems for action and the shape of the policies devised to address them. America’s populist political culture normally resists rule by elites who claim to know better than the people—even when the elites represent a meritocracy of the best and the brightest rather than an oligarchy of the richest and best-connected.
The Road Ahead
The outcome of the November 2010 election has fundamentally changed the political dynamic for at least the next two years. It will no longer be possible for President Obama to advance his agenda with support from only his own party. Instead, he will be forced either to negotiate with an emboldened Republican House majority or endure two years of confrontation and gridlock. (As Newt Gingrich discovered in 1995, the same logic applies in reverse: it is no easier to run divided government from Capitol Hill than from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.)
Choosing the path of negotiation over confrontation would require a change of substance as well as tone. The president would have to give the federal budget deficit and national debt a far more central place in his policy agenda. Here the obstacles to agreement across party lines are formidable, although the findings of his bipartisan fiscal commission, due out in December, may assist him in making a shift to a more fiscally conservative position. It helps that the co-chairs of the commission, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, are determined to break the current gridlock, in which conservatives refuse to consider raising taxes while those on the left stoutly resist cuts in social programs.
The logic of the coming new political balance will impose other requirements. If Obama hopes to achieve his goal of doubling U.S. exports, he will have to balance a possible confrontation with China with a push for the ratification of pending trade treaties with Colombia and South Korea. The latter would split the Democratic Party and force him to rely on Republican support. If he wants to fire up the idling US job machine, he would also have to do more to repair his administration’s damaged relationship with corporate America, and give more weight to the effects of his policies on the business community’s animal spirits.
In social policy, only new programs with strong bipartisan support (if there are any) would stand a chance. While a package of incentives for energy development that includes new and alternative fuels may be possible, a cap and trade scheme will be on hold until after 2012, perhaps even longer. Crafting a response to the housing crisis that offered more effective relief to struggling homeowners would require serious negotiations over the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And progress on immigration reform – a vital issue for America’s burgeoning Latino population – would mean accepting the tough enforcement measures on which conservatives insist.
The outlook for defense and foreign policy is much the same. If President Obama does not achieve ratification of the New Start treaty updating limits on the strategic nuclear stockpiles held by the U.S. and Russia before the new Congress is seated in January, he will have to compromise with anti-arms control conservatives on their favorite issue, missile defense. And if he wishes to persevere in Afghanistan (a matter of conjecture, admittedly), he will have to rely on Republican support to fill the gap left by rising opposition within his own party.
In short, to avoid gridlock, Obama will have to govern less like the liberal antithesis to Ronald Reagan and more like the heir to Bill Clinton whose agenda he has regarded hitherto as excessively compromised and incremental. If he wants to succeed in the next two years of his presidency, and stand for re-election from a position of strength, he will have to do what Clinton did after the debacle of 1994 – namely, defend what he cannot surrender, while negotiating seriously with the opposition in other areas.
A survey conducted days before the November 2010 election suggests that this is indeed possible. While the electorate clearly wanted a change of course, it rejected key elements of the Republican agenda, including a freeze on all government spending except national security and a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for upper-income Americans. Barack Obama enjoys a higher approval rating than either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton after their mid-term defeats, and the people are more favorably inclined toward his bid for reelection than they were for either Reagan or Clinton at comparable points in their presidencies.[vii] If the new Republican majority over-interprets its mandate and goes too far, as Newt Gingrich’s Republicans did in 1995, and if the president draws the correct line between conciliation and confrontation, history could repeat itself, and he could find himself in a much stronger position at the end of 2011 than he was after the mid-term election.
No later than his 2011 State of the Union address, we will find out whether Obama possesses the one trait that every successful statesman needs: the ability to adjust to changing circumstances without selling his soul.
During his first two years in office, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress compiled a substantial record of policy accomplishment—the economic stimulus, bringing the financial system back from the brink of collapse, rescuing two automakers, universal health care, sweeping reform of financial regulation, and major changes in student loan programs, among many others. Nevertheless, the political standing of both the president and congressional Democrats slipped steadily through much of this period, and the voters administered a substantial rebuke in the November 2010 midterm elections. While some contests remain unresolved, the Democrats have lost at least six Senate seats, at least ten governorships, and more than sixty House seats, the most for a mid-term election since 1938. By any measure, this is a substantial and consequential expression of public discontent.
What went wrong? There are four broad schools of thought. The first— popular among mainstream liberals, and the most supportive of the president—focuses on the unusual quantity and nature of problems that Obama inherited when he took the oath of office. Because economic downturns induced by financial crises differ fundamentally from ordinary cyclical recessions, recovery is slower and takes longer, generating sustained high unemployment. And because such crises destroy so much wealth, government must take costly steps to avert all-out disaster, expanding deficits and debt in ways that average citizens are bound to find alarming and hard to understand. As Brookings’s Thomas Mann puts it, summarizing this view,
The simple fact is that no leader or governing party thrives politically in difficult economic times. . . Citizens today are understandably scared, sour, and deeply pessimistic about our economic future. . . The well-documented successes of the financial stabilization and stimulus initiatives are invisible to a public reacting to the here and now, not to the counterfactual of how much worse it might have been. The painfully slow recovery from the global financial crisis and Great Recession have led most Americans to believe these programs have failed and as a consequence they judge the president and Congress harshly.[i]
In short, proponents of this view contend, Obama and the Democrats are mostly the victims of forces beyond their control. Although they did everything in their power to restart the engine of growth, the economic clock is running more slowly than is the political clock, generating widespread discontent and a huge voter backlash.
There is a political as well as an economic dimension to this thesis. A large part of Obama’s appeal to independents and moderates was his promise to reduce the level of partisanship in Washington. Unfortunately for him, he couldn’t deliver bipartisanship on his own, and (so runs the argument), the Republicans’ decision to oppose his every initiative, starting on Day One, made it impossible for him to redeem his pledge. The Republicans gambled that because Obama and the Democrats controlled the entire government, they would be blamed for continuing partisan wrangling. And the Republicans turned out to be right. Although it was not Obama’s fault, the public focused their discontent with continuing partisan rancor focused nonetheless on him and the Democratic leadership, not on the real source of their disappointment.
There is much to this, of course. There is little doubt that the Republicans decided early on (just when is a matter of dispute) to act as a disciplined and relentless opposition, or that this decision was a dagger aimed at the heart of Obama’s public standing.
Barack Obama first came to national prominence at the 2004 Democratic convention. Rejecting the division between “Red America” and “Blue America,” his spectacularly successful keynote address appealed to the public’s yearning for a politics of common purpose. During his presidential campaign, he continued this theme, promising to reduce partisan polarization in Washington. But he underestimated the depth of the division between the parties, misunderstood its source, and assumed, wrongly, that his personal mandate and persuasive powers would suffice to overcome it.
In reality, the divide between the parties and between red and blue America went well beyond incivility to embrace disagreements on core principles and conceptions of how the world works. Bridging this divide, if possible at all, would have taken much more than a change of tone in the White House. It would have required, as well, a policy agenda that breached traditional partisan bounds. But there was little in Obama’s agenda that corresponded to Bill Clinton’s heterodox positions on crime, welfare, trade, and fiscal restraint. Instead, Obama synthesized and advocated policies representing the consensus within the Democratic Party. Republicans rejected that agenda as a basis for reaching common ground.
It is an open question whether there was any feasible course Obama could have pursued in the early months that could have diminished the fierce partisan conflict of his first two years in office. Could he have made House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell an offer they couldn’t refuse, at least not without them being punished in the court of public opinion? Those arguing in the affirmative point to the process that produced the stimulus bill. Whatever the truth, the perception spread that Obama had subcontracted that bill to congressional Democrats, who proceeded to stuff it with a long-deferred wish-list of programs dear to their core constituents. His strategy minimized the prospects for serious bipartisanship, even if some Republicans had initially been inclined to move in that direction. Those arguing in the negative invoke the failed three-month effort in the Senate Finance Committee to produce a bipartisan health care bill. I must leave the assignment of responsibility to historians who will be armed with information and documents not now on the public record.
The second explanation, associated with the left wing of the Democratic Party, argues that Obama failed politically, not because he was too partisan, but because he wasn’t partisan enough; not because he went too far, but because he didn’t go far enough. The bill of particulars is roughly this: Obama misjudged the willingness of Republicans to meet him halfway and underestimated his ability to get his way without their help. As a result, the stimulus bill was both too small and poorly structured; months were spent negotiating health care with Senate Republicans who never had any intention of getting to yes; the public option was thrown away without a fight; and the time squandered on a needlessly prolonged struggle over the health care bill squeezed out other key items such as climate change and immigration reform. Adding executive insult to legislative injury, the president failed either to close Guantanamo or to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” and his Treasury allowed financial institutions and their leaders to survive and prosper without paying any price for their misdeeds. The result was a demoralized base and an emboldened opposition, with predictable electoral results.
There is something to this critique as well. Given the intensity of the polarization that predated his presidency, Obama did underestimate the difficulty of mitigating it. Even the White House’s strongest defenders concede that the health care debate went on much longer than it should have, with negative consequences for the rest of Obama’s agenda. And his administration’s kid-glove treatment of big banks and AIG was morally and politically tone-deaf.
For the most part, however, the critique from the left fails the test of political realism. The administration couldn’t have gotten a larger stimulus bill, even if it had pushed hard; nor could it have passed health reform with a public option, let alone the liberal beau ideal, a single-payer system. The reason is the same in both cases: not only were Republicans unanimously opposed, but so were many Democrats. What the liberals overlook is that unlike the Republican Party, Democrats are a diverse ideological coalition, split roughly 40/40/20 among liberals, moderates, and conservatives at the grassroots level. In the country as a whole, moreover, liberals constitute only one fifth of the electorate and cannot hope to succeed outside a coalition with Americans to their right. What sells in Marin County won’t in South Carolina, or even in most parts of the Midwest. Democrats representing more moderate or even conservative districts know that if they go beyond the limits that their constituents can accept, they will pay a high political price. And so it proved in 2010, with Democratic losses concentrated in the South and Midwest. Liberals in the House of Representatives will now painfully relearn the lesson that Rahm Emanuel patiently taught them in the past decade: by themselves, they do not constitute a majority and won’t, for the foreseeable future.
There is also a third explanation, a critique from the right: while Obama campaigned as a moderate conciliator, he governed as a liberal activist, undermining the possibility of bipartisan cooperation and preventing himself from overcoming the divide between Red and Blue America. His efforts to bring Republicans into the conversation were largely cosmetic and were inconsistent with the role he allowed House Democratic leaders to play in the legislative process. If he had been serious about tort reform and market-based mechanisms such as purchasing insurance across state lines, a basis would have existed for a different kind of negotiation about health reform. In a similar vein, the House version of cap-and-trade legislation made no concession to Republican objections and alternatives. Under these circumstances, Republicans had no choice but to oppose the president’s initiatives and to persuade the American people to give them a share of governing power to create the basis for a more equal conversation. The failure of the president’s economic programs to reduce unemployment and stem the flood of housing foreclosures gave them the opportunity to make their case, and the public responded.
As we’ll see, there are some elements of truth in this critique as well. There was indeed a tension at the heart of the Obama campaign between the rhetoric of post-partisanship and the substance of the agenda. Once in office, Obama could have tried harder to restrain Democratic partisanship in the House and to build Republican concerns into his health care proposals.
Nonetheless, one overriding fact undermines the plausibility of the critique from the right. After their defeat in 2008, Republicans quickly reached a consensus on the cause: voters had punished them, not because they had been too conservative, but rather because they hadn’t been conservative enough. They had come to Washington to cut spending and limit government, but under George W. Bush, they concluded, they had become the reverse—a party that used government programs to cement its majority. As a result, domestic spending rose more rapidly in the Bush years than it had in the Clinton years, and the party lost the confidence of its core supporters. By the time Obama took the oath of office, Republicans had decided to return to their ancestral faith--the straight and narrow path of limited government. Because the incoming administration’s response to the economic crisis would certainly not focus on tax cuts and spending restraint, Republicans were bound to confront its plans across the board. And so they did.
In this paper, I will argue for a fourth explanation. The gist of it is this: Yes, American history is replete with examples of presidents and parties who experience political difficulties in hard economic times, only to regain public esteem as the economy regains its balance. But there is more to the losses that President Obama and the Democratic Party suffered in November 2010: the public punished them, not only for high unemployment and slow growth, but also for what it regarded as sins of both commission and omission. The White House and congressional leaders pursued an agenda that the people mostly rejected while overlooking measures that might well have improved the economy more, and almost certainly would have been more popular, than what they did instead. In short, while Obama was dealt a bad hand, he proceeded to misplay it, making the political backlash even worse than it had to be.
The Seeds of Future Difficulties
Some of the seeds of future problems were sown during the campaign. To begin, Obama raised the expectations of many Americans so high that they were bound to be disappointed. The excitement that his campaign aroused proved to be a two-edged sword. While it mobilized many people—especially minorities and the young—who otherwise might not have voted, it also led them to expect change of a scope and speed that our political system rarely permits. When the normal checks and balances took hold in 2009, hope turned into doubt and then into disillusion.
Also symptomatic of future problems, there was an odd void at the center of Obama’s campaign. It featured soaring rhetoric about hope and change at one extreme and a long series of detailed policy proposals at the other. But there was something missing in between: a compelling, easily grasped narrative that offered a theory about our challenges and unified his recommendations for addressing them. In this respect, Obama’s campaign did not measure up to its acknowledged model, Ronald Reagan’s successful race for the presidency, framed by his remarkable acceptance speech at the 1980 Republican convention. Hope is a sentiment, not a strategy, and quickly loses credibility without a road map. Throughout his first two years in office, President Obama often struggled to connect individual initiatives to larger purposes.
Obama’s campaign was not only expansive but also ambiguous, and Obama knew it. After defeating Hilary Clinton, the presumptive nominee gave an interview to the New York Times. “I am like a Rorshach test,” he said. “Even if people find me disappointing ultimately, they might gain something.”[ii] The difficulty was that the hopes of his supporters were often contradictory. Some expected him to be a liberal stalwart, leading the charge for single-payer health insurance and the fight against big corporations; others assumed that his evident desire to transcend the red-blue divide pointed to a post-partisan presidential agenda implemented through bipartisan congressional cooperation. It would have been difficult to satisfy both wings of his coalition, and he didn’t. As he tacked back and forth during the first two years of his presidency, he ended up disappointing both.
There was a further difficulty. While Obama’s agenda required a significant expansion of the scope, power, and cost of the federal government, public trust in that government stood near a record low throughout his campaign, a reality his election did nothing to alter. A majority of the people chose to place their confidence in Obama the man but not in the institutions through which he would have to enact and implement his agenda. Although he was warned just days after his victory that the public’s mistrust of government would limit its tolerance for bold initiatives, he refused to trim his sails, in effect assuming that his personal credibility would outweigh the public’s doubts about the competence and integrity of the government he led.[iii] As events proved, that was a significant misjudgment.
It was reinforced by a fateful decision that Obama made during the presidential transition. Once elected, Obama in fact had not one but two agendas—the agenda of choice on which he had run for president and the agenda of necessity that the economic and financial collapse had forced upon him. The issue he then faced was whether the latter would require him to trim or delay the former, a question he answered in the negative. Denying any conflict between these agendas, he opted to pursue both simultaneously. A major health care initiative was piled on top of the financial rescue plan and the stimulus package, exacerbating the public’s sticker shock. And initiatives such as climate change legislation and comprehensive immigration reform remained in play long after it should have been clear that they stood no serious chance of enactment while pervasive economic distress dominated the political landscape.
From Latent Difficulties to Actual Problems: The Economic Challenge
As Obama took office, it was clear that the public’s overriding concern was the state of the economy and the job market. But throughout the 111th Congress, the White House and congressional Democrats failed to address that concern in a manner that the electorate regarded as satisfactory. After some promising signs in the fall of 2009 and spring of 2010, economic growth slowed to a crawl, the private sector generated jobs at an anemic pace, and unemployment remained stuck near 10 percent. The number of workers remaining jobless for six months or more soared to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Many older workers doubted that they would ever again be employed. Contributing to the sour mood, economic forecasters held out scant hopes of faster job generation through much of 2011. The administration did not help itself early in 2009 when its Council of Economic Advisors suggested that with the passage of the stimulus bill, unemployment would peak around 8.5 percent. (Instead, it reached 10.3 percent before subsiding slightly.)
Although many economists outside the administration argued that a financial crisis differed fundamentally from a cyclical downturn, administration officials struggled to integrate this premise into their economic program. They proceeded with a traditional demand-side stimulus, even though hard-pressed households were more concerned about reducing debt than expanding consumption. (In any event, a flood of inexpensive imports weakened the link between consumer demand and domestic job creation.) And the administration chose not to use TARP money to take devalued debt off the banks’ balance sheets, opting instead to allow them to rebuild capital through profits gained from record-low interest rates. In some respects, this replicated post-crash policies the Japanese government employed through the 1990s, with unsatisfactory results.
Home ownership is at the center of most middle-class families’ balance sheets and way of life. The wave of foreclosures that began in 2007 devastated entire communities. But here again, the administration’s initiatives fell short. Rebuffing calls for basic structural change—such as permitting bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages—the administration opted for a more modest approach that relied on lenders’ cooperation. This gamble on the efficacy of incrementalism did not pay off. Programs to renegotiate the terms of mortgages in or in danger of default reached only a small percentage of families in need of assistance, and in many cases the relief they received was not enough to prevent them from sliding back into default. By the fall of 2010, foreclosures reached a rate of more than one hundred thousand per month for the first time ever.
To make matters worse, a massive scandal erupted: it turned out that banks and other mortgage lenders were sending borrowers into foreclosure by the thousands without meeting basic legal requirements. (The term “robo-signer” quickly entered the lexicon of shame.) Policymakers were forced to consider a nation-wide foreclosure moratorium. Concerned about the impact on the financial system, the administration resisted, winning high marks for responsibility but probably reinforcing the impression that it cared more about large, wealthy institutions than about hard-pressed families.
The Politics of Agenda Management
The early phase of the Obama administration resembled nothing so much as the early days of a presidency that Obama held in low regard—namely, President Bill Clinton’s. Although the man from Hope had campaigned as a different kind of Democrat, his party’s congressional leaders persuaded him to downplay his signature bipartisan issue—welfare reform—in favor of a plan for comprehensive health insurance. Combined with the effort to eliminate barriers against gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, this shift helped convince many of Clinton’s moderate and independent supporters that they had been mislead, that he was an East Coast liberal masquerading as an Arkansas moderate. In addition, Clinton became wrapped up in the daily legislative process and began measuring success by the number of bills enacted. In the process, he lost control of the overall narrative.
Something similar happened to Obama, as the post-partisan candidate morphed into a more traditionally partisan president. He has acknowledged as much: the administration’s early legislative agenda, he says, “reinforced the narrative that the Republicans wanted to promote anyway, which was [that] Obama is not a different kind of Democrat—he’s the same old tax-and-spend liberal.” And the master orator of the campaign all but abandoned the presidential bully pulpit during the drawn-out struggle to enact key proposals. Said one top advisor, “It’s not what people felt they sent Barack Obama to Washington to do, to be legislator in chief.” David Plouffe, the former head of the president’s campaign and one of his closest political advisors, adds that “I do think he’s paid a political price . . . for having to be tied to Congress.”
Could it have been different? Another senior aide has been quoted as saying that “Here’s a guy who ran as an outsider to change Washington who all of a sudden realized that just to deal with these issues, we were going to have to work with Washington.” It’s hard to believe that this came as much of a surprise to Obama; it certainly didn’t to his chief of staff. The question was not whether the White House would have to work with Congress to move the president’s agenda; of course it would. It was rather whether the president would be dragged into the daily process or would be seen as remaining above it. President Ronald Reagan, Obama’s model of a transformational president, had to engage with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to enact key legislation, starting with the 1981 tax cuts. But he managed to do this without becoming “legislator in chief” and without losing control of the narrative. Reagan’s compromises—and there were many—were seen as occurring within a framework of principles and goals that never changed and that defined his political identity.[iv]
Not so for Obama, who failed to grasp fully the nature of the office he had won. Alone among the advanced democracies, the United States combines the functions of head of government and head of state in a single institution and human being. The American president is expected to be more than a legislator, more than a prime minister. He must also fill the role occupied by monarchs or ceremonial heads of state in other countries. He must be an explainer and a comforter, as circumstances require. And he must stand for, and represent, the country as a whole.
Rather than doing this, President Obama allowed himself to get trapped in legislative minutia, even as the country remained mired in a kind of economic slump that most Americans had never experienced and could not understand. Their reaction combined confusion and fear, which the president did little to allay. Ironically, a man who attained the presidency largely on the strength of his skills as a communicator did not communicate effectively during his first two years. He paid a steep political price for his failure.
From the beginning, the administration operated on two fundamental political premises that turned out to be mistaken. The first was that the economic collapse had opened the door to the comprehensive change Obama had promised. As incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously put it, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” In fact, as Emanuel himself came to realize, there was a tension between the steps needed to arrest the economic decline and the measures needed to actualize the president’s vision of fundamental change. The financial bailout and the stimulus package made it harder, not easier, to pass comprehensive health reform.
Second, the administration believed that success would breed success—that the momentum from one legislative victory would spill over into the next. The reverse was closer to the truth: with each difficult vote, it became harder to persuade Democrats from swing districts and states to cast the next one. In the event, House members who feared that they would pay a heavy price if they supported cap-and-trade legislation turned out to have a better grasp of political fundamentals than did administration strategists.
The legislative process that produced the health care bill was especially damaging. It lasted much too long and featured side-deals with interest groups and individual senators, made in full public view. Much of the public was dismayed by what it saw. Worse, the seemingly endless health care debate strengthened the view that the president’s agenda was poorly aligned with the economic concerns of the American people. Because the administration never persuaded the public that health reform was vital to our economic future, the entire effort came to be seen as diversionary, even anti-democratic. The health reform bill was surely a moral success; it may turn out to be a policy success; but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it was—and remains—a political liability.
Indeed, most of the Obama agenda turned out to be very unpopular. Of five major policy initiatives undertaken during the first two years, only one—financial regulatory reform—enjoyed majority support. In a September 2010 Gallup survey, 52 percent of the people disapproved of the economic stimulus, 56 percent disapproved of both the auto rescue and the health care bill, and an even larger majority—61 percent—rejected the bailout of financial institutions.[v] Democrats’ hopes that the people would change their minds about the party’s signature issue—universal health insurance—after the bill passed were not fulfilled. (It remains to be seen whether sentiment will change in coming years as provisions of the bill are phased in—that is, if they survive what will no doubt be stiff challenges in both Congress and the states.)
It isn’t hard to understand why the stimulus bill remained so unpopular: it neither fulfilled the administration’s promises nor met public expectations. As for the health care bill, cuts in Medicare needed to finance private insurance coverage for low and moderate income individuals alarmed many older voters, and the bill failed to address most people’s core health care concern—rising costs—in a manner that commanded confidence. The assistance to tottering financial institutions that began during the Bush administration affronted people’s moral sense: wrongdoers seemed to get off scot-free, and many people wondered why banks and insurance companies received hundreds of billions of dollars while average families struggled to make ends meet. And surprising many observers, it turned out that decades of shoddy products had undermined public support for once-iconic American auto makers. In the eyes of most people, what was good for General Motors was no longer good for the country—at least not when tax dollars were on the line.
Administration officials could and did argue that what they did was necessary and in the national interest. It is easy to sympathize with their view. Failing to prop up pivotal financial institutions would have risked a rerun of the 1930s. Allowing the domestic auto industry to go belly-up would have disrupted production and employment throughout the Midwest, already the most economically depressed region of the country. Not passing the stimulus bill would have forced hard-pressed state and local governments to slash spending and cut their workforces in sectors such as public safety and education, exacerbating unemployment. And so forth.
Clearly, though, the administration failed to persuade most Americans, who viewed its program as costly, unnecessary, and unproductive if not outright damaging. The administration often seemed to believe that its policies spoke for themselves and that their merits were obvious. We will never know whether a different strategy of public explanation could have produced a better result.
We do know this: the administration quite consciously chose to disregard the immediate political consequences of enacting its agenda. In his now-famous interview with the New York Times, President Obama put it this way: “We probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. There was probably a perverse pride in my administration—and I take responsibility for this . . .—that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular.” If so, by the fall of 2010 he had come to understand the shortcomings of this stance: “anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can’t be neglect[ful] of marketing and P.R. and public opinion.”[vi] It remains to be seen whether the president has fully grasped the implications of this “intersection”: in our democracy, popular sentiment necessarily influences, not only strategies of persuasion, but also the selection and sequence of problems for action and the shape of the policies devised to address them. America’s populist political culture normally resists rule by elites who claim to know better than the people—even when the elites represent a meritocracy of the best and the brightest rather than an oligarchy of the richest and best-connected.
The Road Ahead
The outcome of the November 2010 election has fundamentally changed the political dynamic for at least the next two years. It will no longer be possible for President Obama to advance his agenda with support from only his own party. Instead, he will be forced either to negotiate with an emboldened Republican House majority or endure two years of confrontation and gridlock. (As Newt Gingrich discovered in 1995, the same logic applies in reverse: it is no easier to run divided government from Capitol Hill than from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.)
Choosing the path of negotiation over confrontation would require a change of substance as well as tone. The president would have to give the federal budget deficit and national debt a far more central place in his policy agenda. Here the obstacles to agreement across party lines are formidable, although the findings of his bipartisan fiscal commission, due out in December, may assist him in making a shift to a more fiscally conservative position. It helps that the co-chairs of the commission, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, are determined to break the current gridlock, in which conservatives refuse to consider raising taxes while those on the left stoutly resist cuts in social programs.
The logic of the coming new political balance will impose other requirements. If Obama hopes to achieve his goal of doubling U.S. exports, he will have to balance a possible confrontation with China with a push for the ratification of pending trade treaties with Colombia and South Korea. The latter would split the Democratic Party and force him to rely on Republican support. If he wants to fire up the idling US job machine, he would also have to do more to repair his administration’s damaged relationship with corporate America, and give more weight to the effects of his policies on the business community’s animal spirits.
In social policy, only new programs with strong bipartisan support (if there are any) would stand a chance. While a package of incentives for energy development that includes new and alternative fuels may be possible, a cap and trade scheme will be on hold until after 2012, perhaps even longer. Crafting a response to the housing crisis that offered more effective relief to struggling homeowners would require serious negotiations over the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And progress on immigration reform – a vital issue for America’s burgeoning Latino population – would mean accepting the tough enforcement measures on which conservatives insist.
The outlook for defense and foreign policy is much the same. If President Obama does not achieve ratification of the New Start treaty updating limits on the strategic nuclear stockpiles held by the U.S. and Russia before the new Congress is seated in January, he will have to compromise with anti-arms control conservatives on their favorite issue, missile defense. And if he wishes to persevere in Afghanistan (a matter of conjecture, admittedly), he will have to rely on Republican support to fill the gap left by rising opposition within his own party.
In short, to avoid gridlock, Obama will have to govern less like the liberal antithesis to Ronald Reagan and more like the heir to Bill Clinton whose agenda he has regarded hitherto as excessively compromised and incremental. If he wants to succeed in the next two years of his presidency, and stand for re-election from a position of strength, he will have to do what Clinton did after the debacle of 1994 – namely, defend what he cannot surrender, while negotiating seriously with the opposition in other areas.
A survey conducted days before the November 2010 election suggests that this is indeed possible. While the electorate clearly wanted a change of course, it rejected key elements of the Republican agenda, including a freeze on all government spending except national security and a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for upper-income Americans. Barack Obama enjoys a higher approval rating than either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton after their mid-term defeats, and the people are more favorably inclined toward his bid for reelection than they were for either Reagan or Clinton at comparable points in their presidencies.[vii] If the new Republican majority over-interprets its mandate and goes too far, as Newt Gingrich’s Republicans did in 1995, and if the president draws the correct line between conciliation and confrontation, history could repeat itself, and he could find himself in a much stronger position at the end of 2011 than he was after the mid-term election.
No later than his 2011 State of the Union address, we will find out whether Obama possesses the one trait that every successful statesman needs: the ability to adjust to changing circumstances without selling his soul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)