The Wall Street Journal has a news story this morning, “Democrats’ Quiet Changes Pile Up,” that contends that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are compiling an impressive list of legislative wins.
[I]ssues that once consumed Congress are now sailing into law, often without much public notice. Senior White House political adviser David Axelrod said his opponents in Congress are absorbed with defeating Mr. Obama’s health-care overhaul, what he calls “the shiny object that they’ve chased.” As a result, he contends, other measures have been left to pass into law.
Rep. Tom Price (R., Ga.), a conservative leader in the House, concedes that, in some cases, Republicans are being outflanked. “The administration is pushing so many things so rapidly it’s difficult to concentrate on all of them,” he said.
OK – so what’s in this string of unheralded victories?
1) An extension and expansion of the S-Chip program to provide federal coverage to under 18s. OK yes, that’s real.
But then this:
2) Changes to the statute of limitations rules in wage discrimination cases;
3) Extension of federal hate-crimes legislation to cover gays;
4) New federal powers to regulate tobacco;
5) New rules against oil & gas exploration in Wyoming
6) Cancelation of a weapons system.
That’s it? Ten months after the most decisive Democratic electoral victory since 1964 – and that’s it? Lyndon Johnson would not have felt he’d earned lunch after enacting an agenda as puny as that.
The stimulus was big, that’s true. But with health stalled, climate change postponed, and the rescue of the banking system apparently abandoned by a baffled Treasury, I’d suggest that the news editors who bought this piece of spin from the Obama administration stay well away from Brooklyn. They’re liable to buy its bridge.
19 responses so far
1 Arch // Nov 2, 2009 at 12:07 pm
It seems unlikely the journal would read off an Obama press release as an article. I think it’s more likely an argument in the matter of the two conflicting narratives that Obama’s opposition are pushing; that Obama is changing our country for the worse in a myriad ways (think socialism) versus, Obama is hapless and has accomplished nothing. This is an attempt to push the former narrative.
2 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 12:35 pm
This is an attempt to push the former narrative.
Yep – it is kind of difficult to portray someone as an ideological hard liner who is a take-no-prisonsers product of Chicago machine politics, working with a totally compliant Democratic congress led by extreme leftists – if he hasn’t exactly, oh, rolled everyone with his socialist agenda void of tax cuts and filled with new legislation aimed at eliminating private business in America.
So better to claim that he’s accomplishing all of the latter, but just by small behind the scene victories.
3 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 12:53 pm
The health care reform bill, even if it lacks a public option, will do more to change health care in America than has been done in the previous 40 years combined.
Once it passes, that will be the end of the narrative that Obama hasn’t accomplished anything. But the other narrative will remain and will be accurate: Obama will have succeeded in pushing American society to the Left, with virtually all Americans taking assistance from the Federal Government in one way or another for their health care.
4 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 2:54 pm
….You forgot the equal pay for women; healthcare isn’t stalled (when was the last time major healthcare bills came out of five committees and moved to floor votes); you didn’t list the stimulus bill just mentioned it as if was nothing; the rescue of the banking system hasn’t been abandoned it’s largely been accomplished; climate change is just in the order of priorities behind healthcare……. if I had to list what are the two major management qualities required I’d say prioritization and focus. The admin is showing both these. Apart from Budgets Bush passed next to nothing in his last three years in office….. I saw the WSJ piece this morning it seemed a fair take to me…….but if you and other conservatives think he’s accomplishing little legislatively I’m sure thats ok by Obama/Reid/Pelosi.
5 Socrates // Nov 2, 2009 at 4:36 pm
David,
The WSJ didn’t spin, but rather tried to show how the administration and congress have quietly passed a series of legislation that was once bitterly fought in Congress during the last years of the Bush administration. In this sense, it is a wake-up call to the Republicans who have focused most of their energy on big ticket items. In other words, while some Republicans have been trying to grab the headlines and win the latest battle while their enemy have outflanked them on other issues and are gaining on the war.
On the one hand, the Democrats have been doing quite a bit. While they may not have accomplished as much as FDR or Johnson, it is difficult to say that they haven’t been busy. They have been able to push through some of their penned up items. On the other hand, they still have many big ticket items that they want to push through, such as climate change, labor bill, etc. They are working on health care for the moment. So it is difficult for the GOP to maintain the “do nothing Obama” narrative.
As for the GOP, they have been very effective in stalling many things, including climate change/energy. They have also blocked many nominees, especially judicial appointments. For a small minority, they are quite good defensively. The momentum is on their side because the “window of opportunity” is closing fast as the mid-term election of 2010 is approaching.
Overall, I think both sides can claim victory in many things. One thing I will say is this: this Congress has been much busier than the last several congresses, especially the last two years of the Bush administration. Perhaps this may not be a bad thing for America.
6 Arch // Nov 2, 2009 at 4:56 pm
They have also blocked many nominees, especially judicial appointments. For a small minority, they are quite good defensively.
True and it brings up a frustration of mine, secret holds. I think they tarnish the process. Both parties of course, are guilty. Appointees should get an up or down vote within a reasonable period of time (I feel this way regardless of who is in power). Whoever won, should have the chance to govern.
7 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Appointees should get an up or down vote within a reasonable period of time (I feel this way regardless of who is in power).
I’m more supportive of the right for the minority to filibuster … but I think that they should have to actually filibuster to do so. If someone’s going to block a judge or undersecretary after he’s come out of committee, let ‘em bring the phone book to the floor and make everyone sit and listen to them for a few days.
The filibuster is by nature an extreme measure – it should be treated as such, and not as some secret boys club ritual that is kept from the public. A party that’s threatening a few dozen filibusters should have to go before the public and explain why each one is worthy of tying up congressional business for a few days.
8 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 5:57 pm
ottovbs:
Bush, not Obama, got TARP passed–over the opposition of many in his own party. And TARP shored up the credit market. Additionally, his FDIC announced that henceforth they would insure money market funds like bank accounts.
If those actions had not been taken, the credit markets would have collapsed–and we would truly be in a depression (albeit a milder one than the 1930s due to the social safety net we now have).
9 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Socrates:
The GOP can’t stall anything by themselves, not when the Dems have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
The global warming bills have stalled for the same reason that health care reform stalled–opposition by Blue Dog Dems to the kind of liberal bills that a Nancy Pelosi would like to see enacted. All the fighting is taking place between liberal Dems and non-liberal Dems. The GOP could have formed a powerful coalition with some Blue Dog Dems to work on a number of issues. But they prefer to just vote “no” on all these big bills, meaning that they are out of the loop.
10 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:08 pm
All the fighting is taking place between liberal Dems and non-liberal Dems.
To some extent this is true … but the lockstep opposition by the Republicans gives the Blue Dogs considerable leverage here.
Unfortunately, what this leverage is likely to produce in many cases won’t be improved legislation – but worse legislation, as eventually to pass some of the major target legislation some significant pork is going to need to be rolled in to buy those Blue Dog votes. From a Republican POV, I’d think this the worst of both worlds – left-leaning legislation combined with additional pork.
11 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:19 pm
balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:08 pm
“All the fighting is taking place between liberal Dems and non-liberal Dems”
……..Of course it’s true…….the Dems have comfortable majorities and basically a much broader coalition than the Republicans…….in the house the Republicans since they have chosen a stance of NO are completely irrelevant…..in the senate procedures and the nature of the Democratic party have made it more complicated……and so much of American politics is dictated by interest that tensions even in governing coalitions with large majorities are inevitable……nevertheless healthcare is going to pass probably with a PO, energy legislation will be next, and then right in the run up to the mid terms it will be immigration reform
12 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:26 pm
sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 5:57 pm
” Bush, not Obama, got TARP passed”
…….Master mind…..who was in control of both houses……these bills got passed because the Democrats passed them because they considered it in the national interest…….Bush had NO leverage with his OWN party…NIL…..NADA…..the only thing that brought a bloc of Republicans in the house over was the stock market collapse which panicked them…….I give the Bush(Paulson really) admin total credit for how they responded to the financial crisis and have said so many times here……. If the Republicans had still been in charge of house and senate this legislation would not have passed.
13 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:28 pm
nevertheless healthcare is going to pass probably with a PO, energy legislation will be next, and then right in the run up to the mid terms it will be immigration reform
And ironically – the NY23 race may well be a part of the reason those things will pass with some level of Blue Dog support.
If Blue Dogs thought that there is refuge for them in the GOP from retribution by Pelosi or Reid … this should cinch the deal. They will realize they have virtually no hope of winning a GOP primary, and even if they do they still could face a third party general election challenge from the right.
If Blue Dogs think that helping block one or two progressive initiatives will get the GOP to back off of harsh attacks on them during the general election – they have only to look at the attacks by the conservatives on a GOPer who doesn’t pass all litmus tests.
Thus – Blue Dogs will start to realize that their only chance of holding their seats will be to energize the Dem base, so they get flooded by contributions and support.
14 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 7:30 pm
balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 6:28 pm
…….all too true…..but this is strategery…..these days the GOP is all tactics…..most of them ill considered.
15 Socrates // Nov 3, 2009 at 1:22 am
When President Bush (jr) was in his prime (2001-2005), I wonder how productive the GOP was. (This is a question, not a criticism). I remember David Gergen singing the praise that President Bush was one of the most formidable leaders in a long time. He seemed to be able to get a lot passed Congress: his tax cuts and the Patriot Acts are the two biggies that come to mind.
The reason I bring this up is that even as effective as President Bush was, he still had to deal with a peculiar creature called the U.S. Senate where a simple fact remains: presidents can lead, promise, threaten people as much as they want, if they don’t have the magic 60, they can hardly do anything. This explains why the formidable President Bush became a lame duck after 2006, and the high-flying ideal candidate Obama has given way to a more mundane Obama in only a year. This also explains why we now have “presidents” Snowe, Nelson, Lieberman, and whoever wants to be kingmaker.
Perhaps the question is whether we should abolish the 60-vote filibuster rule. For all you “constitution waving” tea bag party people, please take up the cause the fight this unconstitutional monstrosity! Isn’t this the real obstacle to reform?
16 balconesfault // Nov 3, 2009 at 1:36 am
Isn’t this the real obstacle to reform?
Well, as I noted earlier … the real obstacle has been the gentleman’s filibusters, where they just count the cloture votes and then let everyone move along to the next item. Filibusters should be public, and lengthy, and give the opportunity (as well as the responsibility) to the filibustering party to explain why it is so important to filibuster this particular bill or nominee.
It’s supposed to be a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington moment … and not just a wink and a nod.
17 Independent // Nov 3, 2009 at 5:56 pm
David headlines: “Most Absurd Spin of the Month”.
The month is early, David. If one thing this Administration has proved to date, it can out-do itself on spinning the absurd.
18 sinz54 // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:17 am
balconesfault:
I already told you why that’s ridiculous. A strawman.
That thought hasn’t entered their minds even once.
Why on earth would any Democrat anywhere join a powerless Republican party, a party without the ability to filibuster anything, when the Dems have the White House and both houses of Congress?
Why defect and join a bunch of losers?
The only time the GOP got a number of Dems to switch was years ago when the GOP still seemed ascendant.
19 sinz54 // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:21 am
Socrates:
The cloture rule is NOT in the Constitution. It’s a set of rules adopted by the Senate themselves, dating back to the Woodrow Wilson administration (though greatly modified since then).
Nobody wants to totally abolish cloture. It’s insurance against being in the minority and being powerless.
You must log in to post a comment.