Jonathan Chait's Blog, page 133

&c

-- Ruy Teixeira says that if Obama wins re-election, the tax-cut deal should get the credit.

-- PPP thinks Mike Huckabee is the best national GOP candidate.

-- Even Bill Kristol calls conservative posturing on the debt ceiling "irresponsible."

And So It Has Come To Demon Pass

Possibly my favorite news of the new Congress has been that its budget approach will revolve around "deem and pass." This is a parliamentary maneuver in which the House deems a piece of legislation to have been passed by rule:

Because Democrats didn't pass a budget, and because spending authority expires in early March, there's a strong chance that the government will run out of money before the House and Senate agree to new spending levels. When that happens, under the new House rules, spending will continue -- but at levels no higher than those chosen by the House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan.

As soon as those rules are adopted on Wednesday, Ryan's spending levels will be considered -- or "deemed" -- adopted by the full House as if they'd passed a budget with a floor vote. The legislative language in the rules package holds that Ryan's spending limits, "shall be considered as contained in a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2011 and the submission thereof into the Congressional Record shall be considered as the completion of congressional action on a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2011."

I don't have any objection to the practice. It does, in theory, reduce accountability, because it adopts policy changes without explicit votes. But all the minority party has to do is assert that anybody in the majority who voted for the rule votes for the policy in question -- i.e., if you supported the rule, then you votes to cut Pell Grants and environmental enforcement or whatever cuts emerge from this process.

What I find hilarious is that, for a brief spell last year, conservatives whipped themselves into a frenzy of indignation over (abandoned) Democratic plans to use this maneuver for health care reform. Conservatives were calling this the "Slaughter Solution" or "Demon Pass." It was the end of democracy!

Here's vintage Jennifer Rubin:

But don’t they have to vote on the bill? Oh, pish-posh, let’s not get hung up on constitutional niceties. There’s historic legislation to be passed … er … “hereby ruled” through the House. Yes, it sure is a sign that the bill is so noxious that lawmakers have to pretend they aren’t voting for it in order to, well, vote for it. (”We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are. Mrs. Pelosi and the White House are resorting to these abuses because their bill is so unpopular that a majority even of their own party doesn’t want to vote for it.”)

Even Nancy Pelosi is trying to keep things vague, suggesting it may not come to this. But it is coming to this, because a desperate president and the equally desperate Democratic leadership fear losing, so they resort to tricks, backroom deals, and parliamentary sleights of hand. That’s in large part how the bill got to be so unpopular. Nevertheless, the Democrats seem intent on doubling down, so why not load up on the procedural gimmicks? At some point — now would be as good a time as any — saner Democratic heads may prevail and wonder why their leaders must shred the Constitution in order to pass a bill that’s supposedly such an electoral winner for their side.

and the Wall Street Journal editorial page:

We're not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely "deem" that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway. ...

We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are. 

and Bill Kristol:

In other words: the American public doesn't care about how our representatives govern us--which is to say, about how we govern ourselves. Whether Congress follows its rules, whether there is democratic accountability, whether there is constitutional probity--none of this matters according to Hoyer. Rather, the self-centered and self-concerned American people only care about the (alleged) results of the legislation.





Here the Democrats betray their contempt for the supposed simple-mindedness and short-sightedness of the American public. They also convey their vision of the American people living under the big government liberalism: We are to be passive consumers of government action, who accept what is done for us and to us in light of our perceived narrow short-term self-interest. We are not to think of ourselves as self-governing citizens with a stake in the process of constitutional self-government and a concern for the good of the whole.

You will not be surprised to learn that none of these sources appear the slightest bit concerned that Republicans have adopted this Constitution-shredding procedure. A huge proportion of American political discourse consists of procedural complaints, and almost all of these are disingenuous. Thus Republicans complained bitterly about the lack of amendments to the health care bill, but are now not allowing amendments to their health care repeal bill. They're insisting that bills cite Constitutional authority, but refusing to allow those bills to cite the parts of the Constitution they don't like.

What amazes me about these debates is the degree to which the participants are able to convince themselves that some actual principle is at stake. It never fails.

When Spending Cuts Get Real

More adventures in Republicans grappling with the fact that actual spending programs are popular. Here's Paul Ryan refusing to say what programs he would cut: 

MEREDITH VIERA (HOST):  You say discretionary spending — give me specifics. Where are you going to cut? Are you gonna cut transportation, education, Medicare — what are you going to cut?

RYAN: That is what is gonna happen in the appropriations process down the road. So I can't tell you the answer to that because, as a budget committee person, we simply lower the cap and then those things go down. We're gonna be reducing all domestic discretionary spending. I can't tell you by what amount and which program, but all of it is going to be going down, and the aggregate amount will be back to 2008 levels before the spending binge occurred.

What spending programs do you plan to cut, Rep. Ryan? Oh, all of them, any of them:

The discussion is preceded by Ryan saying he wouldn't touch defense. And of course, he won't touch Medicare or Social Security, either. So that leaves the portion of the discretionary budget that isn't defense. But of course, you can only say you're going to cut domestic discretionary spending because domestic discretionary spending is not a program, it's a category. Once it gets down to cutting scientific research and roads and, well, everything else that isn't foreign aide or programs that only benefit the poor, it gets very unpopular very fast. You can avoid naming programs he wants to cut for a while but he can't run forever.

Apparently I Am A Mushy Wimp

National Review's John Derbyshire, explaining the sharp tone of his debate with Peter Wehner, notes:

Other readers — and, vide supra, my colleague Kathryn — regretted the rancorous tone of the discussion. I don’t really see their point. I am of the same kidney as the late Auberon Waugh, who defined opinion journalism as being among “the vituperative arts.” I enjoy the sensation of my boot connecting with the other bloke’s groin. Perhaps it’s an English thing. If you prefer the genteel murmured sonorities of a David Brooks or a Jonathan Chait, I’m not for you. 

Wow, I hadn't realized I had a reputation for gentility. I guess my New Year's vow is to stop being polite and start telling my readers what I really think.

The GOP Spending Compromises Begin

And so it begins. House Republicans have vowed to cut $100 billion from the federal budget. Of course, they're making exceptions for Social Security, Medicare, defense, and homeland security. Which means that the tiny slice that remains has to be subject to a 20% cut or more.

And then, when you start to look at the programs they plan to cut, all of them either have strong lobbies, strong policy rationales, or both. Here's George Will a couple days ago making the case that Republicans should not cut funding for scientific research. And there's a furious (and also persuasive) response against cutting transportation infrastructure:

Groups that back more highway spending aren't waiting to see specific cuts to register their opposition. Congress is expected to take up a new multi-year highway and transportation funding bill this year, and a diverse array of groups ranging from the Chamber to big labor unions are calling for more funds to rebuild the nation's infrastructure.

The Chamber, which contributed heavily to GOP congressional candidates in the midterm elections, said in a letter last week that subjecting highway spending to the uncertainty of annual budget cuts would lead to more job losses in the battered industry. The letter was also signed by groups tied to the construction industry.

And on and on down the line. So now Republicans are cutting their spending cut target in half:

Many people knowledgeable about the federal budget said House Republicans could not keep their campaign promise to cut $100 billion from domestic spending in a single year. Now it appears that Republicans agree.

As they prepare to take power on Wednesday, Republican leaders are scaling back that number by as much as half, aides say, because the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, will be nearly half over before spending cuts could become law.

They haven't even taken over yet, and they've already reduced their target by half! They will reduce it further still as they get into the details. The one thing that won't be scaled down is the Republican appetite for tax cuts.

The basic situation is that you have a tiny handful of principled conservatives who genuinely want to cut the size of actual government programs. But that accounts for a tiny slice of the general opposition to government programs, which is rooted in misperceptions about what government spends money on alongside strong support for the programs that actually exist. Government programs are popular. Some of them serve little purpose (think farm subsidies) but those generally exist precisely because they have powerful constituencies.

CONGRESS >>

&c

-- Brad Plumer on Michael Steele's doomed re-election bid.

-- The history of filibuster reform

-- Neil Cavuto gets undermined by Fox's own on-screen graphic.

Lamar Alexander Embarrasses Himself

Lamar Alexander is a Senator who very much wants to be taken seriously, but his speech in defense of the filibuster delivered at the Heritage Foundation today proves merely why he shouldn't be.  Here is how Alexander sets up his argument:

Voters who turned out in November are going to be pretty disappointed when they learn the first thing some Democrats want to do is cut off the right of the people they elected to make their voices heard on the floor of the U.S. Senate. ...

[O]n December 18, every returning Democratic senator sent Senator Reid a letter asking him to “take steps to bring [Republican] abuses of our rules to an end.” 

When the United States Senate convenes tomorrow, some have threatened to try to change the rules so it would be easier to do with every piece of legislation what they did with the health care bill:  ram it through on a partisan vote, with little debate, amendment, or committee consideration, and without listening to minority voices. 

This is totally false. The Democratic plan is simply designed to force the minority party to conduct an actual filibuster, rather than scotch appointments or bills without debate:

Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, said that he intended to call for new limits on filibusters that would require senators to be on the floor if they seek to derail legislation.  ...

“One of our main focuses is making people stand up and explain to the American people why they are filibustering,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, the Minnesota Democrat who has been working with Mr. Udall to develop changes in the way the Senate operates. ...

Besides forcing senators to take the floor to defend their filibusters, Democrats also want to make it harder to stonewall the initial effort to bring a measure to the floor, a step known as the “motion to proceed.” They also want to ban the ability of senators to place an anonymous “hold” on a bill or nomination.

There is nothing here about limiting debate. The proposal is to require debate, rather to to allow the minority to kill legislation with no debate at all. Alexander's entire argument proceeds from this hilariously false premise:

The difference is that, when he gave his speech, there was nobody to tap him on the shoulder and inform him that his entire understanding of the issue was incorrect. It's simply embarrassing.

How Republicans Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Teachers' Unions

Seyward Darby wrote a great article a few months ago arguing that, despite Obama's embrace of a historically Republican-friendly approach to education reform, Republicans were bound to oppose his reform agenda. I concurred, "Obama's willingness to take on the teachers unions takes all the fun out of being in favor of education reform for conservatives." And, sure enough, here is Republican economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin urging his Congressional party not to quickly cooperate with Obama on education reform.

Holtz-Eakin offers four reasons to withhold cooperation. Try to follow the logic:

First, Congress has serious and pressing issues to resolve regarding the federal government’s overspending addiction and the upcoming debt limit, and those should come first.

The classic dodge. We can't address this issue because there are other issues out there that we care about more. No way to work on two issue at once! Next:

Second, while there are areas of agreement between Republicans and Democrats, members need to take some time to find out what is happening on the ground before rushing to pass a reauthorization bill. This is especially true given the large influx of nearly 100 new House members and senators, all of whom will need to get up to speed on the facts in an area where urban legend often rules.

This is a generic, policy-is-hard argument that could be used to justify obstruction on any issue at all. Let's move on:

Third, as Congress takes steps to improve the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the top priority must be to keep students, parents, teachers, and communities first, as they are the ones on the front lines and most able to improve student achievement. This requires serious outreach, not the kind of Washington-centric, ram-it-through-before-they-catch-us mentality that has prevailed in the past two years.

Ah, keep students, parents, and teachers first. That's been the teachers union platform -- they oppose reforms to hiring practices they've managed to impose. Amazing to see a conservative endorse it. And last:

Finally, as members of Congress scrutinize the current law and digest the new reforms taken by states and localities, they must first and foremost ensure that their reauthorization balances the federal and local roles. The voters have made clear their distaste for federal overreach.

As I suspected, Republicans are forgetting everything they believed about driving reform and adopting the rump paleocon opposition to national standards. Anything to deny handing Obama a bipartisan victory before 2012. Now, I'm sure Holtz-Eakin isn't walking around consciously thinking that he's tailoring his education policy views to fit the needs of the 2012 race. I'm sure he's persuaded himself of some kind of principle. But that is exactly what's going on.

JONATHAN CHAIT >>

How Republicans Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Teachers Unions

Seyward Darby wrote a great article a few months ago arguing that, despite Obama's embrace of a historically Republican-friendly approach to education reform, Republicans were bound to oppose his reform agenda. I concurred, "Obama's willingness to take on the teachers unions takes all the fun out of being in favor of education reform for conservatives." And, sure enough, here is Republican economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin urging his Congressional party not to quickly cooperate with Obama on education reform.

Holtz-Eakin offers four reasons to withhold cooperation. Try to follow the logic:

First, Congress has serious and pressing issues to resolve regarding the federal government’s overspending addiction and the upcoming debt limit, and those should come first.

The classic dodge. We can't address this issue because there are other issues out there that we care about more. Non way to work on two issue at once! Next:

Second, while there are areas of agreement between Republicans and Democrats, members need to take some time to find out what is happening on the ground before rushing to pass a reauthorization bill. This is especially true given the large influx of nearly 100 new House members and senators, all of whom will need to get up to speed on the facts in an area where urban legend often rules.

This is a generic, policy-is-hard argument that could be used to justify obstruction on any issue at all. Let's move on:

Third, as Congress takes steps to improve the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the top priority must be to keep students, parents, teachers, and communities first, as they are the ones on the front lines and most able to improve student achievement. This requires serious outreach, not the kind of Washington-centric, ram-it-through-before-they-catch-us mentality that has prevailed in the past two years.

Ah, keep students, parents, and teachers first. That's been the teachers union platform -- they oppose reforms to hiring practices they've managed to impose. Amazing to see a conservative endorse it. And last:

Finally, as members of Congress scrutinize the current law and digest the new reforms taken by states and localities, they must first and foremost ensure that their reauthorization balances the federal and local roles. The voters have made clear their distaste for federal overreach.

As I suspected, Republicans are forgetting everything they believed about driving reform and adopting the rump paleocon opposition to national standards. Anything to deny handing Obama a bipartisan victory before 2012. Now, I'm sure Holtz-Eakin isn't walking around consciously thinking that he's tailoring his education policy views to fit the needs of the 2012 race. I'm sure he's persuaded himself of some kind of principle. But that is exactly what's going on.

Not So Fast on Those Bill Daley Chief of Staff Rumors

[Guest post by Noam Scheiber:]

The rumors are flying that Bill Daley--the former Clinton Commerce Secretary, current JP Morgan executive, and longstanding member of that Daley family--is under consideration for a senior White House position, "most likely chief of staff," as the Washington Post puts it. One word of caution about this: Don't assume that it's chief of staff or bust for Daley--the artful phrasing is there for a reason.

For what it's worth, when I tried to run down the Daley as chief-of-staff rumors over the last few weeks, I was told the idea had run into various roadblocks, about which I won't say more since it was all second-hand. Around the same time, I heard a second rumor independently from a handful of administration sources: The White House was thinking about naming Gene Sperling to be Larry Summers's replacement at the NEC, while pairing the announcement with a new position for a high-profile executive who could act as a conduit between the president and the business community. The hope was that the latter would offset any disappointment among business people over the decision not to install an executive at NEC, or any particular disappointment with Sperling (who, as I've noted, probably isn't the business community's dream candidate).

Of course, that would also be accomplished with Daley as chief of staff--and it's certainly possible that this could still happen. But the advisory role seems to make a lot of sense. Among other things, you have to consider the reaction on the left, which would clearly recoil at seeing a major bank executive run the White House, but probably wouldn't have a problem with someone like Daley representing the business view to the president, such as it is.

Update: The Times write-up suggests it really is chief of staff or bust for Daley. Tough to know who to believe here, but their story seems somewhat more detailed than the pieces out earlier today.