Does Congress Want to Tackle America’s Problems?
Back during the campaign, and in darker moments since inauguration day, one worry you heard expressed about Barack Obama was that he might turn out to be another Jimmy Carter—well-meaning, reformy, but ultimately ineffectual. I thought those worries were always a bit unfair to Carter. There’s a tendency, when assessing presidents, to assume that anything is possible and that if Carter had just employed better tactics in 1977-78 or if Clinton had employed better tactics in 1993-94, then his administration might have accomplished dramatically more. And certainly there’s something to that point of view. But at the same time, it really does take two to tango. The legislative accomplishments of 1933-34 and 1965-66 were partially the result of tactical acumen in the wake of an electoral victory on the part of the White House.
But in part, they reflected a genuinely willing congress. There was a key block of legislators in the mid-1960s who really wanted to dramatically advance social justice in the United States. They wanted black kids and white kids to attend the same schools, and they wanted the schools to be better. They wanted equal voting rights and equal rights to public accommodations and a guarantee of health security for the poor and the elderly. They though it was obscene for extreme poverty to flourish in the wealthiest country on earth. Lyndon Johnson’s leadership was important to making that happen as was, obviously, the role of social movement leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. But LBJ and MLK didn’t bewitch the congress into having those priorities. A critical mass of key members really wanted to solve these problems.
When I read stories about Democrats signing letters urging the leadership not to pass cap & trade through budget reconciliation, or whining that Clinton-era tax rates will wreck the economy, or preemptively caving on permit auction, then it’s hard to escape the conclusion that it’s not the administration doing something wrong is that the key members of congress just fundamentally agree with George W. Bush and Mitch McConnell that it doesn’t matter if people die of treatable illness or if the planet ceases to support human life. It’s not, after all, as if any great mystery over how you move legislation that you think is important. Fifty is a smaller number than 60, and it’s easier to get smaller numbers of votes that bigger ones. If these guys have some genius alternative plan of preventing atmospheric carbon from reaching deadly levels, I’m all ears—but if they’re convincing then, again, I would want that plan to pass with a minimum of procedural hurdles. But it seems to me they don’t have any such plan, they just want to keep letting our problems get worse and worse indefinitely, but they don’t have the guts to admit it.
52 Responses to “Does Congress Want to Tackle America’s Problems?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Yep.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Bob Casey (D-PA) was one of those Senators who signed the climate change letter. Beats having Santorum in the Senate, but that’s about all.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Is is possible to be lamer than Evan Bayh?
March 13th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
It seems to me the biggest obstacles to Congress actually doing something are:
1. Lobbying and the need to raise millions
2. Filibuster in the Senate
The Senate is a rotten, rotten institution. Many nice bills pass the House but die in the Senate for mysterious reasons. Although maybe Congressmen pass those audacious bills because they know they will go nowhere, or get “moderate-d” by corporate-sponsored amendments.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Yes, you’re right Matt. All the congress members who disagree with your solutions think “it doesn’t matter if people die of treatable illness or if the planet ceases to support human life.” They’re just willfully malicious (though it’s hard to imagine the pro-no-human life lobby. Rise of the Machines?)
March 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I’m hardly a denier of anthropogenic global warning, but I don’t think you provide much credence for your point when you refer to “deadly carbon” and “the planet ceases to support human life.” The ecological — and economic — consequences are huge, but if we want to extinguish the human species we’re going to have to find another way.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
To add: to be honest, many Congressmen don’t seem to know much (see: the entire Republican leadership). Learning about issues like international finance or global warming is difficult, and they don’t have the time to do that anyway because they need to give interviews and attend fund-raisers.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
why oh why,
It’s hard to know something when you paycheck depends on you not knowing it.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Congress has long been a bunch of “public servants” who are often little more than water carriers for the campaign donors whose $$$ keep them in office. Making matters worse is many of campaign donors are shared by both parties.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Stupid “r” key getting wanky…
March 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
There are a lot of stupid people in America. As a result, we end up with too many stupid leaders, or at least too many leaders who get elected to office by appealing to the stupid vote.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I think a lot of people in Washington DC got very used to not getting anything accomplished. They know how to survive and prosper in that ecosystem.
They know how to fundraise and win elections without getting anything accomplished. Their staff know that if they don’t get anything accomplished, they will still have lucrative lobbying gigs when they’re done. The advocates know their organizations won’t go under if they fail to get anything accomplished. The media is used to covering the stories that come out of a do-nothing Washington.
Getting things accomplished is a lot of hard day-to-day work, for everyone. And uh, when you succeed, the ecosystem changes and maybe that change won’t favor you anymore.
Congress and all the permanent fixtures in Washington are fat and lazy. They have convinced themselves there are principled reasons they’re fat and lazy. They have convinced themselves that the only way they’ll survive politically is by being fat and lazy. They have convinced themselves that their constituents really, truly want them to be fat and lazy.
This is why everyone is whining Obama is doing too much. It’s that he’s doing SOMETHING. He expects to get this stuff done. It’ll be a new world. And they don’t like having to work so hard at new things–and they desperately want to hedge their bets by still doing all the old do-nothing stuff, but they can’t do both at once. So, they’re feeling forced to choose and many are choosing the old do-nothing ways.
It’s pathetic.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Yglesias writes: “A critical mass of key members really wanted to solve these problems.”
And, that is precisely what the election was about: A critical mass of voters really want to solve the problems that face us. End of discussion. Why don’t the obstructionist, no-nothing, not an idea in their heads members of Congress get this?
March 13th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Rachel Maddow had a rant on this topic on her show last night that made me want to put my fist through the wall. Indiana went blue for the first time in decades, and Evan Bayh is still acting like a goddamned Republican.
And to all of you nitpickers upthread, either defend the blue dogs inaction (and, as Matt rightfully points out, failure to provide an alternative course), or shut the fuck up.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Useless people, the Blue Dogs. Just useless. And yeah, they need to be tarred with that label – “They who agree with George W. Bush”. What Evan Bayh, Robert Byrd, Carl Levin, Mary Landrieux, Bob Casey and the other enablers are saying, loud and proud, is “HI! I’m supposedly a DEMOCRATIC Senator, but I disagree with Barack Obama, and AGREE WITH GEORGE BUSH about climate change and health care!”
and they need to lose their offices, because they are failing utterly in their duties. the time for going easy on Democrats in ‘red’ districts is over. its time some politicians out there told hard truths to their constituents, instead of pandering to their relative ignorance.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Is it safe to say we will be spared a disingenuous argument by progressives on why climate legislation somehow falls within the scope of budget reconciliation?
But the more important question is do the other democratic senators even want to pass some effectual climate change proposal. It doesn’t seem like a winning issue in 2010 or 2012. Of course that won’t stop them from posturing to their base.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Matt, this post of yours, if taken seriously, requires me to accept that you believe people seek political office out of some humanitarian impulse or that far-sighted statesmanship is a quality to be expected from Congress.
Since I don’t think you’re that stupid, I’m assume that it’s one of those manufactured anger posts that your bosses at CAP press you for every now and again
March 13th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Just to be clear: Matt wants people to die of treatable diseases. He just wants to be the one to pick the people and the diseases. That’s why you move from the market to the state.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Is it safe to say we will be spared a disingenuous argument by progressives on why climate legislation somehow falls within the scope of budget reconciliation?
It’s not “climate legislation” (putting a cloud in jail would be problematic), it’s new taxes on Big Business. That’s why Bayh is so scared.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
And to all of you nitpickers upthread, either defend the blue dogs inaction (and, as Matt rightfully points out, failure to provide an alternative course), or shut the fuck up.
Alright! The govt. does nothing but fuck-up, so the less they get done the better. Satisfied?
March 13th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Do people really talk like this?
Forget it, Al, no matter how hard you study you’re never going to pass that Turing test. Just take satisfaction in doing what you were programmed to do.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Bob Casey (D-PA) was one of those Senators who signed the climate change letter. Beats having Santorum in the Senate, but that’s about all.
And Casey jumped on the Obama bandwagon pretty early. I wonder what changed. Casey is starting to be a disappointment.
Is is possible to be lamer than Evan Bayh?
It is especially painful given who is father is.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Alright! The govt. does nothing but fuck-up, so the less they get done the better. Satisfied?
Someday, kid, you’ll have memories of LOTS more Presidents
than just George W. Bush.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Fair enough. Although I consider those two more doucheasses than lamewads.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I think this post sets a new M Yglesias record for run-on sentences.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
In case anyone needs it spelled out explicitly, and it looks like some people in this thread qualify: senators from states whose short-term economic prospects will be harmed by cap-and-trade will be against cap-and-trade.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Damn it, someone tell me where to push back against these quislings. I’m really not ready to see Bayh and Landrieu get in the way of our chance to frame a halfway-intelligent climate policy. Fire up the e-mail machine, Barack; or someone organize some f*cking demonstrations. I think there are a lot of people out here ready to push, if we get just a few signals about where and when it would be useful.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Is it safe to say we will be spared a disingenuous argument by progressives on why climate legislation somehow falls within the scope of budget reconciliation?
Will we be spared a disingenous argument about how it’s actually okay if a 41-Senator bloc filibusters and kills every major Democratic bill after losing all 3 houses of Congress?
You do know that Democrats had enough votes to filibuster all of George W. Bush’s initiatives, but we didn’t because we thought it was basically unfair to do so?
Your preffered system would be – when in the minority, the majority passes nothing; when in the majority, the minority obstructs nothing; but it’s not clear why that would amount to a logical system, rather than, say, an outrageous distortion of the system obtained through bullying and chutzpah.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
From the perspective of those eight Senators, this is not necessarily about the public policy. It is about making sure that each of them must be a part of the majority voting for the legislation, so they they matter. They each want to be the Bill Nelson and Susan Collins of the next bill, winning aclaim for their bipartisanship and, more significantly, their importance in the legislative process. If only 50 votes are needed, then the White House and Senator Reid can do without about, oh, eight Democratic Senators.
If you assume that each of those eight wants a bill passed and has views about what that bill should contain, but suspects that another bill that they wouldn’t support would win a majority vote, this is exactly what you would expect them to do to protect their position.
On the other hand, all or most of those Republicans are surely looking to block any legislation, and to be rewarded for doing so by big business.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I think it is amazing that the Blue Dog Democrats are essentially threatening to filibuster Democratic bills. They can vote against them if they must, but to filibuster your own party’s priorities is just wrong.
George Bush Democrats. I like it. Someone start calling these guys what they are and I think we’ll see their behavior change.
And nice post, MY. Going after the George Bush Democrats with both barrels is all right by me.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
‘Someday, kid, you’ll have memories of LOTS more Presidents
than just George W. Bush.”
Uh, I’ve been of voting age since 1980, dumbass.
And, as Matt said, the fact that Democrats continue to eat their own presidents is something that outrages this commenter, who was there to watch them do it to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for no discernable reason other than to throw their weight around (being too cowardly to do so when a Republican was president).
March 13th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
oops, I misread your comment, anonymous. Sorry.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
No Democratic President will ever accomplish anything until the Congressional Democrats are destroyed as an independent force.
How to do it? Well, were I Obama, I would find a promising, ambitious progressive pol in the home state of one of these mugwump Senators up for re-election in 2010, give them my donor mailing list, and have them run in the general election as an independent, splitting the vote and sending the mugwump to the private sector. The tradeoff is one Republican Senate gain for seven new party line Democratic votes, because after that, they’d fall all over themselves supporting OBama bills.
BTW, Evan Byah is up for re-election in 2010.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I don’t think faux centrists like the despicable Bayh want the country’s problems to get worse. They just think that their corporate sponsors should always and everywhere get exactly what they want.
These mealy-mouthed grandstanders will unfortunately always be around. BHO’s biggest test isn’t how he deals with the Repubs, but how he deals with these creeps.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Seriously. I think the thing to do right now is just to ignore them. Have Harry Reid round up 50 votes; it can be done, with Franken in the Senate, and with a bit of behind the scenes arm-twisting if necessary.
But if we reach a point where Democratic sell-outs are a serious obstacle, Obama should use the bully pulpit to make life miserable for a couple of them.
I want to see some party discipline.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Just to be clear: Thomas wants people to die of treatable diseases. He just wants to feel that whatever wealth he possesses makes him worthy, while others are unworthy. That’s because Thomas is a horrible person.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I’ve always been amazed by the propensity of Democrats to go for each other’s throats the minute they attain control. Obama’s great popularity is the only reason I can see that it’s taken two months from his inaugural for the food fights to break out.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
You do know that Democrats had enough votes to filibuster all of George W. Bush’s initiatives, but we didn’t because we thought it was basically unfair to do so?
============================================================
Sorry pal, but *fairness* had nothing to do with it
March 13th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Well, in Bush second term, Democrats did torpedo his free-market fundamentalist Social Security reform, and after Katrina he was a super lame duck anyway.
Whoever is theoretically in charge, the Senate is great at three thing: doing nothing, cutting taxes and giving money to corporations. That’s what they did under Bush, and that is what they are doing now. Only something like 9/11 or a global financial crisis will wake them from their stupor, otherwise they can’t be bothered passing laws.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I think it’s unfair to say all of the hemming and hawing comes from some sort of maleficence done at the behest of their corporate masters, but just a sheer lack of courage. Change is hard and change is scary and it’s easy to sit around and talk about wanting to do something about global warming but a whole other thing when you’re actually in a position to do something about global warming. Now that Bayh et al are in a position to actually do something about it, they’re just chickening out. They’re just nothing but plain spineless, chicken sh—
March 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
It’s not, after all, as if any great mystery over how you move legislation that you think is important.
It’s not only not a mystery, it’s easy. Just ask President Susan ‘Am I ready for my close-up?’ Collins.
Or President Nelson.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
I guess Matt intends for us to guess about what motivates the 8 Senators. So, what’s the guess?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Matt’s post is right on. But I would like to know what these people who are holdouts on global warming and fixing the financial meltdown really think about these issues. There are a large number of people who are global warming deniers. Do they agree? Do they think ACORN caused the financial crisi? Let’s get these issues out on the table and thrash them out. Time may be awastin’.
If not, what the hell is their problem with proposals to solve these issues? There is a saying about “the best being the enemy of the good.” Maybe these people are just “too good” to serve the public if they think they have to wait for the ideal solutions.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Sure I’ll try.
On cap and trade, it’s a stealth carbon tax. It has two issues if you’re state uses a lot of coal for generation for example. One it’s stealth instead out outright. If you want to tax something then just tax it instead of creating a regulatory regime that is subject to manipulation by Congress and others. Two, it disproportionately hurts your state which you are there to represent. Three, nobody that I’ve seen has ever done the ROI on it (admittedly hard to do since the impact depends on the actions of all countries not just the US).
On tax rates, it all depends on what you think taxes are there to do. If their purpose is to fund the government, one might argue that the “rich”, who already pay a higher share of taxes than they have of income and pay a disproportionate share and increasing (since the 1980s) share of the total, shouldn’t pay more. If you think the point is to redistribute income because the way the free market distributes income is unfair, you might just object to that on principle.
Hope that helps those who can’t see any rational argument the blue dogs could be using for their point of view.
Happy days
March 14th, 2009 at 8:52 am
And to those who say it’s only legitimate to disagree if you have an alternative solution, again you need to take the issues separately.
I do not believe we should act on raising the price of carbon until we know we can create more value than we destroy by doing so. I’ve yet to see that case made so I believe doing nothing is better than raising costs ahead of benefits.
On taxes, if I had my way, I’d start by offering no benefits of any kind to people with incomes above the national median or assets in excess of $1 million. Let’s make that adjustment and then seen how much more we need in taxes to cover the government.
If you don’t like those alternatives, it’s fine but if you say that only people who offer alternatives to the problem as you define it have a legitimate role in a debate, you’re missing a big part of the debate.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I’m not sure I see the problem. The blue dogs get to posture as business-friendly, and rake in some extra campaign contributions. Then cap-and-trade gets passed with 50 votes through the budget reconciliation process. The planet gets saved and everybody wins.
March 14th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Cap and trade saves the planet????
Talk about logic that needs explaining…
March 16th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) my bad english donot help to type here but really thanks.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) i dnot think that i understand .. i hate english itis very difcult . thanks
March 21st, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Buy Viagra…
http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra…