What Wisconsin Democrats Can Teach Washington Democrats
Consider the contrast between two groups of Democrats, in Wisconsin and in the nation’s capital.
Washington Democrats, including President Obama, have allowed conservative Republicans to dominate the budget debate so far. As long as the argument is over who will cut more from federal spending, conservatives win. Voters may think the GOP is going too far, but when it comes to dollar amounts, they know Republicans will always cut more.
In Wisconsin, by contrast, 14 Democrats in the state Senate defined the political argument on their own terms – and they are winning it.
By leaving Madison rather than providing a quorum to pass Gov. Scott Walker’s assault on collective bargaining for public employees, the Wisconsin 14 took a big risk. Yet to the surprise of establishment politicians, voters have sided with the itinerant senators and the unions against a Republican governor who has been successfully portrayed as an inflexible ideologue. And in using questionable tactics to force the antiunion provision through the Senate on Wednesday, Republicans may win a procedural round but lose further ground in public opinion.
Here’s the key to the Wisconsin battle: For the first time in a long time, blue-collar Republicans – once known as Reagan Democrats – have been encouraged to remember what they think is wrong with conservative ideology. Working-class voters, including many Republicans, want no part of Walker’s war.
A nationwide Pew Research Center survey released last week, for example, showed Americans siding with the unions over Walker by a margin of 42 percent to 31 percent. Walker’s 31 percent was well below the GOP’s typical base vote because 17 percent of self-described Republicans picked the unions over their party’s governor.
At my request, Pew broke the numbers down by education and income and, sure enough, Walker won support from fewer than half of Republicans in two overlapping groups: those with incomes under $50,000 and those who did not attend college. Walker’s strongest support came from the wealthier and those with college educations, i.e., country club Republicans.
Republicans cannot afford to hemorrhage blue-collar voters. In a seminal article in the Weekly Standard six years ago, conservative writers Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat observed: “This is the Republican Party of today – an increasingly working-class party, dependent for its power on supermajorities of the white working-class vote, and a party whose constituents are surprisingly comfortable with bad-but-popular liberal ideas like raising the minimum wage, expanding clumsy environmental regulations, or hiking taxes on the wealthy to fund a health care entitlement.”
Put aside that I favor the policies Douthat and Salam criticize. Their electoral point is dead on. In 2010, working-class whites gave Republicans a 30-point lead over Democrats in House races. That’s why the Wisconsin fight is so dangerous to the conservative cause: Many working-class Republicans still have warm feelings toward unions, and Walker has contrived to remind them of this.
Which brings us to the Washington Democrats. Up to now, the only thing clear about the budget fight is that Democrats want to cut less from discretionary spending than Republicans do. Quietly, many Democrats acknowledge that they have been losing this argument.
Thus the importance of a speech on Wednesday by Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, intended to “reset the debate.” As Schumer noted, the current battle, focused on “one tiny portion of the budget,” evades the real causes of long-term budget deficits.
Schumer dared to put new revenue on the table – including some tax increases that are popular among the sorts of blue-collar voters who are turning against Walker. Schumer, for example, spoke of Obama’s proposal to end subsidies for oil and gas companies and for higher taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” Yes, closing the deficit will require more revenue over the long run. But right now, the debate with the House isn’t focusing on revenue at all.
Schumer, who spoke at the Center for American Progress, also suggested cuts to agriculture subsidies and in unnecessary defense programs. He proposed changes in Medicare and Medicaid incentives that would save money, including reform of how both programs pay for prescription drugs. The broad debate Schumer called for would be a big improvement on the current petty argument, which he rightly described as “quicksand.”
To this point, Washington Democrats have been too afraid and divided to engage compellingly on the fundamentals of what government is there to do and how the burdens of deficit reduction should be apportioned. Wisconsin Democrats have shown that the only way to win arguments is to take risks on behalf of what you believe. Are Washington Democrats prepared to learn this lesson?
By: E. J. Dionne, Op-Ed Colunist, The Washington Post, March 10, 2011
The Forgotten Accomplishments of The 111th Congress
It’s already been pointed out endlessly that the 111th Congress has been one of the most productive in decades. But here’s another way to look at it: Consider all the things this Congress has accomplished that we aren’t talking about.
Health care reform, the overhaul of Wall Street regulations, the ratification of New START and the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell are, of course, the accomplishments that will define this Congress in the history books. But there are a whole host of other relatively under-the-radar achievements that in and of themselves would normally be considered major achievements, had they not been completely overshadowed by the big ticket items.
Before we all depart for the holidays, let’s pause for a moment of reflection on these also-ran accomplishments, some of which passed with broad bipartisan support. There’s the Lily Ledbetter fair pay act, which reversed a Supreme Court decision limiting the ability of women to sue over salary discrimination. There’s the sweeping credit card reform measure putting a halt to unfair and deceptive industry practices. There’s the landmark legislation that greatly expanded the FDA’s authority to regulate the manufacturing and marketing of tobacco products.
There’s the largely forgotten measure that vastly expanded Federal aid to college kids that ultimately passed as part of health reform. More visibly, there is the food safety bill and the measure granting health benefits to 9/11 responders, both of which passed this month. And two women were confirmed to the Supreme Court, one of them a Latina — a historic accomplishment.
This is only a partial list.
Under normal circumstances, these alone would have constituted significant achievements. “When you look beneath the surface just a little bit there’s an enormous amount that under normal circumstances would have been heralded but got very little attention,” Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein tells me.
The larger story here, though, is that if you add in these accomplishments with the more visible ones, it becomes clear that Congress has expanded government’s reach even more than commonly thought. For all the justifiable criticism of health and Wall Street reform for not going far enough — and for all the talk about the coming battle to repeal them — the bigger story is that the sum total of this Congress’s major and minor achievements have produced an expansion of government’s role in society that will be very hard to undo.
“Taken together, the smaller accomplishments may have an impact on society that rivals the main accomplishments, and they have all bolstered government’s role as a protector of the public interest,” Ornstein says.
And so, one more tip of the hat to the 111th Congress and its leadership.
By Greg Sargent -The Plum Line, Washington Post- December 23, 2010
“NO” IS NOT A PROCESS
“NO” IS NOT A PROCESS
The dust has yet to settle from last weeks debacle in the Massachusetts Senate election. I have been listening to the pundits who have incessantly harped on and dissected what they thought the election of Scott Brown actually meant for the rest of the country, and for Democrats in particular. The clamoring and jaw-jerking by these same pundits was relentless. They were way too eager, often tripping over themselves to get air time to declare an apocalypse for the Obama administration. Their summations declared Brown’s win as a complete repudiation of the administrations policies and thus, the direction in which these policies were leading the country. Others thought that Brown’s verbal opposition to the current national health reform legislation was the most important factor that led to his upset victory. To be fair, this last interpretation does carry with it a partial truth.
Just for the record, an exit poll conducted by a GOP pollster, Tony Fabrizio, showed that only 38% of the eight hundred participants said they were motivated by opposition to the President’s policies. On the other hand, 32% indicated that they were motivated by support for his policies and 27% indicated that Obama’s policies were not a factor in their voting at all. This means that 59% of the voters polled were either for or indifferent to the President’s policies when they cast their ballot. Furthermore, 53% of independents either supported or were indifferent to the President’s policies.
My take on the results of this Massachusetts election is that a message was indeed sent on that Tuesday night. All of the pundits seem to think that this message is targeted only towards Democrats That message is that people are frustrated, infuriated and exasperated. Why? Because Congress is Not doing its job, plain and simple. A recent CBS poll shows that the approval rating for Congress currently stands at 23% while that for the President remains at 55%. Neither of these numbers however should make anyone comfortable. As such, I believe that Republicans should be just as concerned about November as the Democrats. There is a whole lot of frustration out there and it is highly probable that it will be an equal opportunity un-employer come November.
Reforming health care goes hand in hand with getting the economy back on track. I would like to think of Congress as an institution that is honorable and works for the good of all the people. There is absolutely no reason why health reform should not have been passed to date. There have been all kinds of excuses, lies, obstructions and mis-representations at every turn of the process during this last year.
On the one hand, every Democrat wants to have everything under the sun incorporated into the final bill that the President will eventually sign. This includes the progressive members of the party who often do not or will not see from side to side because of blinders that only allow them to see the tip of their noses. Pay attention progressives….you cannot and will not get everything incorporated into a single package by days end! There will be no “all encompassing” health reform product…this is a project that will have to be massaged for many years to come. This project requires negotiation and cooperation. If you let this opportunity slip away, there will be no second chances. Reasonable people do not use an axe to remove a fly from their forehead. Do not become an instrument for those who say “NO”.
On the other hand, there are my Republican friends who want to say “NO” to anything and everything. First we have those who are livid about the “costs” of any reform package, never mind that this was never a consideration during the previous administration. If it had been, we wouldn’t be in the current mess we are in today. Remember the prescription drug program? If for some reason health reform is not passed this time around and you are worried about what it costs now, what do you think the costs will be when it finally gets back on the radar screen down the road…. and I’m talking somewhere around 2059.
Then there are those who are baffled and dismayed by how the Democrats handled the “process”. They rise to their pontifical perches to berate the Democrats for excluding them from the discussions and debates. They tell anyone who will listen that they have been shut out of the process and that there has been no transparency in any of the multiple committees, no bipartisanship, no good faith, none whatsoever. They were not allowed to offer any amendments to any of the bills at any stage of the “process” and that they were placed under unreasonable “time lines” for completion of a final bill.
As far as I have been able to ascertain, Republicans should be the last to complain about process, bipartisanship, transparency, and good faith. I did a little checking on Republican participation in the various committees leading up to the final passage of the Senate and House health reform bills. On the Senate side, the HELP committee adopted 159 amendments offered by Republicans. On the House side, 16 Republican amendments were adopted during procedures of the Energy and Commerce Committee. In the Education and Labor Committee, 6 of the 17 Republican amendments were adopted by the committee. Finally in the Ways and Means Committee markup, 38 of the Republican sponsored amendments were rejected by the committee.
I think that it is worth noting that during the 111th Congress, Republicans have attempted to filibuster a minimum of 30 times. This has been a part of the “strategy”, a strategy straight from the “obstructionist playbook” offered to Republican colleagues by Sen Judd Gregg in a memo on parliamentary strategy that republicans could use to offer amendments and extend debate on particular resolutions. In efforts to thwart the process, Republicans often offered “technical amendments”, knowing firsthand that they were not significant or relevant to the issues at hand. They were offered only for “strategic” purposes. As expected, these nuisance and frivolous amendments were rejected. Yet these same senators want us to think that they were victimized and that the “process” wasn’t fair or bipartisan….that these amendments were being offered in good faith. Give me a fricking break! By design, you corrupted the process and got what you wanted…an opportunity to cry foul and afford yourselves with another easy distraction to take the focus away from the issues.
It seems to me that the Republican idea of bipartisanship is absolute concession to their ideology, no more, no less. Everything outside the reaches of this ideology falls into the category of “no”. There is no real intention to participate, only to be in a position to say no after no after no. If you continue to chose this route, I remind you that “NO” is not a process. There are consequences for “no”.
With the prevailing winds now blowing within the Washington beltway, it is no wonder that there is so much frustration outside the beltway. Congress, do your job! If you continue your childish games, come November, there will be many “Scott Brown’s” on both sides of the aisle.
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 