We Get What We Vote For

TW: As I say frequently, I do not blame the system or "DC" for our dysfunctional governance as much as I blame Americans. Americans are comfortable raising taxes as long as it is not their own, cutting spending unless it is for themselves etc. Our elected officials reflect these selfish desires. What Alabama voter supports cutting space programs? What urban voter supports cutting transportation subsidies? What rural voter supports cutting Cadillac highways to nowhere in their districts or farm subsidies?

Commissions are admissions that democratic processes are failing not because the process is flawed but because democracy is flawed.

From Politics Daily:
"Lawmakers who take a hard stand against federal spending are having a hard time reconciling that position when cuts are aimed at their home districts, The New York Times reported.

It's a bipartisan problem, and a good example of how tough it is to control government spending and deficits. Many so-called deficit hawks of both parties will put up a fight when money and jobs for their constituents are threatened.

The Times gives three prominent examples:

'While Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, said he was all for slowing federal spending, he has no appetite for the substantial cuts in farm programs proposed in President Obama's new budget.

And Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a fiscal conservative and a senior Republican on the Budget Committee, vowed to resist reductions in space program spending that would flow back home.

Representative Todd Akin, Republican of Missouri, issued a press release simultaneously lamenting the deficit spending outlined in the new budget and protesting cuts in Pentagon projects important to his state.'

On the Democratic side, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) has protested all of the above spending cuts -- to NASA, the military and farms -- while also saying we "must all share in this responsibility" in reducing the deficit, according to the Times.

Principled opponents of federal spending say cutting earmarks and other spending shouldn't be left to the very people whose job it is to steer money to their home districts. They say the only solution for reducing the deficit might be an independent commission, separate from Congress, that would crunch numbers and rein in the dollars..."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/08/spending-hawks-not-so-hawkish-about-cuts-in-home-districts/

Bi Partisanhip on Climate Change?

TW: Any joint Lindsey Graham/John Kerry article was bound to get attention. But the article speaks to the compromises necessary to achieve significant bi-partisan climate change legislation. Their piece called for more nuclear power (good idea), more off-shore drilling (mediocre idea but if that floats conservative boats so be it, I can think of far worse alternatives) and potential carbon import taxes (dubious but not non-sensical idea). I think Graham is a sleeper for POTUS in '16, he is very much a conservative but not blind to actually trying to govern in conjunction with Dems. More importantly if there were more joint editorials like this one many other issues could be tackled more effectively.

From Economist Mag:
"MANY commentators fear that Barack Obama’s plans for a cap-and-trade bill have got fatally stuck in the Senate. Their calculations were shaken up over the weekend when Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, joined John Kerry, a liberal Massachusetts Democrat, to write an article headlined “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)” in the New York Times.

...The part most likely to bring a few extra Republicans on board concerns nuclear power. The two call for streamlining regulations on new plant construction, and putting more money into research on handling waste. This sop to nuclear power is more likely than anything else to bring on board John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and a strong nuclear supporter. Green Democrats are wary of nuclear, but the edge of their worry has been dulled by the even greater worry over climate change...

The second main provision of the Kerry-Graham agreement is renewed offshore drilling for oil and gas. Many conservatives want to mitigate America’s energy-security problems by looking to domestic fossil fuels. This has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions, but it might help a bill that does contain carbon caps to pass.
The third announcement from Senators Kerry and Graham is that “we should consider a border tax” on goods from countries with lax environmental standards. This will cause righteous howls from the big developing countries, especially China and India, which note America’s historical responsibility for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If included in the final bill, it would make a deal at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December more difficult. But the weasel-word “should consider” may eventually mean giving the president a lot of discretion on whether to levy such “carbon tariffs”. In other words, a classic fudge.

...The maths is still daunting. But the leap by Mr Graham, who voted against two earlier cap-and-trade bills, may well mean something."
(Note Economist magazine but not blog articles are now behind a paywall)
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14652475

Are the Republicans Stalinists And the Dems Country Clubbers?

TW: Some folks, including many Dems, lament the slow pace of legislation so far with the Dem Congress and POTUS. On occasion the Republican are regarded as more tightly organized. Silver posits there is a price to rigidity- exposing your moderates to either losing their seats or perhaps losing interest in their seats.

Some Dems forget the Blanche Lincolns in Arkansas, Ben Nelsons in Nebraska, Mary Landrieus in Louisiana, Evan Bayhs in Indiana are not running in Massachusetts or Vermont or even California. Personally I like the big tent. And yes herding 40 largely ideologically coherent Republicans (the Maine senators excepted) is much easier than herding 60 somewhat diverse Dems.

From Nate Silver at 538.com:
"Matt Yglesias is impressed that Republicans threatened to block Olympia Snowe's ascension to the top minority post on the Senate Commerce Committee were she to vote for Max Baucus's health care bill in committee...

'It’s also worth being clear on this: The Republicans do this the right way. The Senate Republican caucus is organized, like the House caucuses of both parties, like a partisan political organization whose objective is to advance the shared policy objectives of the party. The Senate Democratic caucus, by contrast, is organized like a fun country club trying to recruit members. Join Team Democrat and Vote However You Want Without Consequence! But it’s no way to get things done.'

I wouldn't dispute that in broad strokes the Republicans have run a tighter ship than the Democrats, particularly in the Senate. But, the ship has also spring a lot of leaks. Consider the fate of the 10 most liberal Republican senators as of the start of George W. Bush's first term:

1. Lincoln Chafee (RI) - lost to Sheldon Whitehouse in 2006
2. Jim Jefforts (VT) -- began to caucus with Democrats on 6/6/2001. Retired in 2008.
3. Arlen Specter (PA) -- switched affiliation to Democratic Party on 4/29/2009.
4. Olympia Snowe (ME) -- voted with Democrats on stimulus; likely to do so on health care and climate bill. Won re-election in 2004.
5. Susan Collins (ME) -- voted with Democrats on stimulus; probably will not do so on health care. Won re-election in 2002 and 2008.
6. John McCain (AZ) -- has since become more conservative. Lost Presidential election in 2008.
7. Gordon Smith (OR) -- lost to Jeff Merkley in 2008.
8. Peter Fitzgerald (IL) -- retired in 2004; seat won by Barack Obama.
9. John Warner (VA) -- retired in 2008; seat won by Mark Warner.
10. Thad Cochran (MS) -- has generally been a loyal Republican vote. Won re-election in 2002 and 2008.

...Again, I don't necessarily mean to suggest that the Republicans have done anything strategically wrong. They had a pretty good run during the first 5 1/2 years or so of George W. Bush's term, steering the country in a substantially conservative direction.

But to suggest that party discipline is a mere matter of cracking the whip a little harder is an incomplete explanation. Certainly, there is an art to vote-whipping -- one which, for instance, Nancy Pelosi understands a lot better than Harry Reid. But also, a lot of it is a question of what long-term price you're willing to pay for short-term gains. And a lot of it is also circumstantial: the smaller your conference and the less ideologically diverse, the easier that loyalty tends to be. If the only two Republican senators were Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint, well then, by golly, they'd be really, really, really disciplined. They'd also be completely powerless to stop the 98 Democrats."
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/price-of-party-unity.html

Some Economic Compromises

TW: As I have said before I consider myself a Rockefeller Republican which translates to a moderate Democrat given the current day political spectrum. There are a few stragglers within the Republican party, Bruce Bartlett amongst them. Here is some ground for compromise. Or from my partisan view issues where the smart Dems (inc. hopefully our POTUS) could co-opt some good ideas and secure electoral supremacy for years whilst combining these economic policies with progressive social policies and a little libertarianism thrown in for good measure.

I am not saying I would agree literally with all of below but none of it makes me retch (unlike say supply side tax cuts for wealthy) and Obama et al. could almost as easily adopt some of the below as the "Republican Bill Clinton" mentioned below. The fact folks are talking about a "Republican Clinton" instead of the Dems talking about a "Democratic Reagan" etc. is in itself huge progress.

From Matt Bandyk at US News and World Report:
"Economist Bruce Bartlett's new book attempts to create the platform for a Republican Bill Clinton--a compromiser who can bring GOP policies out of the fringe and into workable solutions.

...Bartlett identifies three policy stances for such a candidate:
1) deemphasizing tax cuts
2) slowing or shrinking entitlement programs
3) a value-added tax to help close the deficit.
Derek Thompson of the Atlantic adds a fourth suggestion: 4) a modest tax on carbon.

Let me add five more possibilities (on economics):
1. Guest worker compromise on immigration: Any "third way" Republican candidate will need to do something about the Hispanic vote, which most of the GOP has seemed determined to lose over the last few years. Bush tried to find a compromise on immigration, and failed. A Republican Bill Clinton could perhaps improve on Bush's attempt by focusing on just one simplistic proposal: new "smart" cards that would tie temporary workers to jobs in the US. This is the "Red Card" solution as advocated by some.
2. Lessen the bailout culture: It's clear that, for better or worse, it's not politically possible for any serious politician to declare that he or she won't bail out large financial institutions when they screw up. But a Republican Bill Clinton could at least recognize the moral hazard that comes with that inevitability, and take some steps to lessen the incentives for the big financial giants to create too much risk. For example, the FDIC required big banks to pay more in premiums. More actions like that would please people on the right and the left who are sick of all the money we've spent on bailouts.
3. VAT as a replacement, not an add-on. Any politician pushing for tax increases is making a hard sell. It's even more difficult for a Republican. A "third way" Republican could make a VAT easier for his or her base to swallow by stressing that it won't just be a whole new tax on top of the existing system. Instead, couple the VAT proposal with reductions in inefficient taxes like the corporate or estate taxes, and also simplify the income tax.
4. Retake the innovation debate. Obama has talked a big game about spending billions on new technologies to reaffirm America's position as an innovation leader. As long as the innovation debate is framed in terms of number of dollars spent, Republicans can't say much. So a Republican Bill Clinton would need to change the debate and start talking about how to boost innovation by removing barriers to American entrepreneurship. Here are some starting ideas: Cut taxes for startups in their early years, and reform Sarbanes Oxley to make it less burdensome for small companies so there's an incentive for more IPOs.
5. End the tax exemption for employer-based healthcare. McCain tried to advocate this, but not in a bipartisan way. But sign onto something like the proposal in the Wyden-Bennett bill already endorsed by many Democrats (and Republicans), and the partisan arguments won't stick."
http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/10/7/what-would-a-republican-bill-clinton-support.html

We Know What To Do Just Not How To Do It

From Newsweek's review of Taylor Branch's new book on his Bill Clinton tapes taken during Clinton's presidency:
"...Clinton tells Branch that the embargo on Cuba is a 'foolish, pandering failure' but seems unable to do anything to lift it, while the ruling Assad dynasty in Damascus apparently has access to the State Department and the White House at all times. There is daily concern about the volatility of Israeli politics and the spread of irritating yet apparently somehow unstoppable Jewish "settlements..."

From Karen Tumulty at Time interviewing former Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist (TN):
"...Were he still in the Senate, "I would end up voting for it[health care reform]," he said. "As leader, I would take heat for it. ... That's what leadership is all about...

Frist also faults some in his own party for injecting alarmism into the debate. "Clearly, the death panels and public plan arguments have been overblown," he says. Frist noted that Republicans themselves voted for a Medicare prescription drug bill that would have established a version of a public plan--with the government negotiating directly with drug companies--if private-sector competition had failed to materialize. That is similar to the approach that Republican Senator Olympia Snowe is taking with her amendment to establish a public option with a "trigger."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216052

While Frist believes that the bill will pass, he worries that the Obama Administration and Congress have not given enough attention to what happens next: the implementation. The first few years are likely to be rough, he predicts. States will be struggling to set up new marketplaces for insurance coverage, their medicaid rolls will grow, taxes will go up, and consumers will not yet see the benefits. "The Republicans will go wild," using the start-up difficulties as a tool for fundraising and for making their case in the next election... "
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/02/bill-frist-on-health-bill-id-vote-for-it/

TW: It is all very easy when out-of-power. Clinton states the obvious (and recall these were comments when he was still in office) on things like Cuba and Israel but could do little to shift policy. Frist sounds imminently reasonable on health care but I strongly doubt he would have stated the above had he still been in office. The solutions are not always the difficult part (AfPak is a likely exception). Getting democratic institutions to implement them is a different story. Why is that? Competing parochial interests (wanna lose several Florida house seats, open up Cuba), dysfunctional institutions (perpetual campaigning, what about actually governing for a bit) and a hundred other reasons.

Bi-Partisanship Fix?

TW: Cook laments the decline in bi-partisanship. I attribute the "good old days" of bi-partisanship to the former presence of now defunct concepts, both relics of the Civil War. One the southern Democrat who was frequently populist and two the New England Republican (originally abolitionists and subsequently socially liberal). It has taken 150 years but those two species are now almost completely extinct. For 150 years the Dems had folks with less in common with each other than with the Republicans and vice versa, now not so much.

Cook believes eliminating the scourge of gerrymandering would help. I am skeptical that it would transform the now hardening partisan divides but it would not hurt. Gerrymandering is now a science (employed by both sides) that ghettoizes minorities of all types race, income, ideology.

From Charlie Cook at National Journal:
"...Neither party is solely to blame for the loss of this lubricating agent, which helped the legislative machinery function. Every time Democrats picked off a liberal or moderate Republican lawmaker in the Northeast or Midwest, every time Republicans picked off a conservative or moderate Democrat in the South or some rural district in the Midwest, and every time members of Congress unwilling to march in lockstep with their party finally opted just to retire, the change chipped away at bipartisanship

...When I first came to Washington in September 1972, Congress abounded with conservative and moderate Democrats, as well as liberal and moderate Republicans. These lawmakers provided the ballast that prevented their parties from going to extremes

...Talking with a conservative House Democrat from the South recently, I commented that it must be horrible to go home and get beaten about the head and shoulders by angry constituents. He added, "And then come back here and get beaten up in my own caucus." His remark reminded me of hearing a moderate Republican senator talk last year of being somewhat ostracized at a Tuesday Conference lunch after breaking ranks on a vote.

Some analysts have long embraced campaign finance reform as the cure-all for so many of our nation's political ills. But an equal or better case could be made for redistricting reform, for removing partisan politics from the drawing of congressional district lines -- as Iowa has done. That transformation wouldn't solve every problem, but a process that resulted in more lawmakers being attuned to swing voters would temper both parties in the House.
Redistricting reform might well have an indirect impact on the Senate, where much of the enmity is the result of extremely partisan House members becoming senators and bringing their hard-edged, take-no-prisoners behavior with them.

The statistics are clear: There is more straight-ticket voting now than in the past. Few voters seem to value electing a candidate with the willingness and temperament to reach across the aisle..."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cr_20090926_1178.php

Bi-Partisan Stupidity

TW: Really not much to say about this bi-partisan pile of dung. One of the reasons the American auto industry is dying are massive legacy costs such as these. Republican Grassley IA is sponsoring the Senate bill, such stupidity. This is how nations decline, entrenched interests which stopped adding value years ago refuse to go away. Perhaps the Dems would pass this garbage by themselves but the Republicans being huge buddies with the dealers are right there at the trough with them on this one.

From the Detroit News:
A majority of House members have signed onto a bill to reverse the closing of 789 Chrysler dealerships and block General Motors Corp. from closing more than 1,300.
The Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep Daniel Maffei, D-N.Y., now has 221 cosponsors — a majority of the 435-member House.
Idiots.

This comes via Jim Manzi who explains pithily: "The practical effect would be to reverse or prevent the vast majority of dealer closings that were a key component of the auto restructuring plans. This seems only fair, as the dealers paid good money for these politicians."

This is a wholly nonideological porkfest, with 133 Democratic cosponsors and 88 Republican cosponsors. (So far.) Which just goes to show: under the right circumstances, bipartisanship isn't dead after all. David Broder should be thrilled.

Why Slowing Any Spending Is So Damn Hard (cont.)

TW: Yesterday I posted on reason #1, slowing defense is so hard- "any time someone proposes the slightest slowdown they are accused of leaving 'Merica open to the enemy". Today's post shows reason #2- "defense not being stupid, spread their production across as many congressional districts as humanly possible, thereby creating a nice little interest group for almost every defense procurement program".

Reason #2 is extremely powerful, bi-partisan and largely immune to rational defense needs. What the armed forces or a POTUS assert as needed fade quickly to secondary importance. Folks whine about the politicians but they are merely reflecting the parochial interests of their constituents, regardless of party folks are happy to cut spending as long as it is not THEIR spending.

From Chicago Tribune:
"In a victory for the Chicago-based aerospace giant, the House included $2.2 billion for eight more C-17s in a war-spending bill. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has called for ending production once the last plane on order rolls off the Long Beach, Calif., assembly line in 2011 as part of a sweeping Pentagon spending reform push.

...But the plane's supporters had reason to be hopeful as a result of the committee chairman's response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who pleaded for funding.

"The senator has good reason to be optimistic," Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) said, suggesting money for the plane is likely to be forthcoming. "I have been and remain a strong supporter of the C-17 program, and I am committed to finding a responsible way to maintain the program."...The fight is seen as a key test of Obama's budget-cutting efforts in the face of lawmakers looking out for their home-state interests. "Once they get used to overriding the president," Loren Thompson, Lexington Institute defense policy analyst, said of Congress, "they'll keep doing it."

The plane, in production since the early 1990s, has the backing of odd-bedfellows, from liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conservative Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). A key reason: Its aircraft parts come from more than 650 suppliers in 43 states." The plane's landing gear comes from Cleveland; its cockpit, nose and cargo ramp and door from St. Louis; engines from Connecticut; avionics from Binghamton, N.Y.; tail sections and engine coverings from Dallas; seats from Phoenix; and so on. The plane provides more than 5,000 jobs in Long Beach and another 15,000 elsewhere in California.

..."Congress is mainly concerned about protecting jobs," Thompson said, pausing, "and votes."

...Top Air Force leaders said Thursday that they simply do not need more cargo planes and that they had far more pressing priorities on which to spend money.Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz said the Air Force has 316 large transport aircraft, including the C-17 and C-5 fleets.

A 2005 study said that inventory was sufficient, and a new study due to be completed in the fall will likely reach the same conclusion, Schwartz said.Michael Donley, the Air Force secretary, said if more air mobility is needed it will be cheaper to modernize more of the older C-5 aircraft than build new planes."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri_boeing_may15,0,1195862.story

Two Perspectives

TW: Below are two perspectives both from Republicans. The congressional republicans thus far reflect the latter. They are foolish.

The Peggy Noonan Perspective (from WSJ)
"...[why folks want Obama to succeed] an unspoken public sense that we cannot afford another failed presidency, that we just got through one and a second would be terrible. Americans know how much good a successful presidency does for us in the world, in the public mind...Liberal? Conservative? That, to the great middle of America, would, at the moment, be secondary. They want successful. They want "That worked." They want the foreign visitor to say, "I like your president." They want to respond, "So do I."

The Limbaugh Perspective(from the Economist):
"[Limbaugh] explained why he rejected calls for "bipartisanship:
'Where is the compromise between good and evil? Should Jesus have cut a different deal? I'm serious. From the standpoint of what we have to do, folks, this is not about taking a policy or a process that the Democrats have put forward and fighting around the edges. If we're going to convince the minds and hearts of the American people that what's about to happen to them is as disastrous as anything in their lives in peacetime, we're going to have to discuss philosophy with them.'

The text was less important than the reaction, with frenzied chants of "Rush! Rush! Rush" and rowdy boos of the mere names of politicians such as Joe Biden and John Kerry. Mr Limbaugh crystalized the message of this conference, which is the message of the majority of Republicans: there is nothing wrong with the party at all, and a comeback is inevitable, as soon as Americans grow tired of Mr Obama."

Governing From the Center: Because It Works

TW: As we have discussed on the blog, Obama is appointing centrists in order to execute his vision, a vision which will be the most progressive in decades. The Economist piece reviewing a Robert Gates article in Foreign Affairs demonstrates the concept- Gates can articulate progressive policies without incurring the knee jerk vitriol of the right. Again the Kossack hordes should be patient and the right-wing nuts nervous but most of all everyone else encouraged.

From the Economist:
"ROBERT GATES, writing in Foreign Affairs, says
'Direct military force will continue to play a role in the long-term effort against terrorists and other extremists. But over the long term, the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory. Where possible, what the military calls kinetic operations should be subordinated to measures aimed at promoting better governance, economic programs that spur development, and efforts to address the grievances among the discontented, from whom the terrorists recruit. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over a long time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideologies'

Could a Democrat have written that—especially the line about addressing grievances—without being criticised as weak on terror? Probably not. Also note how Mr Gates takes direct aim at his predecessor's early tactics.

'We should look askance at idealistic, triumphalist, or ethnocentric notions of future conflict that aspire to transcend the immutable principles and ugly realities of war, that imagine it is possible to cow, shock, or awe an enemy into submission, instead of tracking enemies down hilltop by hilltop, house by house, block by bloody block.' "
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/why_obama_kept_gates.cfm