Posts Tagged ‘Congressional Democrats’

Republicans Celebrate Pelosi’s Return

Saturday, November 6th, 2010

Perhaps the only thing more demoralizing than this week’s midterm loss of Congress is Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that she will seek the Minority Leader’s position. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Pelosi would be the first Majority Leader since Sam Rayburn in 1948 to accept a demotion to Minority Leader.

Let me be clear. Nancy Pelosi has been a remarkably effective speaker in terms of getting things done. I wrote previously that Pelosi, Reid and Obama have done more in two years than most presidents do in two terms, and it’s worth noting that even more would have been accomplished if the bills that passed by Nancy Pelosi’s House would have passed the Senate.

But despite legislative success, Pelosi has often been an inarticulate spokesperson for Democratic causes and, as a female San Francisco liberal, she has been a lighning rod for the opposition party, not unlike both Newt Gingrich in the late 1990′s and Tom Delay in the last decade.  Her term as Speaker ended with a historic defeat propelled by the fact that many of the candidates won by effectively nationalizing the elections and running against the Speaker. 

A few months ago, I wrote about the irony of 2010, which is that losing the House and Senate might be a better outcome for Barack Obama’s electoral fortunes (if not his legislative ones), by allowing him to draw distinctions between himself and the Republicans. I still believe that this is true, but it is undoubtedly less true now that Harry Reid kept his position as Senate Majority Leader and the effect of electing more Democrats could be the return of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

There has been much discussion about the center of gravity shifting in the party with the defeat of many of the conservative Blue dogs and the survival of more liberal Democrats in safe districts that tend to support Pelosi, but this isn’t about ideology. It’s a raw political calculation. The next Minority Leader can be liberal or moderate, but I think it’s clear that the Democrats have a better chance at electing Democrats and regaining power with someone other than Nancy Pelosi leading the party.

It’s time for Pelosi to step down and welcome a new generation of leadership to protect the gains of the last two years and  build a new foundation for electoral success in the future. Early indications are that this won’t happen, but there’s still time for a competent challenger to emerge.

Revisiting the Democrats’ Record

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

Here’s Rachel Maddow on the accomplishments of the Democrats in the past two years.

It may be cold comfort at this point, but Americans will be seeing the benefits of the legislation of the past two years for a long time.

Maddow points out how Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats decided to use the political capital that they built up over the two election cycles. Equal pay for women,  a children’s health care expansion, ending subsidies to corporate banks for college loans, a major national service program expansion, the largest investments in energy and education in the country’s history, health care for 30 million more Americans, regulation (however tepid) of the banks to mitigate the possibility of another financial crisis, significant increases in assistance for veterans… I’m sure I missed something.

There will be significant debate about this for years. Would it have been better to go for incremental change and try to hold on to power for another election cycle? Maybe. Was it not the effort and the goals, but the specific deals that were cut that decreased the popularity of the legislation?  Yes, I think so.

But one thing is certain: you can criticise Nancy Pelosi for a lot of things, but it’s hard to say that she’s been ineffective as a Speaker of the House when it comes to getting things done. In two years, the conservatives’ unholy triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid accomplished more than most teams accomplish in two presidential terms.

Perhaps even more impressive is the fact that they got all of this done despite the fact that the Republican party as a whole decided that they would rather see the three of them fail than to resolve the issues that have been plaguing us as a country for years.

Hypocrites vs. Cowards on Taxes

Sunday, October 3rd, 2010

I’ve been wanting to write about the Democrats punting on tax cuts ever since it became clear that this was the plan, but haven’t had time.

Here’s a nice little piece from Rex Nutting on the issue.

The roots of this issue go back to the early Bush Administration when the Republicans were working on their tax plans. Congressional Republicans (for parliamentary reasons as well as to hide the disastrous long term effects of their tax cutting spree) setup the tax cuts to expire after 2010. As a result, in 2011, taxes will increase to the levels they were during the Clinton Administration for all income brackets, on capital gains and on dividends. The estate tax will also revert to Clinton levels along with a number of additional smaller changes.

In typical fashion, the Republicans are in favor of extending all Bush tax cuts forever, but offer no plan to pay for those tax cuts. These are the same people who have been complaining incessantly about the deficit for 2 years (they apparently discovered it as soon as a Democrat was elected president), but they have no plan to cut it and, in fact, they are insistent that $3 trillion be added to it in the form of tax cuts. 

Meanwhile, the Democrats have a slightly less irresponsible plan, which is that the tax cuts should be extended for 98% of the people, but allowed to expire for the top 2-3%. They’re out there campaigning on the fact that they’re opposed to the additional $700 million and hoping the American people ignore the approximately $2.5 trillion that they’re in favor of adding.

I’ve talked about this issue in detail here. Basically, my take on the tax cuts is that they should be allowed to expire for all income levels because we just can’t afford them as a country. We have a $9-$10 trillion deficit on the books for the next ten years and these tax cuts represent $3-$4 trillion of this. The defcit is one of the biggest and most intractable issues in American politics and in one action (in fact one inaction) $3 trillion could be wiped off of that deficit. At the same time, as I’ve been arguing for some time, the economy still needs stimulus in the short term and I’d be okay with extending all of the tax cuts for two years and then letting them all expire. This is the optimal compromise and has been endorsed by experts like Obama’s former OMB Director Peter Orzag.

Th Republicans’ budget gimmickry allowed the Democrats to craft a great political plan around the tax cuts. Since all tax cuts would expire in 2011, the plan was to allow only the middle class tax cuts come to a vote. It was assumed that the Republicans would filibuster this attempt, effectively holding 98% of Americans’ tax cuts hostage to the top 2% (which some 60-75% of Americans oppose) and giving the Democrats a clear contrast and a great issue to run on.

This looked good until the Senate Democrats met two weeks ago and found that (surprise!) their caucus was divided on the issue. They decided to punt the vote on taxes into the lame-duck session. 

It’s really unbelievable. Somehow, faced with a multitude of options, the Democrats managed to do the wrong thing for their party as well as for the country.

I’m as partisan as the next guy (perhaps more so) and I would love to have an issue to bash the Republicans over the head with,  but more importantly I want to do what is right for the country and for the economy. Whether you think that decreases in tax rates are stimulative or not, the reality is that we’re nearing the end of the year and individuals and businesses are setting their business plans for next year. After two years of debate and legislation over changes to health care,  financial regulation, energy, etc it’s time for some certainty: certainty over what the rules are and certainty over what the tax rates will be.  

The bigger picture here is that we elect leaders to lead and they should do that, not wait for the results of the election and then tell us what they think. The Democrats held large majorities in the House and Senate and the Presidency for 2 years. Saying that they ran out of time or that they don’t want to vote on raising taxes because the Republicans will attack them on it is ridiculous, cowardly and irresponsible. The Republicans are going to attack on taxes no matter what. Democrats: whether you’re giving out tax breaks to 98% of people or just extending all tax cuts for everyone, let us know where you stand. Give people a reason to vote for you. Take tough votes and then defend them.

Don’t act so cowardly. I’ll be voting for you because I’d rather have the cowards than the hypocrites, but I can’t speak for everyone else. This year, you might want to consider giving the other people a reason to vote for you, not just against the other side.

A Glorious Mess

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

A great piece from Eugene Robinson on the importance of House Democrats standing up to the Tea Party and making history.