AZspot

The more important point is that the filibuster is not in the Constitution. As a constitutional expert who wrote a book on the filibuster notes, the filibuster is actually something of a historical accident that came into being after the Constitution was ratified and only discovered as a tool of obstructionism long after that. The Founders considered the idea of supermajority requirement and rejected it except for a few purposes specified in the Constitution like overriding presidential vetoes, ratifying treaties and impeachment. As I’ve noted a couple of times previously, it was rarely used prior to the 1970’s. But in the year since President Obama took office there have been more GOP filibusters than there were in the twenty years between 1963 and 1983. Republican use of the filibuster in the current Congress is on pace to triple the previous record. This isn’t a matter of seeking greater deliberation. It is an attempt by Senate Republicans to thwart any successful action by Senate Democrats – who despite losing the Massachusetts Senate seat still have the largest Senate majority in over 30 years (the last time either party had Senate majority larger than 59 was in 1979). Republicans are even filibustering measures that they co-sponsored. daggatt ☀

In late January of last year, President Obama took office facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (and with two wars going badly and a trillion dollar deficit). He sought bipartisan support for legislation to help turn around the economy. Since interest rates were already at the “zero bound,” representing the limit of traditional monetary policies, primary reliance would have to be on fiscal policy. Despite analyses from his own Council of Economic Advisors that a fiscal stimulus of roughly $1.2 trillion was necessary, President Obama cut it back to less than two-thirds of that size in an effort to accommodate Congressional Republicans. Over one-third of the stimulus ($288 billion) took the form of tax cuts for over 95% of all Americans. This was done to appeal to Republicans, despite warnings that those tax cuts would likely be saved rather than spent, diluting their stimulative effect. It constituted the largest two-year tax cut in US history. Despite those efforts at bipartisanship, not a single Republican in the House voted for the bill and only three Republican Senators voted for it (one of whom, Arlen Specter, later became a Democrat after being ostracized by his former party for that treasonous act of bipartisanship). Less than a month into the new administration, in the middle of a national crisis, Congressional Republicans had already settled on a strategy of total opposition and obstruction. So despite the ARRA being too small and too tilted toward tax cuts – in the name of bipartisanship – how has the economy done during President Obama’s first year? daggatt ☀

At the 2008 Future in Review Conference, Harvard professor James McCarthy, former co-chair of the IPCC, was asked how many of the world’s top 1000 climate experts would disagree with the basic scientific consensus that the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations over the last 50 years to levels not seen in 650,000 years is primarily anthropogenic and is the cause of an increase in global temperatures. He replied, “Five.” He told a story about a colleague being asked the same question at a conference and answering, “Ten.” McCarthy went up to him later and asked how he got to ten. The guy replied that he could only think of five – the same five as McCarthy – but doubled the number to provide a margin of error. That is about as solid a scientific consensus as you are ever likely to get for such a complex set of phenomena. Yet it is almost an article of faith in Republican circles these days that the threat from global warming is at best greatly exaggerated and at worst a “hoax. daggatt ☀

That leads us to the other vote of the day. The senate voted on so-called “pay-as-you-go” budget rules that require that tax cuts or spending increases be matched by spending cuts or tax increases. In other words, Congress has to pay for what it enacts. It was these rules, which prevailed during the ‘90’s, that were largely responsible for the record budget surpluses inherited by President Bush. And it was Bush and a Republican Congress allowing those rules to lapse in 2002 that cleared the way for the record budget deficits that followed. The measure passed the Senate today 60-40, on a straight party line vote. Again, not a single Republican voted for this fiscal discipline. Not one. Not Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins or Mr. Fiscal Responsibility, Judd Gregg or “Maverick” John McCain. As I’ve noted before, over 75 percent of our national debt was racked up under just three Republican presidents – Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. That is the debt that we must pay down or continue to finance with interest. The interest (and the interest on the interest) just for that Republican debt will amount to trillions of dollars over the next decade. Is there some symbolic message that we are supposed to glean from the refusal of Republicans to allow the US government to finance the debt accumulated under their leadership? daggatt ☀

As an example of how it should be done: Vice president Gore – part of the team that produced unprecedented economic growth including the creation of over 22 million jobs in eight years, that left behind record budget surpluses, reduced federal civilian employment by over 400,000, led a NATO force that deposed a brutal dictator in Serbia without the loss of a single American life, and … (well, you get the idea) – gracefully left DC and stayed quiet for a respectable period of time despite having garnered over 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. And, it is worth pointing out, neither Gore nor Clinton nor any other member of their administration made any attempt to turn the Bush administration’s massive intelligence failure resulting in the 9/11 attacks into a partisan issue. (You might recall from distant history that in May of 2001, Bush named a terrorism task force headed by none other than Dick Cheney. According to the 9-11 Commission, the Cheney Task Force, “was just getting underway when the 9/11 attack occurred.” Which is another way of saying that they never met. They were “dithering,” as some might say.) [Rather than following the example of Cheney between Bush administrations, retiring to a CEO gig at a company at the center of the military/industrial complex – like, say, Haliburton – Gore headed to Silicon Valley and joined the Google team long before their IPO and joined the Apple board when its share price was $7.47 – it closed today a few cents under $200. That is the kind of mojo that produced record budget surpluses.] daggatt ☀

Should the Democrats tackle deficit reduction even without Republican support? As the only party serious about governance, they don’t have much choice. But to shift the focus to deficit reduction now, while unemployment is still rising, would be economically unwise and politically suicidal. As it is, Democrats have reinstated the pay-as-you-go budget rules that Republicans abandoned and are working to ensure that new initiatives, like health care reform, don’t add to the deficit. And much of the deficit will turn around as the economy eventually recovers. But unemployment is likely to still be over 10% on election day next year. If Democrats don’t do a lot more to try to bring that figure down, the economy will still be in horrible shape and voters won’t care how much progress Democrats have made on long-term deficit reduction. Earning the praise of political pundits who see deficits as the bigger problem will be of little solace to Democratic members of Congress when they have joined the ranks of the unemployed. daggatt ☀

Last week, the new Republican National Committee Web site was launched and it included in its “GOP Heroes” section a reference to Reagan as “Ronaldus Magnus” (that’s Latin for “Ronald the Great”). Now, I will confess to being among those who hold President Obama in high regard. But as far as I am aware the Democratic Party hasn’t taken to referring to him with a title befitting a Roman emperor. daggatt ☀

It’s been 97 years since Teddy Roosevelt ran for a third presidential term on a Progressive Party platform that included as a key plank universal health care. And it’s been 64 years since Harry Truman proposed a government-run national health insurance plan almost identical to the “public option” currently under consideration. (“The American Medical Association (AMA) launched a spirited attack against theTruman proposal, capitalizing on fears of Communism in the public mind. The AMA characterized the bill as “socialized medicine”, and in a forerunner to the rhetoric of the McCarthy era, called Truman White House staffers “followers of the Moscow party line”.) It’s been 16 years since the last attempt at health care reform was killed through a campaign of lies and distortions. Meanwhile, our “system” has only gotten worse. And this time around, even the AMA is on board with reform. The AMA is certainly not a radical organization bent on nationalization of the health care system. It is also essential to compare reform proposals with the alternative – which is an untenable status quo. That is, effectively, the Republican alternative. We are the only industrialized country in the world without universal health care. The number of Americans without health insurance is approaching 50 million. Our current system is bankrupting the country and American businesses. Let’s preserve the best of what works and fix what doesn’t. daggatt ☀

They [Wall Street Journal] assert, “Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election.” Here are the facts: The recount that gave Franken his victory was undertaken by the five-member Minnesota State Canvassing Board, which included the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court (appointed by the Republican governor Pawlenty), another state Supreme Court Justice (also appointed by Pawlenty), one member appointed by former Independent governor Jesse Ventura, and one non-partisan member elected by the voters. The only Democrat on the panel was the Secretary of State. The board was unanimous in all its determinations. Similarly, the three-judge panel chosen to hear Coleman’s court challenge consisted of a Republican appointee, a Democratic appointee and an Independent appointee, and it too was unanimous in all its determinations. Finally, the state Supreme Court (including three other Pawlenty appointees) unanimously rejected Coleman’s appeal, 5-0. Bi-partisanship (or non-partisanship) and unanimity prevailed at every step. But the Journal simply asserts that the election was stolen. daggatt ☀

And what’s wrong with high-speed rail lines? This is exactly the kind of infrastructure project that has propelled economic growth throughout American history. Canals. The transcontinental railroad. Rural electrification. Western water projects. The interstate highway system. The Internet. To name a few. This is exactly the kind of thing the government should be doing, especially at a time when aggregate demand has collapsed and unemployment is skyrocketing (and we want to break our addiction to fossil fuels). And this is hardly cutting-edge technology. Japan built the world’s first “bullet trains” that could go 130 mph in the early ‘60’s. (I lived in Japan in the early/mid ‘80’s and loved traveling the country on the “Shinkansen” – much better than air travel.) daggatt ☀

…we have elected as president the most remarkable politician of my lifetime. I have no problem predicting he will be a great president. With Republican policies thoroughly discredited and things in shambles, the country is ready for major, generational change. But polls show people are also patient, with realistic expectations for the near term, and willing to give the new president the time and support he needs to bring about the desired change. Obama has a solid electoral mandate, having won a 365 to 173 landslide in the Electoral College and a popular vote margin of over 7%. And he has the leadership skills to build on that – indeed, he already has. Sure, he is inheriting a mess. But all but a few Bush dead-enders acknowledge it. Good luck? Bad luck? Who knows? But it sure feels good. daggatt ☀

In tort law there used to be a concept known as “one free bite.” It referred to the notion that a dog owner can’t be expected to know that his dog is likely to bite someone until the dog … actually bites someone. Thereafter, if he fails to properly restrain his dog, he is liable. But he gets “one free bite.” This concept has largely faded away in tort law. But it apparently persists in Bush’s concept of national defense (or “homeland security” as it is now known, thanks to Bush). A president is allowed one catastrophic terrorist attack on his watch – and he is off the hook as long as there isn’t another one before he leaves office. But that only applies to threats to the nation’s security that take exactly that form. So, for example, if he fails to “keep us safe” by incompetently managing the devastation of a US city by hurricane and flood – well, he gets “one free bite” on that one, too. Hey, he hasn’t lost a major US city in the three years since Katrina! Bush “kept us safe” – if you don’t include 9-11, or Katrina, or the 4200 US soldiers who died in Iraq and tens of thousands of soldiers badly wounded in that war. And if you ignore the fact that Osama bin Laden is still alive over seven years after 9-11. And you disregard the July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate and the report from the National Counterterrorism Center that same month, both of which concluded that Al Qaeda is stronger than at any time since 9-11 and has reconstituted in the tribal areas along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. daggatt ☀

When Barack Obama steps into the White House next week the US government will already be almost four months into the current 2009 fiscal year, which began October 1. Last week the Congressional Budget Office forecast the 2009 deficit at nearly $1.2 trillion, swamping the previous record of $455 billion set in 2008. (Bush already owns the five largest federal budget deficits of all time, not including 2009, after inheriting the largest budget surplus in US history.) The CBO assumes the US economy will decline by 2.2% in 2009. But the CBO estimate doesn’t include spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which the Bush administration has treated every year as if it was some kind of surprise that couldn’t have been anticipated). And it doesn’t take into account any economic recovery program – no tax cuts or spending increases to stimulate the economy. So add another $500 billion or so to the deficit number — $1.7 trillion. daggatt ☀

Three out of four Republicans think Bush has actually done a good job. That compares with 28% of independents and only 6% of Democrats. Bush and Cheney have been on a Rove-orchestrated “legacy” tour of all the major media, trying to convince the country that the worst terrorist attack in US history, torture, secret prisons, two unpopular wars, the loss of a major American city, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, environmental degradation, and global distain — just to hit on a few highlights — were all good things. daggatt ☀

I think those who assert that bankruptcy would be the best course for the US auto industry don’t understand the bankruptcy process very well. It can be a years-long process with every major decision requiring court approval. For example, United Airlines entered bankruptcy in December 2002 and finally exited in February 2006. But United was able to get “debtor-in-possession” (DIP) financing. In a typical bankruptcy, some party puts up the money to keep the company operating during bankruptcy and that debtor has first claim on the assets of the company. But DIP financing is not an option for the auto makers given the current state of credit markets. If the auto companies (and we’re talking here GM and Chrysler) entered Chapter 11 now without government backing, they would very quickly find themselves in a Chapter 7 liquidation. The US government is, in effect, the DIP lender of last resort. If the US government is the DIP lender, what’s the value of reorganizing the companies through a years-long adversarial litigation process with lawyers filing mountains of paper on behalf of all the various stakeholders in reaction to every proposed action? A bailout doesn’t mean the companies don’t have to reorganize. The current plan requires that the companies and their various stakeholders come up with viable plans of reorganization by March 31 – a timetable much faster than anything that could be produced through a Chapter 11 proceeding. Even if the plans that emerge only delay the demise of the auto makers by a few years, the bailout funds would be a wise investment to avoid the full hit to the economy at a time when it is teetering on the edge of the abyss. daggatt ☀