Butch Cassidy Lives

As readers of this blog may know, I am no fan of Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader. Had he been leader in 1967/8, I doubt there would be a Voters Rights Act, let alone a Civil Rights Act. More likely, LBJ would have ensured that his colleagues fired him.

But last week, old Harry took the role of Butch Cassidy. Picture the scene. Butch [Harry Reid] arrives at the lair of the Hole-in-the-Wall Gang [the Senate] and is confronted by a big bully [the Tea Party-leaning Republicans.] What happens next is short and sweet. As the bully prepares to fight, Butch tells him, “you gotta know the rules.” “What rules?” is the response. “There are no rules,” replies Butch as he administers a kick to the bully’s privates.

That’s what occurred in the Senate last week. For the past few years, the Republicans have been in the minority but have managed to frustrate and delay the administration in making appointments, especially to the judiciary. They have built a parliamentary road block the mere threat of a filibuster. To be accurate, the worry over a filibuster has been sufficient to prevent the Senate Democrats taking to a vote many appointments requiring Senate consent to a vote.

It’s an odd word, “filibuster.” It comes from the Dutch vrijbuiter, which translates into ‘privateer’ or ‘pirate’ but more politely ‘freebooter.’ A filibustering senator can speak for as long as he wishes on any topic he chooses to “talk out” a motion. However, he must stay standing and he is not allowed to eat or drink. To help, colleagues may ask him to yield for a question on the motion, giving an element of relief. During the question, the filibusterer is allowed to sit.

Effectively, a filibuster is a procedure to extend a debate and delay or prevent a vote. It is a manoeuvre where the minority exerts power. Under US Senate rules, a filibuster can only be terminated by a cloture motion which requires sixty votes. The Democrats do not have sixty votes in the Senate. Hence, the Republicans have exerted real legislative power to defeat, frustrate and neutralise the Democrat administration. This is why the President has issued more executive orders than any of his predecessors but an executive order can be defeated by Congress, so it’s a dangerous option. It looks bad when an EO is reversed.

Let’s get back to Butch/Harry. Under rules which applied until last week, a Senate motion for a rule change could itself be filibustered unless two thirds of the Senate present and voting broke it. In a clever move, the Senate voted 52 to 48 to require a simple majority to end a filibuster of specified executive and judicial appointments. In other words, the Democrats would no longer be frustrated by Republican political machinations in preventing the much needed filling of judicial and government appointments. Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, normally a reserved and polite man, was anything but this during the debate, turning his back on his opponents and calling the move “a Democratic power grab.” Well, hypocrisy is a politician’s strong point isn’t it? Might I remind Mr McConnell that the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate?

And there’s the rub. One day, perhaps in 2014, the American voters may return a Republican majority to the Senate. I don’t see this happening so quickly but maybe by 2016, the Democrats generally will have reached heights of unpopularity sufficient to leave the Republicans may be in charge. If and when this happens, the Republican-ruled Senate will undoubtedly use the changes to the filibuster rules to their advantage, pushing through appointments which Democrats would oppose.

My conclusion is that currently Congress is replete with politicians wanting their own way. Too many legislators are not people who wish to govern for the benefit of all. If I am right, this is a sad state of affairs. What will change this attitude? American voters are so divided that it is difficult to see a sufficient number of moderates from both parties winning against their extremist colleagues. It follows that in America, partisan politics will be the order of the day for the foreseeable future.

“Won’t You Come Back, Bill Clinton?”

In my previous blog, I made an apparently rash suggestion that President Obama could do worse than invite Bill Clinton to act as a special adviser to seek a budget deal, thus avoiding yet another round of continuing resolutions and half-baked deals. Let us assume that the suggestion is becoming a reality in the President’s mind.

The Oval Office in the White House, December, 10^th, 2013. The President has called a meeting of senior advisers. Those present are Denis McDonough, Chief of Staff, Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary, Daniel Pfeiffer, Strategy and Communications, Miguel Rodriguez, Legislative and Congressional Liaison and Sylvia Burwell, Director of Office of Management Budget.

Obama: “Come in all of you. I want to share an idea.”

McDonough: “The President’s had an idea? Interesting. [Ironic laughter by all, including Obama.]

Obama: “Okay, enjoy yourselves. The position is this. We find ourselves like rabbits in a hole with shooters all around. The Affordable Care Act is crumbling as much as my numbers. Afghanistan is a busted flush, there’s little I can do in Syria, the Russians are crowing over me, the Chinese economy is slaughtering us. And the budget talks are nowhere. Right, Miguel?”

Rodriguez: “Yes, Mr President. Three days to go before the Congressional Committee is due to announce a budget deal and nothing at all is agreed. Everyone is grandstanding. I’ve twisted arms of people on both sides but heels are dug in. Sorry for the mixed metaphor.”

Burwell:  “Miguel is right. I’ve lost count of the meetings I’ve had with committee members from each side of the aisle. They behave like spoiled children, wanting their way and seeing nothing else. I despair about this nation’s legislators.”

Obama: “Well, we need help. There’s a man we all know who has huge experience with this sort of thing. My idea is to ask him to come help us out. We have to make sure the voters see we are doing everything we can to resolve the budget, even though the problems lie with Congress. It’s a pity the public doesn’t understand this.”

Gibbs: “Mr President, in every briefing I’ve made for the past month, I’ve said this. At the press gaggle every morning, I emphasize this point. You can’t blame me if the press won’t print what we tell them.”

Obama: “Let’s stay on point. At the end of this meeting, I’m making a call to Bill Clinton unless you think this is a wrong move. I want him as a buffer between me and Congressional leadership. He’ll have no power to conclude a deal but he will have wide rights to negotiate for this administration. So, who wants to start?”

Pfeiffer: “Mr President, I would say the move is courageous.” [Obama sits upright. “Courageous” is a word used when a mistake is being made.] If you call in a former president to do your work, you will look weak.”

Obama: “Daniel, I look weak because I am weak. Have you seen my approval ratings recently? They’re in the 30s. I am now in a club with Nixon and Bush. The congressional Republicans will do whatever they can to shaft me and the Democrats can’t even see my coattails. Next year’s mid-terms are in everyone’s minds. Getting Bill involved says the White House means business and will call in whatever help is needed to resolve the situation.”

Rodriguez: “I’m sure Daniel would tell you this is a political mistake. Clinton will have in mind that he can adjust his position to benefit Hillary. If he gets a deal, he can bring Hillary into the mix to show how good a negotiator she is. If he fails, he can blame you.”

“Burwell:  “I need to emphasize, Mr President, that Mr Clinton would have little or nothing to work with. Congress is nowhere on a deal and, with Christmas intervening, there is little hope of a deal by mid-January. I’m sorry to bring bad news but I want you to be under no illusions.”

Obama: “Thank you, all of you. What you’re saying is that the budget talks are stalemated and nothing can be done to break it. I shouldn’t call in help because I’ll look weak and damage myself politically. I don’t agree. None of you has considered whether calling in Clinton would be the right thing to do, the right thing for the voters and hard-working families of this country. I think it is and I’m not bothered if it damages me. What matters is whether Bill can work his magic.

“So, my next call is to the Vice-President to tell him of my decision. Then I’ll call Bill. If he says yes, I want you on the phones to the Cabinet members, while I tell Congressional leaders that there’s a new Deputy Sheriff in town.”

By mid-January ,2014,  a budget deal is agreed, avoiding a new Continuing resolution. The big problems with the Affordable Care Act are resolved, the web site is working properly and the media is reporting favorably on the Administration.

Well, it is Christmas!

Why Do Today What You Can Put Off To Tomorrow?

Even the harshest critic might feel a wee bit sorry for poor President Obama. His administration’s flagship legislation, The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), has hit the rocks. Not only is the web site not working but some Americans who are already insured have found that their policies do not comply with the legislation, thus cannot be retained.

In my last blog, I commented on the web site failures and that it was unreasonable to hold President Obama to the fire for its failings. However, the President is a lawyer and ought to have taken advice about the rights of American citizens to keep their existing health insurance policies to ensure that this promise was kept. Either he did not do so or his advisers failed him. It is a massive gaffe, whichever way you look at it.

One might think the Obamacare problem is an easy fix. Just add a clause to the act to the extent that if a policy does not comply with ACA, such failure may be waived by the insured. However, this might lead to another round of judicial argument, perhaps enabling the Supreme Court to overturn the Act. You have to admire the American judicial system, if you’re a lawyer.

I find it odd that no one has commented on the failure by the 535 legislators in Congress, not to mention the clerks, advisers and gofors, to spot the problem and fix it before ACA became law. Perhaps the Republicans were being crafty, keeping quiet and waiting for the hammer to fall. I don’t think so. Surely, the Republicans would have used the argument during the crisis to water down, even liquidate, the healthcare legislation?

Talking of the budget, here is an issue that might help the President recover popularity and straighten out his second term. Let me take you back to those heady days in October prior to the 17^th of that month. Visitors to the States were denied access to the great sights from the Statue of Liberty in the east to Yosemite in the west. Thousands of federal employees were furloughed, initially without pay. Congress saw how unpopular it would become and decided to pay the employees for not working. You have to admire flexibility in legislators.

Then, on the 17^th, Congress re-opened government and funded it through January 15^th next year, and raised the debt ceiling until February 7^{th .} The Republicans were given a bone, requiring people receiving federal financial help to buy insurance under the ACA to be honest about their income. A negotiating committee was set up to come up with a long-term budget plan by the middle of December to avoid another shut down next year.

I want to know what has happened since the Fiscal Deal. Oddly, the media who could talk of little else before 17^th October have said and written virtually nothing. “Well,” I hear you say, “the legislators have till December 13^th to come up with a plan.” True, but to make a plan, you need to talk first and people aren’t talking, at least according to ABC News. Instead they are expounding, not caring what their opponents say or think.

The deal needs to cover across the board spending cuts and agreement on ways to improve the economy. The US deficit, the gap between revenue and spending, is shrinking but this will not take pressure off legislators. Republican Congressman Paul Ryan said last week, “we’re trying to find common ground but we’re not there yet. The hard part is figuring out where we agree.” Reading between the lines, the current talks are nowhere and unless the legislators show some statesmanship, there they will remain, with the prospect of another shutdown, followed by another Continuing Resolution.

The President has a window to show his skills as a negotiator, to persuade his own Party members as well as the opposition that the wrangle last October did no one in Washington any good. It is not for the likes of me to suggest the details of a deal but in any negotiation, it is important for both sides to know they have given something to get something. Mr. Obama has an ace up his sleeve if he dare use it. Bill Clinton was an expert in negotiating budget deals. I would call him in to help.

The Lame Duck Record.

When I was a boy, I lived opposite London’s Regent’s Park. The park had a pond and I would often be taken to feed small squares of bread to the ducks. I grew a liking for these creatures. Later, the liking turned carnivore. I judge a Chinese restaurant by the excellence of its duck with plum sauce and a French restaurant by the classic duck a l’orange dish. I don’t follow college football but have a soft spot for the University of Oregon’s Ducks. My favourite Marx Brothers movie is Duck Soup.

The one duck I don’t fancy is the lame duck. Applied to human life, a lame duck is a person that isn't properly able to function, especially one that was previously proficient. It is also sometimes used to describe office-holders who have lost an election but have not yet left office. Currently, it is applied to politicians known to be in their final term of office. Lame-duckery occurs when colleagues, rivals and the media as well as electors look towards a successor.

The origin of the term has nothing to do with politics. Back in the eighteenth century, when investors on the London Stock Exchange were unable to pay their debts, the phrase “a Bull, a Bear and a Lame Duck” would be used, the latter meaning the investor had welched.

US presidents have long suffered the lame duck fate, partly due to the electoral rules in America, which since 1946 limit the number of terms that a president may serve. Furthermore, the USA is where the phrase was first applied to politicians. A  Congressional Globe entry for 14 January 1863 states:

"In no event could it be justly obnoxious to the charge of being a receptacle of ‘lame ducks’ or broken down politicians."

The first such description of a US president written whilst in office was in 1926. The Wisconsin newspaper, the Appleton Post-Crescent ran a piece entitled, 'Making a lame duck of Coolidge':

"...the voting in other Republican states should hinge pretty largely on the issue whether Mr. Coolidge shall be permitted to become a lame duck president for the final two years of his term."

George W. Bush was elected twice for two four-year terms but, on any reasonable view, his presidency was a six-year term followed by two years of nothingness. What concerns me is that this shocking record might be exceeded by the current incumbent, because of the lame duck perception and the grid-lock in Congress.

Almost as soon as the hoardings for President Obama’s second inaugural were being removed, the Washington press got out their crystal balls to start the guessing game. ‘Who will run in 2016?’ was the burning question, not what would the Obama administration do in its second term. I refused to guess the identity of the next president. As far as I was concerned, Obama had achieved success. The American economy was through the floor when he took over but his measures were slowly growing fruit. He had a huge victory with Obamacare, bringing affordable healthcare to forty million Americans. American troops had withdrawn from Iraq and plans were in force to end the Afghanistan war.

But the media weren’t satisfied. In no time, almost as soon as Hillary Clinton had stepped down as Secretary of State, her name was in the frame for 2016 and huge sums of money were being raised for the Democrats. Chris Christie was vaunted as her Republican challenger. Now, Christie has a reputation of a conciliator, one who will reach out to the other side of the aisle. Also, he is not a Tea Partier. He has rivals, including Rand Paul, Marco Rubio who are attractive to Tea Party enthusiasts. Perhaps, Jeb Bush will throw his hat into the ring.

For almost a year, Clinton and Christie are the two people whose names stand out for the next presidential election. But President Obama has three years left to run. Harold Wilson was famous for saying, “a week is a long time in politics.” If the Democrats succeed in the 2014 mid-terms, he may have two years when he can actually work with Congress.