Thursday, January 26, 2012

Newt's Victory in SC Tightens Up GOP Race

Last week at this time, it looked like Mitt Romney was going to run away with the Republican nomination. He's been the front-runner and presumptive nominee for most of the race and he was two for two in primary contests, including a decisive victory in New Hampshire. His good fortune didn't last long, however, as the certification of votes in Iowa turned his slim victory into a second-place finish and his poor showing in South Carolina allowed Newt Gingrich to gain ground. These blows are hardly fatal, and he's still going strong, but it's changed the dynamic of the contest. People in the Anybody-but-Mitt camp now have a realistic (if not ideal) alternative in Newt. The next primary is on Tuesday in Florida, and it's going to be a huge one, and it won't be nearly as predictable as the last three. Romney had a convincing lead in the polls for a bit, but Gingrich jumped to the front in the last week after his victory in Old Dixie, and now it's just about a dead heat.

Florida's contest is going to be an interesting one. They decided to jump ahead of Nevada, which historically comes in fourth, and they're losing half of their delegates as punishment. At the moment it seems like a small price to pay, as they have spent the last week showered with attention and the results will likely have more weight than if they were back in the middle of the pack. The media is also probably ecstatic with the change, as a Florida race draws much more interest and allows for more speculation and analysis than a smaller state with a known bias. South Carolina and New Hampshire are much more predictable because they're known to be more socially conservative or independent-minded, respectively. Florida, however, has a diverse population, much more in line with that of the nation as a whole, so the results should be more indicative of the final outcome.

One main factor in the Florida primary is that all the wings of the party are well represented, including wealthy fiscal conservatives, socially conservative “values voters,” middle class moderates, and Tea Party-type libertarians. Unsurprisingly, Romney does well with the well-off while Gingrich is pulling in support from the middle class voters and the NASCAR crowd. Newt is well aware of this divide, and is doing his best to exploit it. He's harped on Romney's past association with Bain Capital and has tried to paint him as out of touch with regular Americans. This tactic concedes the wealthy elites to Romney while hoping to be carried to victory by the multitudes of non-rich voters. The risk in that strategy is that Santorum will take a large share of the social and religious conservatives while Ron Paul will walk away with the lion's share of the libertarian crowd, leaving Newt with the middle class moderates. While that is the majority of the GOP base, he'll likely still be splitting it with Romney, which means he has to do well enough in that group to overcome Romney's lead amongst the well-heeled.

The good news for Newt is if his strategy is successful, he probably won't have trouble winning over the rich folks when it comes to the general election, as they're unlikely to defect to the Democrats. If Romney is chosen, he may be so damaged in the eyes of the rest of the electorate that they might not rally around the multi-millionaire Wall Street insider. While they probably won't vote for President Obama, they could end up preferring a third candidate, like Ron Paul. He may not run as a third party candidate, but his followers are so devoted that he may receive a lot of write-in votes which could make a difference in what looks to be a close contest. Because of all this, the importance of the Florida results will go beyond just who wins first place. If Paul and Santorum continue their respectable performances, it could determine how much longer they stay in the race. If they do well, it probably means that their respective bases are unhappy with either Mitt or Newt, which would mean big trouble for the GOP in the general. If they do poorly, it probably means their supporters jumped ship for Newt, and he'll likely end up defeating Romney. This would be a godsend for the Democrats, who think Newt's numerous negatives make him a weaker candidate against Obama. This belief is supported by poll numbers, and conservatives also lend credence to it, as they're turning their guns on him in a major way out of fear that he might actually win the race.

Top

Friday, January 20, 2012

South Carolina Prepares for Primary as GOP Field Continues to Narrow

We've made it through two contests in the 2012 GOP presidential primary race, and so far Mitt Romney remains the presumptive nominee. After a strong showing in Iowa and a decisive victory in New Hampshire, there's real doubt that anyone can gain enough momentum to overtake him. Folks in the Anyone-but-Mitt camp may have some good news tomorrow, however, as the polls in South Carolina show Newt Gingrich jumping ahead of the national front-runner. While South Carolina is another small state, it's the first contest in the deep South, so the results could be a bellwether on who the far right values voters prefer. Right now it appears that a known philanderer is their choice, which may say more about the strength of anti-Romney sentiments than anything else.

The big news from the last week is that two candidates have withdrawn from the race. Despite his respectable third place finish in New Hampshire, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman has decided to call it quits. He was a long-shot candidate throughout the race, never having a moment in the spotlight that even Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain enjoyed. He left the race when he was arguably at the height of his popularity, but his 17% in the Granite State wasn't enough momentum to take him any further. As with many other candidates before him, he put all his eggs in one basket and it just wasn't enough to pay off. His lack of money made it virtually impossible to continue, especially without a major surprise to boost fund-raising, like the one that Rick Santorum got from Iowa. On his way out the door, he endorsed Mitt Romney, while at the same time decrying the harsh, even bitter tone the campaign has taken, thanks to negative ads put out by various Super PACs.

After five months of gaffe-ridden campaigning, Texas Governor Rick Perry never lived up to expectations, which led him to suspend his campaign yesterday morning. As a long-serving governor of one of the nation's biggest states, he certainly has the pedigree of a solid presidential candidate, but his campaign proved itself ill-prepared for the national stage. After disappointing finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, he was expected to hold on until after South Carolina, to see whether conservatives would flock to his banner and boost his campaign with momentum and money. His numbers in the state have never been anything but dismal, with Newt and Santorum apparently siphoning off all of his support. Despite appearing folksier and perhaps even dumber than former president George W. Bush, his performances in the numerous debates proved him to be ill-prepared and ill-informed, to the point that even his own constituents aren't supporting him.

The field is now narrowed down to four candidates (or five in South Carolina, if you're a fan of Stephen Colbert), but that's not the only change in the campaign since New Hampshire. Yesterday, the Iowa Republican Party announced that most of the caucus results have now been certified and Santorum, not Romney, is the actual winner. While his margin of victory is as slim as Mitt's, there's a big difference between second and first place for someone like Santorum, who has always been considered a long shot. While being declared the winner two weeks after the contest doesn't have quite the same clout, it's still a big boost for the former Pennsylvania Senator. He'll head into South Carolina with a renewed sense of vigor that was flagging after his weak showing in New Hampshire. Whether it came in time to play a significant part in tomorrow's contest remains to be seen, but the voting population in old Dixie is about as close to Santorum's base as it gets.

If all goes as expected, tomorrow's results will be great for Newt, who has been performing poorly in the contests so far, to put it mildly. He's going to need to finish as well as he's polling to keep any form of positive momentum going into the later contests. If he manages to pull that off, he may pose a very real threat to the seemingly inevitable Romney nomination. Ron Paul is still there, taking his share of the vote, but it seems apparent that he's hit a ceiling, and no amount of clever politicking or outsider appeal will make him into a true contender. He's got strong financial support, though, which means he can probably stay in the race for a while, and his numbers may surprise everyone and continue to improve.

Top

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Blackout Protest Draws Attention to SOPA, PIPA

As members of Congress drift back to Washington for the start of the second session of the 112^th Congress, they'll be returning to an environment that's likely to be as poisonous as the one they left at the end of 2011. With time running out in December, they made a last-minute deal to punt the issue of the payroll tax cut extension by two months, which means they have about 5 weeks to come up with a solution. What it really means is that another bitter battle is just around the corner, and since it's an election year there should be plenty of grandstanding and politicking. That brouhaha is sure to generate headlines in a couple of weeks, but the hottest items on the Hill right now are the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). These two bills—the former put forth by the House, the latter by the Senate—are designed to curb online piracy of intellectual property, such as illegal downloads of music, movies, and software. To accomplish this goal, the bills expand the powers of law enforcement by criminalizing some infringing behaviors and forcing internet service providers to take steps against infringing websites. The bills enjoy bipartisan support, but they've also run up against some very vocal and highly visible opposition.

Proponents of the two measures argue that they take much-needed steps to protect intellectual property owners from theft on a grand scale as it's been practiced since the golden days of Napster in the late '90s. One of the biggest issues that has come up in this fight is that most large websites that aid in piracy are located overseas, either in European countries with more lax copyright laws or even in small countries with no extradition treaties with America. These bills would avoid those issues by forcing search engines and other websites and ISPs from linking to or doing business with the offending sites. That means links to the sites wouldn't show up on Google searches and Paypal wouldn't be able to transfer funds to them. Needless to say, industry groups such as the RIAA and the MPAA, who have been battling internet piracy for some time, are fully supportive of these efforts. While SOPA won't be marked up until February, the Senate's version is expected to come up for a full vote on January 24^th, although some Republican Senators are fighting for a delay.

Part of the reason for that delay is the strong backlash that's sprung up against the two bills from both regular citizens and major web corporations, culminating in a large-scale cyberspace protest. These protests are made up of more than just angry teenagers who are afraid that their free music will be taken away. Many of the largest websites in the world, including Google, Wikipedia, and reddit, have joined together in blacking out as much of the internet as they can today, January 18^th. Instead of their normal content, the sites link to webpages explaining the opposition to the bills and giving average Americans the contact information of their members in Congress in order to effectively voice their displeasure. This high-profile form of protest has already drawn much attention, and is causing the folks in Washington take pause before voting on the measures.

The major opponents of the acts agree with the bills' authors that something must be done to curb internet piracy, but they strongly disagree over the methods that the measures take in order to do so. They argue that, as they currently exist, the bills allow for censorship of the internet and will likely have negative unintended consequences, including holding websites responsible for the actions of unaffiliated users. They wouldn't just affect known piracy sites, such as The Pirate Bay, but could have disastrous consequences for popular websites like Youtube. As both chambers of Congress return to session, they'll have to debate the matter further, as Americans have made it abundantly clear that they like the internet as they know it and they won't just sit there and let it be changed.

Top

Friday, January 06, 2012

After Iowa, Primary Season Continues with a Narrower Field

The speeches are over, the babies have been kissed, and the votes have all been counted, closing the book on yet another Iowa caucus. As the candidates head back east (some more north, some more south), they put the Hawkeye State in their rear view mirrors, dooming it to obscurity for another three and a half years. After months of speeches and debates, the first contest of the 2012 primary season is over, and the political media has some concrete results to analyze ad nauseum. There weren't any major surprises in the results, as morning-of predictions largely came true: Mitt Romney got the most votes, with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul taking second and third. Santorum managed to do a bit better than expected, falling just 8 votes shy of Romney's total, while Paul's third place finish wasn't as good of a showing as his campaign had hoped for. The next contest will take place on Tuesday, January 10^th in New Hampshire, but not all seven candidates will be taking part, as one long-shot has decided to call it quits after a disappointing finish.

After placing sixth in a field of seven major candidates, Iowa native Michele Bachmann chose to call it quits on Wednesday. Despite spending the majority of her time campaigning in Iowa, she only managed to take home about 6,000 votes, or about 5% of the roughly 120,000 cast. In a race which saw a number of lead changes, Bachmann peaked in Iowa too early, jumping ahead of the pack in July and winning the Ames straw poll in August, but ultimately falling back to single digits in October and never recovering. Bachmann had hopes that her brand of Christian conservative politics would resonate with Iowa voters, but her persistent gaffes may have undermined her legitimacy, allowing Santorum to take the lion's share of those votes. While it was a disappointing end to her presidential aspirations, she still has plenty of time to decide on her future, and whether or not she intends to run for re-election in her Minnesota House district. There's some speculation, based off the language of Wednesday's speech, that she may be ready to back out of politics and cash in, much like Sarah Palin has done. It's too early to know for sure, but we probably haven't heard the last from Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann isn't the only candidate to have a disappointing showing in Iowa. Rick Perry was also counting on a big boost from the first contest, based on his social conservative bona fides and his general not-Mitt Romney qualities. He managed to pull in about twice as many votes as Bachmann, but still placed fifth behind a weakened Newt Gingrich. After taking some time on Wednesday to reassess his chances, he opted to continue on with the campaign. Still, he's on his last legs, pinning all his hopes on a strong showing in South Carolina where he'll have to take on the current darling of the far right, Rick Santorum. Even if Santorum's momentum flags, Newt and Romney are both polling strong in the Palmetto State. Perry has almost two weeks to bring those numbers up, but he'll certainly have his work cut out for him—especially since he's virtually guaranteed a repeat of this week's finish in New Hampshire, where he's done little, if any, campaigning.

While it's easy to tell who the losers were in Iowa, it's harder to determine who the real winners were. Santorum is obviously coming out of the contest stronger than ever, and he's taken advantage of his surprise near-victory by raking in the big bucks. He's also bearing the burden of becoming a major candidate for the first time, including all the media scrutiny that comes with it. He also doesn't have the campaign structure and experience to run a truly national campaign, and will have to pick things up as he goes along. He will probably do well in South Carolina, but has had no traction in New Hampshire up to this point. If he doesn't manage to pull respectable numbers in the Granite State, it could take the wind out of his sails before he can make a big splash down south.

Ron Paul's numbers weren't quite as good as he had hoped for, as he pulled in roughly 21% of the vote. He was within 4 points of first, so it's hard to count this as anything but a positive for his campaign, but a victory may have been crucial to establishing himself as a realistic candidate. He's still got a small but enthusiastic base of support, and his numbers in the next few contests still look good. He probably won't win any of them, but will hover around second. This should be enough to keep him in the race past many of his opponents, but people still have reservations about him and his viability. Several second place finishes just might not be enough to overcome those doubts, and if he keeps going the way he is, the party establishment will probably unite to drive him out.

Top

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Iowa Caucuses Kick Off 2012 Primary Season

After months of campaigning and numerous debates, the big day is finally here. Today, thousands of Iowans will mosey on over to their local schools, libraries, or other public buildings to decide who they want representing the Republican Party in the 2012 presidential election. It's the official kickoff of the primary season, which provides some of the most sensational theatrics in American politics. The seven-candidate field will slowly be whittled down to one individual, who will then take on the potentially billion-dollar Obama campaign. Because of its privileged status as first in line, the Iowa contest is always disproportionately analyzed for its predictive effect, and this year's will be no different. Heading into this morning, the latest polls showed a three-way race between expected nominee Mitt Romney, libertarian favorite Ron Paul, and dark horse candidate Rick Santorum, with Romney holding a slight lead. Nearly 50% of voters showed either no preference or a willingness to change their minds, so the race is still very much wide open. In a few hours, the votes will be cast and the speculation can begin in earnest.

The biggest story heading into today's contest is the rise of Rick Santorum, who has been a minor player for virtually the entire campaign, never earning more than 5% in a national poll. Santorum's ascendancy is perfectly timed, as Ron Paul's jump to the front over a week ago gave his opponents and the media time to scrutinize his campaign, bringing up past minor scandals as well as shining a spotlight on his views that fall outside the mainstream. While Santorum has begun to receive his share of scrutiny, it's probably too late to have much of an effect on Iowa voters. Despite being a devout Catholic, Santorum enjoys strong support from born-again Christians and other evangelicals, thanks in large part to his socially conservative policies and emphasis on family values. This will certainly help him in the Iowa caucuses, but less so in New Hampshire where his numbers are more in line with his national performance. Still, if he manages to place amongst the top three in the first contest it could be a big boon to his campaign, and he may be able to gather momentum from a strong showing. He's going to need it, though, as his poll numbers in the next few contests are lackluster, to put it nicely.

It's still too early to count Ron Paul out, as he's going strong in the Iowa polls. While Romney has a slim lead, Paul is right at his heels, polling at just over 20%. His momentum has slowed a bit, thanks to a revisiting of his newsletter controversy, but he still shows considerable support. Unlike Santorum, Paul has good national numbers, with a solid grip on third place. He's also polling well in New Hampshire, where he's a distant second to Romney, and it looks like he may be competitive in South Carolina and Florida, as well. Continuing his strategy from 2008, Paul has run a somewhat unconventional campaign, relying on large amounts of small donations in the forms of single-day “money bombs.” It's unsurprising, then, that he's gaining popularity in unconventional ways, as social media trackers assert that he's the most talked-about candidate on websites such as Facebook and Twitter. His unorthodox views are largely responsible for his strong support, but they also cause mainstream voters to take pause. It looks like Paul is guaranteed a strong finish in Iowa, but that may not result in enough momentum to carry him to ultimate victory. If he manages to emerge from the early contests with something actually resembling a chance at the nomination, expect mainstream Republicans and party insiders to work together to ensure that he doesn't ultimately win.

While Mitt Romney remains the presumed nominee in most political circles, Newt Gingrich is still in the race, and he has considerable leads in South Carolina and Florida, which make him a real threat to the former Massachusetts governor. While Newt's numbers in Iowa remain flat and his national lead has shrunk in the last week, he may be able to weather the storm of the first two contests where he's expected to perform poorly. From the beginning, he vowed to run a positive campaign, but his opponents haven't followed his lead. He's been the subject of a massive number of negative ads, which some credit for his poor performance as of late. While his ads remain above the fray, he had some choice words for Mitt Romney today, showing his frustration with the underhanded tactics. It remains to be seen whether a slow start and past scandals will scuttle his campaign, but right now he probably has the strongest chance of wresting the nomination from Mitt Romney.

Top

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

As New Year Approaches, GOP Candidates Brace for First Contest

With the holiday season in full swing, Congress is back on break despite nearly dropping the ball on the payroll tax cut. Despite some politically maladroit maneuvers by House Republicans, both chambers eventually agreed on a two-month extension of the 2% tax break, giving members until the end of February to come to some agreement on how to pay for the remaining ten months. There won't be much news from the Hill until mid-January (although Ben Nelson's (D-NE) recent retirement announcement is noteworthy), but luckily for all lovers of political theater, the GOP primary season is about to reach fever pitch. The first contest is coming up in Iowa on January 3^rd, which will give us the first tangible results in the long race to see who will take on President Obama in November. Here's a look at where the candidates currently stand and how the first few contests are expected to play out.

While Newt Gingrich may have been catapulted to the front of the pack after Herman Cain's withdrawal, he's lost a bit of momentum since then. He still holds a slim lead nationally, but his numbers in Iowa have slipped significantly, with dark horse libertarian candidate Ron Paul stepping into the spotlight. The repeatedly underestimated Paul holds some views that are a bit off the beaten path, but that hasn't stopped voters from gravitating toward his campaign. His success may be due in part to the current political climate in Washington, as average voters unhappy with the status quo may be gravitating toward the unconventional nature of his campaign and policy views. Whatever the reason, Paul's success has made him the obvious target of the rest of the GOP field, and he's been hammered all week over some bigoted remarks published in newsletters bearing his name during the '80s and '90s. Paul has denied that he shares the viewpoints expressed in the newsletters, claiming to not have even read them despite allowing his name to be associated with them. Beyond that minor scandal, though, his fellow candidates have jumped on his unorthodox views on policy issues, especially foreign policy. This ganging up is a mixed blessing for Paul, as it proves that he's a candidate to be feared, but all the negative attention may slow down his momentum. Winning is self-perpetuating in the primary campaign, though, so if he can pull of a convincing victory in Iowa it will go a long way toward helping him in the other early contests.

While Newt's numbers have dropped in Iowa, allowing Paul to overtake him in the first contest of the season, Gingrich is still going strong in the other early states; especially South Carolina and Florida. Once he became the front-runner earlier this month, he was haunted by the ghosts of his past infidelities, including his divorce of his former high school geometry teacher, Jackie Battley, while she recovered from cancer treatment. The story has hurt his numbers, but as with Paul's newletter scandal, it's old news and doesn't have quite the power amongst voters. Perhaps in an effort to divert attention, Newt's campaign has turned negative in an effort to make up for lackluster numbers. His drop in Iowa could hurt his chances at the candidacy, but if he manages to pull off convincing victories in any other early states, that can go a long way in erasing his slow start. Of course, just as winning begets winning, losing can perpetuate itself as well, and voters in the other contests may respond to his apparent weakness. It's too early to count him out for sure, but between Paul's surge and Romney's steady numbers, Newt's got a hard row to hoe in the coming months.

Perhaps Mitt Romney's biggest strength is his steady position in second place. While this may be a result of an “anybody but Romney” attitude in the GOP electorate, it's allowed him to avoid being the center of attention when it comes to attacks from his fellow campaigners and the media. He's gotten his share of negative attention, as “Romneycare” has been a buzzword throughout the contest, but he hasn't received that concentrated damaging attention that scuttled Cain's campaign, harmed Bachmann early on, and has hurt Newt this month. He's still holding steady in the national numbers, and a convincing victory in New Hampshire may be all he needs to hold on through some disappointing early races. He's still very much a threat and right now has probably the strongest chance at winning the nomination and taking on President Obama in the fall. What happens then is another story entirely.

Top

Monday, December 19, 2011

Payroll Tax Cut Extension in Jeopardy as House Prepares to Reject Senate Plan

While Congress once again brought us to the cusp of a government shutdown, they averted the crisis by passing a nine-bill omnibus spending package which will keep the federal government funded through the end of September. Riding high off of that rare display of bipartisanship, the Senate followed it up by voting on a temporary, two-month extension of the payroll tax cut, with the measure passing on Saturday and arriving in the House this morning. Over the weekend, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH, 8^th) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) initially appeared to embrace the new bill, but over the weekend the House Republican rank and file revolted against the plan and are now expected to reject it. There's still the opportunity for negotiations between the upper and lower chamber, but Democrats appear to be digging in their heels after caving on some of the GOP's demands. That resolve will be tested as the year-end vacation approaches and the threat of the expiration of the tax cuts comes closer.

Speaker Boehner and Republicans in the House have expressed their concerns over the short-term nature of the deal, claiming that the Senate is simply kicking the can down the road. Democrats want to pass the two-month extension to put off time-consuming negotiations over the full year's extension until there is no threat of the tax cuts expiring. Democratic leaders worked with Senate Republicans in order to put together a plan that would be acceptable to the House, and were therefore surprised when the House Speaker came out against it on Sunday. The Senate included language forcing President Obama into a decision over the Keystone XL pipeline, which Republicans are keen on including in the payroll tax bill, but that wasn't enough to overcome the House's opposition to the short-term nature of the agreement. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says that there will be no further negotiations over the deal until the House passes the temporary extension. Several Senators have already left town for the recess, and are showing no inclination toward returning.

The political ramifications of not passing an extension could be severe, although it's uncertain who would take the blame. Right now, both sides are jockeying to make sure the average middle class voter focuses their anger at the other party when their take-home pay is reduced by roughly $1,000 next year. Of course, it's Christmas time, and most voters aren't paying attention to the goings-on in Washington. It's also unclear who exactly would be responsible if negotiations were to fall apart. Both the House and Senate put forth their own plans, only to be rejected by the other chamber. The Senate's bill was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, but it's also a temporary solution, as Boehner points out, and in two months' time the situation is likely to be the same. In this political game of hot potato, neither side can be truly sure that they'll win the message war and be able to point the finger at the other party in the fall. Most Americans won't remember this example of political bickering at the end of a year which was chock full of such squabbles.

The first step in getting an extension passed will take place today, when the Republicans actually vote on the Senate plan. If they act as expected, and reject the short-term deal, there's still the possibility of the two chambers meeting in agreement during a conference to merge the two bills further, but Senators don't seem to be embracing the idea. While the failure to extend the payroll tax would be a big blow to the Obama Administration, ultimately Congress will likely take the blame. The legislative branch has proven itself incapable of performing its functions in a responsible and adult manner, and is likely to shoulder the blame. The only consolation is that American voters can't think less of them than they already do.

Top

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Fears of Government Shutdown Return as Congressional Brinksmanship Continues

As the Congressional year draws to a close, the dysfunction that's plagued Capitol Hill all year is continuing unabated. Last week, Congress was gearing up for a contentious battle over the Democrats' desired payroll tax cut but appropriators were working diligently on an omnibus spending bill that would keep the government funded for another year. This week, the payroll tax bill is going as expected, with House Republicans passing a bill that is dead on arrival in the Senate. The roughly $1 trillion omnibus spending plan, which is needed by Friday to prevent a government shutdown, has also hit a snag, and there's now talk of a short-term measure that will keep the government funded while buying time to sort out a long-term solution. Congress hasn't been totally ineffectual, however, as the House and Senate appear ready to pass a $662 billion defense authorization bill, which has drawn the opposition of civil liberty advocates and a potential veto threat from the President. Scheduled to go home for the holidays on Friday, it's looking increasingly likely that members of Congress will be in town a bit longer than they expect.

The payroll tax issue has become a high-profile, end-of-the year political battle, as both parties try to score points as they head into an election year. The Democrats' put forth a plan to pay for the cuts with a temporary tax increase on individuals making over $1 million which they knew was never going to be accepted by Republicans. The GOP responded on Tuesday by passing their own bill which is laden with provisions seemingly designed to be non-starters for Democrats, such as tweaks to the unemployment benefits program, delays in EPA regulations, and authorization for broadband spectrum auctions. The Senate is expected to wholly reject the measure, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tried to set a vote this morning to do just that, but his move was delayed by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (D-KY). The issue was the order of votes, with McConnell insisting that the Senate should vote on the omnibus spending plan to keep the government funded before addressing the payroll tax bill.

The reason for this procedural posturing is that Democrats are loath to vote on the spending plan first, fearing that once it's passed the Republicans will pack up their bags and leave town without addressing the payroll tax. Instead of voting on the omnibus plan, the White House has recommended that they pass another short-term spending bill to give appropriators time to reach consensus, despite the fact that they're reportedly in agreement on 98% of it. Once again, the prospect of a federal government shutdown is looming, with politics apparently to blame. Neither side stands to benefit if the shutdown occurs, so the temporary plan is likely to pass. The fate of the payroll tax plan is still up in the air, however, as the GOP's plan is a total non-starter but the House is unlikely to agree to the Senate's bill. Talk of a shutdown will likely grow over the next couple of days, but it will only serve to further undermine Congress's image in the eyes of voters.

Even when they agree on an issue, Congress still manages to generate controversy, like with the defense authorization bill that's expected to pass this week. The main issue isn't over the amount of money set aside to fund the Defense Department, national security programs in the Energy Department, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, folks are up in arms over provisions in the bill that deal with suspected terrorists. Civil liberties groups oppose the plan because of fears that it could result in the indefinite detention of American citizens. They're calling on President Obama to veto the bill once it passes, but the Administration has been silent on its plans. Considering the fact that he's facing a tough re-election bid in November, the President will probably think twice before vetoing anything involving funding for national security.

Despite average Americans expressing their near-total disapproval of Congress's recent (in)actions, Hill-dwellers are keeping up their political maneuverings. Both sides may be trying to get the upper hand, but their squabbles aren't endearing themselves to anyone. If the next session proves to be more of the same, and all signs indicate that it will, it's looking likely that a number of incumbents will be out of a job. Instead of solidifying power, both sides are ensuring that the 2012 contests will be totally unpredictable.

Top

Thursday, December 08, 2011

Year-End Issues Clouded by Election Year Politics

As the year-end holidays approach, it isn't just malls and retailers who are facing more work and longer hours. Members of Congress are faced with a number of vital tasks before they can take their leave of the 2011 session. The most prominent item on their list—at least if you ask the man on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue—is an extension of the Social Security payroll tax holiday that has been in effect for the last year. While one would expect Republicans to jump at the chance to lower taxes, they're unwilling to jump on board due to how they're being asked to pay for it. They've responded with solutions of their own which are unlikely to be acceptable in the eyes of their Democratic counterparts, so it's left observers wondering whether the extension will be passed at all. There's also the issue of extending unemployment benefits for the ninth time, which faces even longer odds of success. On top of all that, the last continuing resolution is set to run out on Friday, December 16^th, so legislators will need to pass an omnibus spending bill or once again face the specter of a government shutdown. As with any legislative items taken up by this Congress, one is probably safe betting against these, but there's still the chance for the folks on the Hill to surprise the rest of the country and actually pass something.

President Obama has made it clear that extending the payroll tax break is his top year-end priority. The normal rate is 6.2%, but for the last year average Americans have been paying 4.2%. This year, they want to lower it further, preferably down to 3.1%. In order to do so, they will need to find new revenue from some other source, and there, as they say, is the rub. The Democrats' proposal is to finance the cuts with higher marginal tax rates on people making over $1 million a year. Republicans are predictably opposed to such a solution, and have begun proffering some ideas of their own which would make the deal more palatable to their conservative, rank-and-file members in the House. The primary method of paying for the cuts would be a two-year extension of the freeze to federal workers' salaries, but they've also tossed on some riders that would sweeten the deal for House Republicans. The most controversial of these is the addition of language that would greenlight the building of the Keystone oil pipeline from the oil sand fields of Canada down to Texas. Republicans argue that the pipeline's construction would create tens of thousands of jobs but environmentalists oppose it because of the effects it may have on fragile ecosystems. President Obama has called the Republicans' plan a non-starter, and he implied that he would veto any proposal that included the pipeline. Democrats seem convinced that they have a strong political weapon here, as a payroll tax cut would further save approximately $1,000 for a taxpayer making $50,000 a year, which would be attractive to the middle class. Republicans are obviously unwilling to give them such an electoral victory, but they may end up coming out of this tarnished if they oppose it too strongly.

While they try to address the payroll tax issue, members of Congress also have until Monday to come up with an omnibus package of nine spending bills in order to fund the government for the next fiscal year. Of those nine, six appear likely to pass without issue, while three—those for Labor and Health and Human Services; the Interior and Environmental Protection Agency; and Financial Services—have proven so problematic that Congress may just punt on them. To do so, they would pass another continuing resolution that would keep funding levels the same as in 2010. Some members see punting on those contentious issues as an unacceptable solution, but it may be unavoidable. House Republicans appear insistent on attaching various riders, including ones that address pro-life issues, dismantle the President's health care legislation, and defund the Dodd-Frank financial services overhaul. Members will be working over the weekend to come up with solutions. If they don't come up with one, the government may face a shutdown, which could prove disastrous for both sides, as the public loses all faith in Congress's ability to govern.

All of this lawmaking falls under the shadow of the 2012 elections, which are now less than 11 months away. Every decision made by an elected official in Washington is informed by their desire to keep themselves and their party in power. If you thought it was hard for Congress to get anything done in 2011, you ain't seen nothing yet. Get ready for grand-standing and partisan wrangling the likes of which haven't been seen in this town since, well, since the last election year.

Top

Monday, December 05, 2011

Candidate Cain, We Hardly Knew Ye

After a meteoric rise through the ranks of Republican Oval Office-seekers followed by a very public sexual harassment scandal that continued to worsen over the ensuing weeks, former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain announced on Saturday that he had suspended his campaign for the GOP nomination for president, effectively ending his run. Making the announcement before hundreds of enthusiastic supporters, Cain acknowledged that the allegations of sexual improprieties played a part in his decision, although he continued to deny them. While Cain was largely considered a long shot from the outset, his campaign quickly gained momentum in August, thanks to his 9-9-9 tax plan. His exit narrows the field down to seven prospective candidates, and they're all scrambling to pick up his supporters. While there's speculation that he is ready to endorse one of his former competitors, Cain has denied any reports to that effect. His choice could receive a boost in the crucial Iowa caucus, which could have a major impact on the race as a whole.

The remaining candidates wasted little time in courting Cain supporters. Within hours of the announcement, Texas Governor Rick Perry's campaign added a new page to their website specifically targeting those in the Cain camp. On the page, Perry touts his status as a Washington outsider, much like the former pizza CEO, who remains free from the control of the Beltway elites. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN, 6^th) claims that her campaign has already welcomed many wayward Cain fans into their fold, citing her conservative credentials and tea party support as reasons why. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14^th) believes his campaign could receive a boost from Cain supporters, as the two candidates share a certain independent-mindedness.

Despite their optimistic words, most analysts predict that Cain will ultimately come out and endorse his fellow Georgian, Newt Gingrich. Newt has already benefited from Cain's slide in the polls, coming out as the strongest challenge to long-time front-runner Mitt Romney once the allegations of sexual harassment started leaking. Cain staffers have called the two “good friends,” but for the most part have stayed mum over who will benefit from the eventual endorsement. Perhaps in an effort to court the endorsement, Newt was lavish with his praise of Cain after Saturday's announcement, calling him a friend and crediting him with elevating the dialogue of the primary by drawing attention to the issue of tax reform. A Cain endorsement could be just what Gingrich needs to secure a victory in Iowa, which would bode well for his chances at the nomination.

Regardless of who Cain finally backs, the question remains: is his stamp of approval necessarily a positive thing? While he did enjoy increased popularity for a time, the revelation of scandal after scandal did significant damage to his brand. Before he backed out, he was only polling at 9% in Iowa. Furthermore, Cain supporters may have liked his fresh approach, but voters who flock to a candidate due to his independent-mindedness are unlikely to be swayed when he tells them who to vote for. If Cain backs Gingrich, the endorsement could also have the unintended negative consequence of attracting attention to Newt's own indiscretions which have dogged him for years. With such a crowded field, and everyone but Romney battling to separate themselves from the pack, an endorsement may go a long way in accomplishing that, but without a strong connection to a candidate, supporters are just as likely to make up their own minds. Regardless, we'll have to wait and see who Cain crowns, and what effect it will ultimately have on the coming contests.

Top

Monday, November 28, 2011

Frank's Retirement Sets Off Speculation About Democrats' 2012 Chances

Coming back from Thanksgiving break, after recovering from tryptophan overdose and the supercommittee's failure, Congress was surprised by an unexpected bit of news. Earlier this afternoon, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA, 4^th) announced that he will not be seeking re-election next November, capping off a career in the House that spanned over three decades and five presidential administrations. The seventy-one year old Frank was the first member of Congress to come out as homosexual and has been an outspoken proponent for LGBT issues throughout his career. He was the Democratic leader on the House Financial Services Committee from 2007-2011 and was instrumental in crafting legislation which retooled the way Wall Street operated after the 2008 financial crisis. Frank has been a vocal and visible advocate for liberal causes, and, as President Obama put it, the House will not be the same without him.

Frank's announcement predictably spun off a round of speculation as to why the veteran lawmaker chose to end his career. Some pointed to electoral concerns; Frank is coming off the most difficult election of his career, with conservative groups having devoted a large amount of money to the campaign of his opponent, Sean Bielat. Frank ultimately won the contest 53%-43%. In addition to his past woes, his district has also been realigned thanks to the 2010 census. The 4^th will now include almost a third of a million new people, including a number from more conservative towns. Reaching out to a new constituency would require a good amount of campaigning as well as fund-raising, and the septuagenarian Frank is happy to forgo those tasks. While that reason may be believable enough for some, other observers also predict an ulterior motive for Frank. They believe that he is after a cabinet position in the Obama Administration (which means he presumably expects the president to be re-elected next fall). While he had expressed interest in becoming the Secretary for Housing and Urban Development two years ago, he has since backtracked, citing his age as a concern. Frank has some experience with housing, having dealt with issues involving Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae while on the Financial Services Committee. If President Obama were to be re-elected and current-Secretary Shaun Donovan were to retire and if Frank were to be appointed, he would become the first openly gay cabinet member. However, that's a lot of “ifs,” so it's best to wait and see for the time being.

Frank isn't the only Democrat in the House who has announced his impending retirement, although he might be the one with the highest profile. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX, 20^th) has also chosen not to seek re-election, announcing his decision on Friday. Gonzalez is the current head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and his announcement came as something of a surprise, as Texas' redistricting was more favorable to his chances and he'd also raised a significant sum in the last quarter. Prior to these two announcements, 15 other Democrats had decided against defending their current seats. This has caused some to believe that Democrats in general are less-than optimistic about their chances at regaining the majority in the House. There's some decent reasoning behind it, as, historically, there are big retirement numbers by members of a party the term after that party loses power. All this talk may be premature, however, as nine of those 15 have chosen to run for another office, making it less of a retirement and more of an attempt to move on to bigger things. This means they're probably not swayed by their party's bad brand name or poor electoral chances. Still, more members of Congress will likely announce their retirements in the coming weeks, so we'll have a better idea of how many open seats the Democrats will have to try to hold onto in 2012. In some ways, with public opinion of Congress nearly as low as it can go, not having an incumbent playing defense may be better. A fresh face on the scene, unassociated with failures like the supercommittee, may have a better chance to win. Of course, that knife cuts both ways, so it may end up just being a 50/50 chance for both sides.

Top

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Supercommittee's Failure Sets Off Round of the Blame Game

After months of fruitless negotiation, the debt reduction panel, or supercommittee, has reached its deadline with nothing to show for its efforts. The 12-member panel threw in the towel on Monday when it became clear that they wouldn't have a plan scored by the Congressional Budget Office by this evening. While some Washington observers held out hope that it would reach a deal, many expected this failure back in August, before the supercommittee first met. Because the panel did not deliver a new plan, the poison pill provisions will take effect, cutting roughly $600 billion from both defense spending and entitlement programs, disappointing both progressives and national security hawks in one fell swoop. As Congress heads out on its Thanksgiving break, it remains uncertain how the voting public will react to this turn of events, although it's hard to imagine Congress's approval rating getting much worse. As the dust settles, there is plenty of blame to go around, and people are already pointing the fingers, trying to determine what went wrong behind the closed doors of the secretive supercommittee.

Unsurprisingly, President Obama is getting his fair share of the blame from a number of sources. Some folks, including Republican presidentialhopefuls, have taken the opportunity to repeat the criticisms of the president's lack of leadership. Instead of working with he panel's members to force a deal, they accuse him of going out and campaigning during the committee's crisis. Mitt Romney even went so far as to accuse the president of arranging the entire episode in order to make a back-door cut to defense spending. Some of the president's critics took a different stance, however, accusing him of providing misguided leadership. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH, 8th), for example, pointed to the president's insistence on the inclusion of tax increases and jobs-related stimulus in the debt committee's plan as the reason it ultimately failed. It's a time-honored tradition in Washington to blame the president when things go wrong. In this case, there's some truth to it, as President Obama took essentially a hands-off role during the whole negotiation process. This may have been for political reasons, as being associated with the debt panel could be very damaging, hurting his chances of re-election in 2012. Of course, he may have had more practical reasons for not getting involved, as budgetary issues are supposed to be handled by Congress. He put forth a plan in September that would have resulted in more than $3 trillion in cuts. If he had inserted himself into the process even more, he would likely have been accused of meddling and still blamed for the panel's eventual failure.

Both parties, of course, are doing all they can to make sure the other side gets the lion's share of the blame. Democrats point to their opponents' opposition to tax cuts as the main reason a deal couldn't be reached, while Republicans assert that they were willing to concede on new revenues but the other side wouldn't agree to curb spending on entitlement programs. Both parties laid the groundwork for these arguments as they engaged in this kind of finger-pointing throughout the negotiations. Observers argue that it was the GOP that was the least willing to make concessions, and Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge was a big reason for that. Out of the dozen debt panel members, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is getting the most attention, with several outside observers insisting that Kyl, with no concerns about re-election after the end of this term, was free to dig his heels in over any tax increases, thereby sinking any chances of a meeting of the minds. It is important to note that the supercommittee only needed seven out of twelve votes to pass a plan, so blaming on person is probably unfair. Regardless, due to the secretive nature of the panel's proceedings, we'll never truly know what went on behind the closed doors, but we know the result, and it wasn't a success.

Of all the groups that are assigning blame, the most important one of all is the American voting public. As it is, everyone involved is shouldering some of the responsibility. Polls show that those blaming one party are more likely to blame Republicans, although nearly twenty percent of the population think that members of Congress from both parties are equally to blame. Almost a quarter of the country thinks all three sides share the responsibility, and over a third said that the whole ordeal hurt their view of President Obama. If anyone is hoping to get a boost from this debacle, they're probably out of luck, unless they're a GOP candidate for president. Nobody will be walking out of this one untarnished, and their best hope is likely to be that the American people are so fed up with Congress that they aren't even paying attention any more. Otherwise, incumbents just might be an endangered species after November 2012, and that includes inside the White House.

Top

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Time Running Out for Prospects of Supercommittee Success

The supercommittee has just one week to come up with a concrete deficit reduction plan, get it scored by the Congressional Budget Office, and present it to both chambers. That doesn't seem like much time, but some interested parties are still optimistic about the chances of an actual deal coming out of it. While the two sides are still basically at an impasse in negotiations, there's reason to believe that the Democrats have the upper hand in the process. That isn't to say that they're rooting for the panel's failure, but they seem to be more comfortable with the consequences than their Republican opponents. Today has been called “critical” by two of the committee members, and that's not much of an exaggeration, as the CBO scoring will take some time. After that, the plan will have to pass a vote in both the House and the Senate, which in this political climate may be a minor miracle. Before any of that happens, though, there must be a plan, and time is running out for one to be finalized.

There are a few reasons that people familiar with the situation see the Democrats as having a slight upper hand. For one thing, the poison pill provisions are much less palatable to Republicans. The idea of cutting $500 billion from the defense budget is utterly anathema to them, while the cuts to entitlement programs are more attractive to Democrats. There would be no automatic structural changes to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security and cuts to Medicare would be capped at two percent, with insurance companies and healthcare providers bearing the brunt. Republicans are also feeling the pressure from the defense community to avoid the alterations, with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta predicting dire consequences if they were to go into effect. While some GOP members are hanging on to the idea that they can simply reverse the changes with future legislation, they are in for a reality check, as Majority Leader Harry Reid made it clear that he would block any such course of action. While his threats will have less power if his party loses control of the Senate, the minority party still has considerable power in obstructing legislation, as the Republicans have aptly proven.

Whether any side is stronger matters little right now, as the two parties are reportedly still far apart on the major issues. While Republicans have conceded $300 billion in new tax revenues, Democrats are still pressing for $1 trillion. Neither number is totally concrete, and there's still some wiggle room, but it's not significant enough to eclipse that considerable gap. There's also reason to believe that the GOP concessions will not be embraced by the conservatives in the party, which would hurt the plan's chance of passing. As the two sides continue negotiating, a bipartisan group of more than 150 lawmakers are calling on the panel to go big on the cuts, asking for trillions of dollars in savings from both new taxes and cuts to entitlements. The odds of that happening are long indeed; if the panel can't come to an agreement on modest moves, they're unlikely to come up with something monumental.

Lawmakers aren't the only ones concerned about the possibilities of a debt panel deal. Many lobbyists are on the outside of the secretive goings-on, which is causing much consternation to some significant interest groups. They're especially nervous about changes to tax deductions in order to offset cuts to individual tax rates. That could have major implications for charitable organizations, among other groups. Since nobody knows the expected outcome of the panel's negotiations, there will likely be a cavalcade of lobbying by a wide variety of interest groups if a solution gets approved, which could make the plan's passage that much more difficult.

Strangely enough, there's one group of people that seems largely uninterested in the supercommittee: the American public. Polls show that as much as half of the population is uninterested or unaware of what's going on with the deficit reduction panel, and most of the rest are only somewhat familiar with it. A healthy majority also expect it to ultimately fail in its goal. With approval ratings so low, it's unsurprising that people are taking such little interest in Congress, and the repercussions are also unlikely to be strongly felt by your average Joe. What this means for the folks on the supercommittee is that there may be few, if any, consequences, whether they succeed or fail. The Democrats seem largely resigned to failure, and based on the poll numbers, they may be right in feeling that way. After all, if nobody's watching, will they be thinking about this debacle when they vote next November?

Top

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Cain and Romney Alone at Top of Crowded GOP Field

With less than a year left before the nation once again votes for president, the Republican candidates eager to take on Barack Obama next year are doing all they can to separate themselves from the rest of the pack. While the primary season has been in full swing for months, the first contest is going to be held in early January, so the lesser-known candidates have just shy of two months to make a name for themselves. That also means that the front-runners and other big names have to play it safe and avoid any costly mistakes that could scuttle their efforts. It's been a roller-coaster ride already, with folks like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry jumping all over the place. There are also the long-shot candidates like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich holding on to not-insignificant shares. Most surprising of all, though, is Herman Cain, whose meteoric rise to the top has attracted plenty of attention while baffling observers. While you can probably count out the fringe stragglers, like Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum, the field is still wide open and the results anything but certain. Here's where the major candidates stand right now.

There was some question over whether governor of Texas Rick Perry would join the race, but by the time he announced his candidacy in mid-August, he was challenging Mitt Romney for first place. He shot to first soon after, but his popularity was short-lived, peaking in early September and steadily dropping off ever since. As with any candidate for high office, Perry has been a lightning rod for controversy. His connection with conservative religious figures has been widely criticized, especially after one described Romney's Mormon faith as a cult. He's also taken flak for his family's ownership of a ranch with a curiously racist name. While these mini-scandals have been damaging, the worst aspect of Perry's campaign may be his record as governor. He's been slammed by fellow Republicans for some controversial policies, such as mandating HPV vaccines for middle school girls and granting in-state tuition at state universities to the children of undocumented immigrants—resulting in the kiss of death for a Republican, the support of Bill Clinton. Amidst all the to-do, Perry has come off as anything but polished. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing—one can't help but think of another Texas governor-turned presidential candidate—it ultimately blew up in his face during last night's debate. After proclaiming that three federal agencies would have no place in his Administration, he was unable to name the third. He then proceeded to struggle to remember, even asking fellow candidate Ron Paul for some help. His mistake was probably an honest slip of memory, but on a stage where candidates are expected to be heavily prepared, it was a horrible gaffe. Some question whether his campaign can recover, and considering the hole it was already in, the answer is probably “no.” It's too soon to count him out completely, but he's got a long way to go before he's a serious threat again.

Coming seemingly out of nowhere, former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain has taken the torch of businessman-candidate from Mitt Romney. Cain has two previous campaigns under his belt, including one for president in 2000 and another for Senate in 2004. Neither was close to a success, but that hasn't stopped him from shooting to the top of the heap in the current race. He's been in the race since May but didn't enjoy much support until late September, when he won the Florida straw poll, upsetting Romney and putting his name on the map. He has also garnered attention due to his “9-9-9 Plan”, which would replace the current tax code with a business transaction tax of nine percent, a personal income tax of nine percent, and a new nine percent federal sales tax. He's shown less acumen when it comes to foreign policy, openly bragging about his ignorance of the president of “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.” As with any front-runner, Cain has drawn his fair share of flak, with the most negative press surrounding accusations of sexual harassment levied against him by anonymous female employees. He initially denied the allegations, despite financial settlements between his employer and the women involved. Since the scandal broke, more women have publicly added to the allegations. Cain's poll numbers have been largely steady since the story broke, leading some to believe he will weather the storm unscathed. Considering his poor handling of the situation, though, it seems unlikely that his campaign can handle being out in front for a long time.

For most of the race, Mitt Romney has remained in the top tier, with support holding mostly steady throughout the campaign. He's got the most name-recognition in the race, after his unsuccessful attempt at the nomination in 2008. Considering his position atop the polls, he's been getting comparatively little attention from the press. That could be because most of the questions about him were answered during his previous campaign, but it could also be due to general voter antipathy toward him. With all the apparent advantages he has, such as his deep pockets and brand recognition, he's been unable to secure first place. Whether it's his Mormon faith or his association with health care reform in Massachusetts, he's simply failed to grab the attention of a large number of Republican voters. They may be shopping around right now, trying to find someone they like more than Mitt, but that doesn't mean they can't ultimately come back to him. Still, if he wins the nomination it's probably bad news for the GOP, because such a lack of enthusiasm is very telling about a candidate's chances against a sitting president. While things look dire for the Democrats, Obama has proven himself to be a skilled campaigner, and he won't go down without a fight.

Top

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Failure Speculation on the Rise as Deficit Talk Stagnation Continues

With over two weeks left between now and the deficit committee's deadline, there's still some time for the twelve member panel to come up with a plan to tackle the nation's debt. Despite that fact, most people around Washington aren't very optimistic about the odds of that actually happening. The folks on the super committee are reportedly still hung up on the same crucial issue when it comes to whittling away at the trillions we owe: how to address the issue of taxes. Democrats are still adamant about including new forms of revenue, while Republicans are insisting on accomplishing that with revisions to the tax codes. The panel hasn't met as a whole since last Monday, which is a cause for concern to just about all interested parties, although some members have been meeting one-on-one. There's been talk about a possible extension of the deadline, but the committee's members are shying way from that idea. If the panel doesn't succeed in its task, the poison pill provisions will kick in, cutting roughly $600 billion from the defense budget over the next decade and an equal slash to entitlement spending. As the clock ticks inexorably onward, some folks in charge have stopped thinking of solutions and are bracing for that very eventuality.

The talk around Washington has been less-than comforting to those still hoping for a solution to come out of the super committee. The word “failure” is popping up all over the place, and the talk hasn't all been from the media and private sector experts. People within government have started openly questioning whether the panel can succeed, most notably Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Yesterday, the veteran Democratic lawmaker predicted that the super committee would not accomplish its goal, taking a jab at the GOP's refusal to embrace tax cuts in any form. Today, he backpedaled a bit over the severity of his comments, but still insisted that the major issue is the Republicans' refusal to agree to new revenues. Not all Congressional leaders are so outwardly pessimistic, with both House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH, 8^th) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, 8^th) expressing guarded optimism over the chance of success. Officials from the Obama Administration are also decrying the rumors of the panel's demise as exaggerated. Still, despite all of this relatively upbeat talk, there have been few, if any, reports of actual progress being made. By all accounts, they're stuck over the same issues, and there's little time left to come to a compromise.

It's little surprise, then, that some Democrats have apparently switched gears, strategically speaking. Instead of negotiating with the other side to avoid an impasse, they have reportedly begun trying to turn the near-inevitable failure of the super committee to their political advantage. Analysts point to Schumer's doom-and-gloom comments as a prime example, as they place the blame squarely on the Republicans for failing to accept any new revenue sources. One can hardly blame the Democrats for counting on the committee's lack of success. After all, the safe bet in Washington for years has been that the Democrats will be the first to swerve in any game of political chicken. If they're serious about standing their ground on the issue of new revenues, the odds of the panel's failure are high indeed.

They're not the only ones who are apparently resigned to the panel's failure and are now concerned with the consequences. Some folks around Washington are unworried about the poison pill provisions taking effect. They argue that the cuts to defense spending would be so drastic and unpalatable to your average member of Congress that they would simply pass legislation undoing the changes before they take effect. While the prediction may be a bit risky, it's not an unfounded one and has some support . National security is one of the few issues that can garner bipartisan support. Even in a time of economic uncertainty, trimming the defense budget is not a popular position to take, and restoring it once it's been altered will probably be a safe move, politically speaking. Restoring the cuts to entitlement spending is not as likely to happen, which means Democrats who are serious about protecting those programs should be a bit more driven to negotiate.

The future of the deficit reduction panel's efforts are uncertain, just like the consequences of their failure. Some predict that it would lead to economic disaster, while there are rumblings around Wall Street about fears of another credit downgrade for the nation. Of course, since that happened in August, the dire consequences that were supposed to happen never really came about. That may have just been a lucky break, and the potential for disaster could still exist, but unless lawmakers feel a true sense of urgency, nothing will get done. Hopefully for them, and for the nation, an actual disaster isn't just around the corner.

Top

Friday, November 04, 2011

Lawmakers Propose Plans to Save Postal Service

It's often cited as a prominent example of the public sector's inability to run an organization efficiently and some of its critics question whether it is still necessary in this technological era, but the majority of Americans agree that the United States Postal Service still serves an important purpose. In order to continue serving that purpose, action must be taken to save the mail delivery organization as it is currently hemorrhaging cash and is threatened with insolvency. Postal Service officials have tried numerous methods of righting the ship, such as raising the price of stamps six times in the past ten years, but they have proven largely unsuccessful. Members of Congress have stepped in with plans on how to save the national institution, but just like with everything they do, the proposals have been surrounded by controversy. The fate of the agency is still unknown, but something will have to change as the Service is fast approaching its borrowing limit of $15 billion.

One of the central issues in the Postal Service's financial crisis is a disagreement over retirement benefits. Starting in the 1970s, the Service has been making mandatory payments to the Civil Service Retirement System. Recently, the agency's Inspector General and two independent hiring firms came to the conclusion that the Service has been vastly overpaying for decades, to the tune of as much as $75 billion. Last month, the Government Accountability Office released a report that said otherwise, claiming that they found no evidence of errors in payments. They calculated that returning the funds to the Postal Service would cost taxpayers $85 billion, which House Republicans have referred to as a bailout. The report did acknowledge an overpayment of $6.9 billion into the Federal Employee Retirement System, which is expected to be refunded, but there will still be intense debate over the other, much larger, number.

Members of Congress in both parties can agree on one fundamental aspect of the issue: the Postal Service needs help, badly. Unsurprisingly, they disagree on how that help should be provided. Last month, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee considered a bill which would tackle the problem. The legislation, called the Issa-Ross Postal Reform Act of 2011, and includes steps such as installing an oversight board to recommend post office closures, cancellation of Saturday deliveries (or, alternatively, an additional 12 days off a year), and easing out nearly 200,000 employees who are at or near retirement. While the committee's efforts enjoyed some bipartisan support, Democrats voiced opposition to some of the proposals, such as the reductions to the labor force, and they decried Republican attempts to ram the bill through without coming to consensus. Despite these protests, the bill was approved by the committee by a vote of 22-18.

This month, a group of Senators from both sides of the aisle have addressed the issue, putting forth a plan somewhat similar to the one waiting for House approval, although the two bills are not without their differences. The plan would also include thousands of workers retiring, although only about half the number the House bill calls for. The Senate bill would also restructure the way in which the Postal Service deals with workers' compensation claims as well as move it away from door-to-door deliveries. One difference is that it would put off the scrapping of Saturday deliveries for at least two years. The proposals still need to be brought together into a coherent bill, which will then be marked up in committee, but they've already garnered some positive feedback from folks within the industry.

That's not to say that it won't be a difficult task to combine the bills from the two chambers, and then to overcome strong objections from various interested parties, but it's a step in the right direction. Postal Service reform is often talked about and rarely addressed, but with the financial state it's in, something has to give. While it's becoming less and less relevant with each passing year, the post office is still a necessity in many ways, and letting it go out of business or be replaced with a private sector alternative isn't really a viable option.

Top

Friday, October 28, 2011

Super Committee Members Speak Out, But Still Split on Savings

After a month of secrecy and relative obscurity, the super committee is back in the headlines after releasing competing proposals for deficit reduction as well as holding a public meeting on Wednesday. The purpose of the hearing was ostensibly to discuss discretionary spending, but the members also addressed a variety of other issues, such as income distribution and tax reform. Unsurprisingly, the hearing was marked by disagreements between Democrats and Republicans on the panel over the need for cuts to non-defense discretionary spending, which accounts for about twenty percent of overall federal spending. The parties did manage to find common ground on some issues, but the tension between them was noticeable, driving home the fact that there still exists a sizable gap between the two sides. While the committee still has until November 23^rd to come up with a workable plan, any proposal must be scored by the Congressional Budget Office, which makes the actual deadline much closer.

Earlier this week, Democrats on the committee put forth a plan that would result in roughly $3 trillion in savings—more than double the amount the panel was tasked with generating. The proposal includes cuts to federal entitlement programs, including Medicare, as well as more than $1 trillion in new revenues. Portions of the plan were lifted from some of the ideas discussed in the summer's Grand Bargain talks between President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH, 8^th). Despite the entitlement concessions (which have drawn the ire of liberal Democrats in the House), Republicans have rejected the plan due to—you guessed it—the inclusion of new tax revenues. They also responded with a plan of their own which would result in a more modest $2.2 trillion in savings, including deeper cuts to Medicare and no new tax revenues. In fact, their proposal counterintuitively includes cuts to corporate and individual taxes for the purpose of generating new revenue. The Democratic response to the proffered plan was predictable, with one staffer going so far as to call it a joke. Speaker Boehner, in what may have been the understatement of the week, observed that the panel is heading into a “real tough time.” While the panel members have finally spoken up and briefly pulled back the shroud of secrecy, the public announcements are too vague to be much comfort to anyone worried about the potential for a compromise. The reactions to both plans are also disappointing, as the committee seems no closer to a meeting of the minds than they have been since the panel's inception.

Congressional observers aren't the only ones concerned by the apparent lack of progress made by the committee. Other members of Congress are equally dismayed by the partisan line-drawing, and dozens of House members have responded by drafting a letter to the panel calling for a bipartisan grand bargain. The group of nearly 80 representatives is led by Reps. Mike Simpson (R-ID, 2^nd) and Heath Shuler (D-NC, 11^th), and contains liberals and conservatives in addition to the expected moderates. The letter follows upon the heels of one signed earlier this month by more than 30 Senators which urged the panel to shoot for the moon and make cuts of $4 trillion. The latest letter shows that a significant number of members of Congress are interested in a bipartisan deal, but 80 representatives is still less than 20% of the lower chamber and may not have much of an effect. Furthermore, a general call for cooperation is much easier than voting for a plan that includes elements that are strongly opposed by one's base. The cynical crowd might even suggest that the open calls for bipartisan compromise may be a response to the fact that Congress's approval rating has sunk to a historic low of 9%. While campaign concerns usually cause members to dig in their heels and stump for policies that would appease their base, the classic formula may not be the best solution in the current political climate.

In some ways, the super committee's secrecy may have been a blessing, as it allowed people to imagine that progress was being made. Now that there's been some public indicia of what's going on behind the scenes, it's obvious that the panel is suffering from the same kind of gridlock that is afflicting the rest of Congress. The poison pills which will be enacted if the panel fails to arrive at a compromise are anathema to both sides, but members of Congress usually prefer inaction over affirmative moves that would enrage their constituents. Optimists will point out that it only takes one brave member to cross the aisle and support the other side's plan. Pessimists well agree, but point out that this is Washington, and the odds of such a person stepping up are long indeed.

Top

Friday, October 21, 2011

Little Progress Seen Behind Super Committee's Wall of Secrecy

It's been over two months since the so-called "super committee" was signed into existence, and by all accounts progress has been slow. The group of 12 legislators has been assigned the unenviable task of agreeing on methods to tackle the sizable national debt and finding ways to save at least $1.2 trillion before Thanksgiving or a series of automatic changes will take place that are unpalatable to both parties. The dozen members of the panel are keeping mum for the most part, so progress is difficult to gauge, but most observers seem to agree that it isn't going well. With another month left to figure out the best way to tackle the issue, some on the Hill are worried that nothing will happen, and the poison pill that was voted on in August is likely to take effect. While the actual financial costs of the super committee's failure are known, the political ramifications of such a development are difficult to surmise. Suffice to say, it's unlikely to improve the already dismal approval ratings that Congress is facing from virtually all Americans.

It should come as no surprise that one of the biggest sticking points is the issue of taxes. Democrats remain steadfast in their demands for new revenue sources, while Republicans on the panel are just as strong in their opposition. The problem is an age-old one, and strikes the very core of both parties' platforms. Even after weeks of negotiations, it appears neither side has budged much. Members of Congress from bothparties have proffered recommendations on how the issue should be addressed, and they basically fall down party lines. This week the panel also met with the Gang of Six, whose proposals were ultimately rejected by the full Congress. Because of the committee's silence, nobody's sure about the amount of progress being made, but sources close to the panel report that they're considering alterations to the tax code rather than any new tax sources. Other areas that the super committee appears to be addressing include changes to Medicare and Medicaid, further cuts for the federal workforce, and cuts to the defense budget. The good news for national defense hawks is that the panel's apparently settling on roughly $100 billion in cuts to the Pentagon's budget, as opposed to the $600 billion that would automatically be slashed if the committee fails. While all of these ideas are being bandied about, reports show that there is little in the way of a cohesive framework that addresses them all. While the committee still has a full month to get this together, only the optimistic are expecting it to get done.

While information about the super committee and its actions is hard to come by, there's one group of people who seem to have a good deal of access to the panel and its members: lobbyists. While there was much ado about the choice of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) to serve on the committee due to the fact that she runs the Senate campaign arm of the Democratic Party, it turns out that many members of the panel have close ties with lobbyists as well as bundlers who funnel large amounts of cash toward members hoping to remain in office. While some open-government advocates and even some members of Congress balk at this arrangement, the members on the panel defend the situation. They liken their assignment to any other in Congress and argue that, just like the rest of their colleagues, they still need to run for re-election. That hasn't stopped them from trying to limit the access lobbyists have - or at least appearing to do so for the sake of public image. Still, lobbyist access is business as usual on the Hill, and it's unlikely that any of the 12 members would shy away from potential campaign donations from corporations and other well-heeled interest groups. Even if they end up coming up with a plan that passes both houses of Congress, it's unlikely that there would be direct reprisals against them in the form of voter revolt. At least no more so than any members of Congress will be facing next year.

While the deadline is still a few weeks away, the clock is ticking on the super committee and its assigned task. Even if they come to an agreement on all of the substantive issues that at least seven members agree to, they'll have to put together a cohesive plan and then send it to the Congressional Budget Office to see if it passes muster. After that, the plan will be voted on by both chambers, and will pass with a simple majority. Considering the state of Congress right now, that's nothing to sneeze at. We'll find out more around Turkey Day, but right now, things aren't looking so good.

Top

Friday, October 14, 2011

After Slow Start, Rep. Issa Begins to Make His Mark

The 112th Congress began with a lot of talk coming from the Republicans who were ebullient after a landslide victory in the House. Some of the most vocal chatter came out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and its chair, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA, 49th). From the outset, Issa pledged to target the federal bureaucracy and eliminate waste, fraud, and other abuses in the executive branch by holding hearings. Lots and lots of hearings. Since that time almost a year ago, the Oversight Committee has been relatively quiet, whether because the talk ended up being a lot of bluster or simply because other more pressing matters kept the hearings off the front page. Regardless, Issa finally has the chance to make his big splash, as minor scandals have come to light, giving the chair and his committee a chance to hold hearings and investigate. It remains to be seen how deep these issues run and whether there will be consequences for high-ranking officials in the White House, and perhaps the President himself.

The first imbroglio centered around Solyndra, a Silicon Valley-based solar company which collapsed last month resulting in a default on a half-billion dollar federal loan from the Department of Energy designed to incentivize sources of clean energy. The company's demise led to raids by the FBI and questions from Capitol Hill. The scrutiny came because of a deal the Energy Department worked out, where the company refinanced and paid back investors before returning the federal government money. It also came to light that one of the biggest investors was billionaire George Kaiser, who is a leading fundraiser for President Obama. Add to that the fact that the President visited the company's plant in May of 2010, and you have all the makings of a minor scandal. Congressional Republicans wasted little time in launching an investigation, and Issa and his crew have turned up some damning information. They've turned up emails from within the Administration questioning whether the practice of putting investors before taxpayers was actually legal in light of a 2005 law dealing with loan guarantees to clean energy corporations. Issa has also taken the opportunity to hold investigations about the loan program for alternative energy companies, which makes it a prime candidate for the cutting room floor. While there's little doubt that mistakes were made by Department of Energy officials, it's uncertain how high up the responsibility will go; whether it will travel as high as Secretary Steven Chu, and even go so far as to tarnish the President. While $535 million is undoubtedly a lot of money, it sounds like chump change next to the numbers being tossed around the Hill this year, so average Americans may not muster up much outrage over this mess.

The other scandal to rock the Obama Administration is known as "Fast and Furious," or "Gunwalker" and involves an ATF attempt to track thousands of firearms after they were purchased in America and smuggled to Mexico. Somewhere along the way, the undercover operation, which started in 2009, went horribly wrong, as weapons in the program found their way into the hands of drug cartels and have been used in violent crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent. The debacle has led to the dismissal of the U.S. Attorney in Arizona as well as the acting head of the ATF. The Justice Department has launched an investigation into the matter, and Rep. Issa has gotten involved as well. He's held a number of hearings and subpoenaed thousands of documents - not to mention Attorney General Eric Holder. The whole fiasco undoubtedly represent a failure on the part of federal law enforcement officials, but it's still undetermined how high up the chain it went. It's become apparent that Holder knew about it sometime last year, but the President has yet to be personally implicated. We'll have to wait and see how the story develops before we can gauge how damaging it will be. It's probably a safe bet that it won't become, as the president of the NRA called it, "the biggest cover-up since Watergate."

Despite Issa's hopes, these debacles probably won't reach the level of scandals like Whitewater or the Lewinski affair, but they may linger for a while in the background of the Washington news. They probably won't still be around next November, but if Congressional Republicans raise enough of a stink, they may be able to get them into the public eye. If they succeed in closely associating the names "Solyndra" and "Fast and Furious" with that of the President, it could do some damage in next year's elections. Right now, though, it's too early to tell for sure.

Top

Friday, October 07, 2011

Reid's Rule Change Causes Chaos in Senate

After a long summer of gridlock and bickering, Congress is back from a short break, and they've got a full plate of legislative issues to tackle. There's the issue of unemployment, with the President's American Jobs Act waiting to be addressed. Just over the horizon looms another budget battle where the nation will once again likely be faced with the prospect of a government shutdown if the two parties can't come to an agreement. It's little wonder, than, that the Senate has chosen to address an issue that's a little less electric: Chinese currency manipulation. The issue itself is not that simple or straightforward, but it doesn't directly address the kitchen table, bread-and-butter topics that are hitting close to home for average Americans, so members of Congress may address it without thinking about re-election next November. A bill in the Senate addresses the issue and even has enough bipartisan support to pass, but opposition by the President and a highly controversial procedural rules change have caused some to doubt whether this largely populist will come to pass.

At issue is the Chinese government's practice of manipulating the value of its currency, the yuan, to keep it artificially low. This leads to an effective tariff on all items imported from foreign countries and a subsidy on all imports. Beyond Sino-American trade, the manipulation also affects American trade with other major markets, such as Europe, where China is the nation's biggest competitor. According to economists, this has had the effect of leeching as many as 2.25 million jobs from the American economy. The Obama Administration has tried to convince their Chinese counterpart to allow the currency's value to rise at a natural rate and keep the global economy fair and competitive, but the folks in Beijing have been dragging their feet. This has led to the current bill, which is designed to punish China for it's inequitable practices. In essence, the bill would trigger retaliatory tariffs against countries which the Treasury Department deems to have "misaligned" currencies, regardless of intent. Some analysts believe that even bringing the bill up for consideration would have the desired effect, while others fear that it could result in an all-out trade war. Regardless, it has bipartisan support in the Senate and, after overcoming a filibuster attempt, was looking at a swift passage until last night when it ran into a road block.

After the filibuster was overcome, Senate Republicans attempted another time-honored method of defeating bills that have the support of the majority: tacking on unrelated and unpopular amendments. In order to prevent this from happening, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) moved to overhaul a Senate procedural rule on the consideration of bills once a filibuster has been stuck down. Normally, after a failed filibuster the Senate held 30 hours of debate in which amendments could be considered and scheduled for a vote, if there was unanimous consent. Also, the rules could be waived during that period with the support of 67 votes. Reid's new rule - which passed along party lines, 51-48 - makes it so Senators cannot vote to waive the rules once a filibuster has been defeated. While this may not be a monumental shift in policy, rules changes such as this are typically shied away from, so as not to open the door to changes that would be substantial and controversial. Republicans reacted to the rules change with outrage over what they view as an erosion of the rights of the minority party. Democrats called the rule necessary to avoid stalling tactics even after a failed filibuster.

This is just the latest squabble in a highly contentious and partisan Congress. Despite symbolic gestures to show that civility and cooperation are possible, such as the aisle-crossing "date night" at the President's State of the Union address, the rancor between the two sides is strong as ever. As next year's elections approach, it will only get worse. It's little wonder that over 80% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing. Even when they attempt to tackle an issue that should have broad support from the voting public the tensions ignite into another ugly spat such as this. While this may result in a number of legislators losing their job next November, what it almost certainly won't result in is a solution to the nation's problems at a time when it's needed most.

Top