Why Do House Republicans Need A Majority Leader?

One of the questions that keeps popping up in my head as the debt limit debate grinds on is why Republicans need three noses in the tent (McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor) when there are only two bodies of Congress? Don't get me wrong--I'm not here to rant against the tactics of Eric Cantor.  But presumably, the Speaker of the House--who does not preside over the body ordinarily, who does not routinely even vote on legislation, and who generally does not serve on any committee--has both the time AND the mandate to "lead" the majority in the House.  Clausewitz gave us "unity of command" for a reason...we should heed his prescription. 

Birds Gotta Fly, Fish Gotta Swim.....

As the clock ticks on a shutdown of the Federal Government, I am amused by some of my Facebook friends' views on the matter.  Folks like to use Facebook to spout off on what ails them, and I'm no exception.  But I've seen a few of my Dem friends rallying around their flag and blaming where we are on Speaker Boehner.  Doing so shows a remarkable lack of sophistication from a group of folks who usually claim to be so darn smart (whilst we Repubs are the knuckle-draggers).

The Tea Party candidates were elected by their constituents to cut the size of government.  They are exerting pressure to do what they were elected to to.

The Liberal Democrats in the Congress were elected by their constituents to protect spending and the social welfare architecture.

Moderates in both parties were elected by their constituents to find compromise.

To my estimation, Congress is doing EXACTLY what we (all of us) elected them to do.  It is acting EXACTLY as it should be expected to act.  Anyone who hopes or wishes for better is naive.

But--this does not take Congress off the hook in a search for villains.  It simply takes THIS Congress off the hook.  What cannot be explained adequately by even the most sophisticated observer of Congress is why the previous Congress--which had majorities in the House and Senate--FAILED to pass a budget which would have averted ALL OF THIS?  If you apply the logic above, you are left with the inescapable conclusion that the Democrats controlling the Executive and the Legislative Branches would have done what they were elected to do, and that they controlled all the levers of power to do exactly that.  But they failed. Worse, they failed in a most cravenly political manner--they pushed off passing a budget because they believed it would impact their election results in 2010.  How'd that strategy work for you, Nancy, Harry and Barack? 

End the Filibuster? No Thank You

After listing an impressive run of liberal legislative victories in the Congress just past, Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation tells us in this morning's WaPost that there could have been more--if not for that pesky filibuster.  I submit that the filibuster (or its threat) has therefore done its job.  The framers saw the Senate as a deliberative body, the "saucer in which the hot tea" of the House cools.  While there is no reference to the filibuster in the founding documents, its presence is a wholly predictable given the framer's desires for the Senate and the Constitutional power of each chamber to set its own rules.

vanden Heuvel

I wonder if Ms. Vanden Heuvel was as aggressively anti-filibuster when GWB had a Senate Majority and was seeking to place conservative judges on the bench.  Methinks not.  The point is, while the filibuster has come to be used more than it has in the past, the Senate continues to pass legislation, fill vacancies, pass treaties, and authorize wars.  That it sometimes serves to slow those processes should surprise no one, and should serve as a reminder of the dazzling brilliance of the founders who created the Senate in the first place.

A Portrait of a Freshman

Here's an interesting story of one of the incoming newly minted Republican members, Mike Kelly from Pennsylvania.  This guy could be fun--he certainly says a lot of sensible things.  How he became interested in running for Congress is a story unto itself.  Well worth reading...

Don't Panic...

But as of this writing, the Dow is off triple digits (267 points at 10:50am). Oh, that and Congress just agreed to a deal extending expanded unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed through the remainder of the year.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

Congressional Dems To Skip Budget Process This Year

From the WaPost and straight from the horse's mouth (well, Steny Hoyer), Democrats (like Republicans while they were in control) are unlikely to bring up budget talks this Fall, as we wouldn't want all those untidy facts to come out right about the time folks are trying to get re-elected.

Here's Steny's riff: "it is difficult to pass budgets in election years because, you know, they reflect what is the status. And the status of this country was brought into deep debt by the economic policies of the Bush administration."

Notice the continuing reliance on the previous administration; notice the evasion of responsibility by the Majority Leader of the party in power in Congress since 2006. Notice what's missing here: any suggestion that such a budget might actually MITIGATE any of the debt we currently find ourselves in, whether legacy Bush debt (actually, Bush debt is the accumulated debt of the Republic, but that's another post) or Obama debt.

Obviously, they will eventually have to take up the budget--but it will be after the November elections.

Such courageous people, our Representatives in Washington.

Congressman Retiring--Sexual Harassment Alleged

I've written about Congressman Eric Massa here before. I worked with him 18 years ago while both of us were on active duty, and I sent him money for his campaign for the House in 2008--even though he was a Democrat with whom I had little policy agreement. I knew him to be an honest, hard-working guy, and so I sent him a check. We've seen each other in town a couple of time since his election, and he's remained friendly (though a bit pompous--a charge that could have been made against him15 years ago, or against both of us today for that matter....).

He now appears to be in a bit of hot water. Very hot water. I don't think I can honestly say that I would have seen something like this coming.

H/T--Instapundit

Barney Frank Says Healthcare is Dead

Right here (sort of) in this video. Interesting statement. I just want to know who the man is that was doing the story?

Tonight: The Conservative Wahoo Live! at 8PM Eastern

Join me tonight for The Conservative Wahoo Live! at 8PM (click here for the show). We'll spend a half-hour talking about Scott Brown's big win last night and other current events, then at 8:30 we'll be joined by candidate for Congress in Virginia's 5th District Michael McPadden. The 5th District is a sprawling, mainly rural district currently served by a Democrat in Congress. McPadden is running in a crowded Republican field and we'll take some time to analyze his race with him. McPadden's a Virginia Tech Hokie--but I won't let that get in the way of pleasant dialogue.

A Tactical Error In The Making

To some extent, I think that all the cosmic tumblers are clicking into place for the President and the Congress to get a healthcare bill passed. I've predicted here all along that they'd get something rather than walk away with nothing. One of my professors in grad school used to say that "in the Congress, the majority does not rule--but a determined majority does". This is a determined majority.

That said, I believe that they are getting ready to make a procedural, tactical mistake--one that could come back to haunt them. It's a little wonky, and a little process-based, but it's worth bringing up.

There are wide differences between the House and Senate bills. The House bill is--for want of a better term--a more liberal bill. That is, it appeals far more to the the Party base. What happens when each body passes a different bill is that a "conference committee" is appointed by party leaders of each party. The majority gets more members, of course, and those members are appointed by the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader--so they are controlled and reliable. In conference, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. They can pick and choose, merge, or throw bills out altogether. What comes out of conference is then voted on by each chamber and is not subject to amendments. It appears though, that Democratic leaders are going to do a "conference-lite", in which the Senate Bill is largely accepted by House conferees. This is designed to ensure that whatever the final bill is, it can be passed by the Senate--and the care in which they are moving forward leads me to believe that they'll still need the 60 votes for a motion to proceed, even on a conference bill.

So far, the Democrats have been patient. The President has seen deadline after deadline slip by, as the slow business of legislating is done. But they are really, really trying to get something done before the State of the Union speech (whose date has not yet been set, incidentally). And it is in this final loss of patience with process that the remaining hopes for the bills scuttling are found. The seeds are here to disappoint many in the House--that is, a final bill that 1) removes abortion language driven by pro-life Dem Bart Stupak, and 2) does not contain a public option. Short circuiting the process can and will alienate those in the House who believe the Senate measure is too liberal or not liberal enough. Remember--the House passed its bill by the skin of its teeth. Three changed votes and it doesn't pass.

Is this a long-shot? Yes. As much as I dislike Nancy Pelosi, I think she's a fine tactician. I think she knows how to count. If she thinks she's got the votes to go forward, then she probably does. But it is in this rush at the end that any hope for a mistake exists. Let's hope they make it, so that this poor package of policies is dispatched and a real discussion of health insurance reform can be had.

Blue Dog Comes Home

Alabama freshman House Member Parker Griffith is switching to the Republican Party. He's from a conservative district, and he voted against the stimulus.

This is a good sign.

Oh--and he's a Doctor. Some traction will come of this one....

Senate Dems On Track To Pass Healthcare Bill

Now that Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson have made their stands against the Democratic Caucus in the Senate and gotten what they wanted out of and into the bill, it appears that Senator Reid has cobbled together a coalition that achieves the 60 votes necessary to end debate on the measure. A vote on the measure itself is expected on Christmas Eve.

For those unfamiliar with the legislative process, a bit of explanation follows. What we have now are essentially two different healthcare bills; one produced in the House, one produced in the Senate. They are very, very different bills. The bill the House passed cannot pass the Senate. The bill the Senate passed would have a difficult time passing in the House. The Speaker and the Senate Leader will now appoint "conferees" who will make up a conference committee. It will "reconcile" the two bills. It can do this by 1) throwing one out and adopting the other--which is unlikely but possible--Pelosi may recognize that the only way she gets the Blue Dogs is to accept the Senate bill--though this could cost her a lot of liberal votes 2) throwing both bills out and starting over with a clean slate--even more unlikely or 3) creating a new bill that is a series of compromises hammered out between the two--most likely.

The interesting thing about what comes out of this conference committee is that it (I don't believe) is not subject to amendments. It must be voted up or down. Whether or not it must also pass a "motion to proceed" in the Senate (raising the specter of another filibuster fight) is unknown to me--perhaps someone more familiar with Senate rules could comment.

The bottom line here: I believe conservatives have fought the good fight. I believe we rode the zeitgeist about as far as it could go. I believe we did a wonderful job of keeping this monstrosity of a bill from being more egregious than it is. But--there will be healthcare reform, it will look much like whatever comes out of the Senate, and it will happen by the end of January.

We must not accept this; we must make "tearing down this wall" a rallying cry for the next Congress, one we usher in with an overwhelming Republican victory in 2010. Time to get to work.

David Brooks On The Senate Healthcare Bill

David Brooks does a pretty good job of teasing out the good and the bad in this bill. Additionally, he reminds us that a Republican President and a Republican Congress passed a prescription drug benefit without really figuring out how to pay for it (as opposed to the proponents of this measure who seem to have thought through offsets, though they rely on Congress resisting the urge to act like itself). The current fascination among Republican leaders with deficit neutrality rings somewhat hollow in the face of that vote.

A Look at the CBO

The Congressional Budget Office has risen to prominence amidst the ongoing healthcare debate, with each bill coming forward creating a papal election-like period of anticipation while the CBO "scores" it for revenue/deficit impact. And while imperfect, CBO is one of the things that Congress can point to having created for which it should be justifiably proud.

Peter Suderman at Reason Magazine gives us a good look at CBO here.

The CIA and Congressional Democrats

I've watched this latest dust-up between the CIA and Congress and waited for there to be some light amidst the heat. On the one hand, you've got the Director of the CIA sort of breathlessly heading over to the Congress to divulge this assassination team thing, there to be greeted by a group of Democrats spoiling for a fight in order to save the honor of their wounded (by the CIA) speaker Pelosi. On the other, you've got folks from the CIA saying "wait a minute, we didn't inform Congress because this was not an operational program; it was "on the drawing board", it was a concept/plan."

I think as things shake out, it will turn out to be pretty much as the CIA says...that there was no need to tell Congress yet--and that the leaks that came out of the Congress after Panetta's admission were a good sign of why it is you keep stuff FROM Congress until you absolutely have to tell them.

What bothers me at this point though is WHY THE HELL WE HAVEN'T HAD THIS PROGRAM UP AND OPERATIONAL? Here I am, fat, dumb, and happy since 9-11, thinking that we had guys out there around the world taking these Islamo-fascists down one at a time (a la Spielberg's "Munich"). But no. We were just talking about it. We were just planning it. We were doing just enough to not have to tell Congress about it.

Al-Quaeda must be quaking in its boots.