SUMMING UP: "Gather ye rosebuds while ye may. . . ."

NOTE: Following today's posting, this blog is taking a holiday break and will return on January 5. Happy Holidays to all!

-0-0-0-

This posting is intended as a political summing up of recent legislative activity in Congress, although a bit of work remains for the special session including Senate action, up or down, on a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. In thinking about the past four weeks of congressional activity during the special session, lines from the poet Robert Herrick came to mind:

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may
Old Times is still a-flying
And this same flower that smiles to-day,
Tomorrow will be dying.

During his 2007-08 presidential campaign, President Obama made much of his goal to bring a new spirit of bipartisanship to Washington to support his larger goal of bringing a new era of change to the country. Throughout the last two years, however, the most often sounded word to describe congressional legislative action was "partisanship" with others, including myself, often prefacing the term with "obstructionist GOP". There was legislation that attracted two-party support but on the biggest issues partisanship was clearly evident. This partisanship was most evident in the early passage of the $800 billion stimulus bill to jump start an economy in deep recession. And despite efforts to get bipartisan support for his health care reform package and greater federal regulation of financial markets, the votes generally split along party lines. Certainly that was the case in the Senate where it took considerable effort to get the support of the two or three GOP Senators needed to cross the 60-vote threshold to prevent a filibuster.

Suddenly in the special session which began in mid-November, bipartisanship seemed to break out and Obama, who said the Democrats had taken a "shellacking" in the mid-term elections, is now looking like the new Comback Kid . For both Obama and the GOP congressional leadership, the special session was a time of opportunity, for gathering rosebuds. For Obama it was get what you can before the Republicans take over the House in January and increase their seats in the Senate. For the GOP leadership, it was a time to horse trade with the President. At the top of Obama's "must" list were preservation of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and extension of unemployment benefits. The GOP "must" list included extension of the upper income cuts which Obama wanted to end, plus getting whatever additional tax benefits they could for the wealthy. For the GOP it also meant a brief window of opportunity to do some things that might be more difficult in January when the newly elected Tea Party legislators come to town (more later).

The load-bearing legislation was the $800+ billion unpaid-for tax package. For Obama it was also an economic stimulus bill hidden inside a tax package; for Republicans it was a tax package for the rich posing as bipartisanship. But for Obama there was a political cost in the form of opposition from liberal lawmakers, particularly in the House, who thought the package was a sell out to the rich. But liberals got some surprising payoff when, with enough GOP Senate support, a bill repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell on gays serving in the military received final congressional approval and went to Obama for signature. But Republican support faded on the DREAM act to deal with younger undocumented residents when the bill went down to defeat in the Senate failing to meet the 60-vote threshold. If the nuclear treaty, Obama's foreign policy "must", gets the 67-votes needed for Senate ratification, it will be because of Republican support. So does the outbreak of bipartisanship in the special session signal a new "era of good feeling" between Obama and congressional Republicans? As a political skeptic, I would say not likely.

Since this blog began in mid-July, it was noted on several occasions that the Tea Party (TP) with its very visible, vocal, and well-funded activism, had pushed traditionally conservative Republicans even farther to the right ideologically. With the TP's notable election successes, the question turned to whether the establishment GOP would co-opt the new TP legislators or whether the latter would act as a cohesive far-right voice that would force the establishment congressional leaders to bend to its policy demands.

Right now the signals are mixed. The bedrock TP policy since it began in early 2009 has been to cut federal spending and reduce the national debt NOW. Despite that position and TP protests, the establishment GOP in Congress, primarily through Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, carried out an agreement that adds $800+ billions to the deficit and debt over the next two years. Although much of that is from continuation of the Bush tax cuts for everyone, there is a combined new cost of about $175 billion for a 2 point reduction in social security payroll taxes for one year and extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months. Such a deficit/debt-loaded fiscal package might not have been possible come January. While the TP as outsiders were very unhappy about the fiscal impact of the tax package, the legislation went to Obama's desk for signature because of establishment GOP support. But Senate Republicans did hold firm against a Democratic bill to provide $1+ trillion to fund many federal agencies through next September 30; that proposal included nearly 7,000 pork barrel projects plus $1 billion to implement the new health care reform law.

With the number one GOP political objective for 2012 being the defeat of Obama, plus adding the Senate to complete a full takeover of Congress, plus the new, far right TP members or fellow travelers in Congress, it can be expected that partisanship will return in full voice. The political stakes are high and congressional Republicans will have no interest in giving Obama any significant legislative victories to help him with re-election. So the coming of the new Congress next month is likely to herald the next chapter of ugly, hard ball partisanship. As Herrick said, "And this same flower (bipartisanship) that smiles to-day, Tomorrow will be dying."

IRAQ: STEPPING THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

A very recent posting looking at the evolution of events in the Middle East, focusing on the Israel-Palestinian issue and the formation of a new government in Iraq, concluded that there was no light at the end of the tunnel in these two problem areas--only darkness. A few days later, a column by analyst David Ignatius, for whom I have a high regard, seemed to have a brighter view of the Iraqi situation so it seemed that another look would be in order. Doing so reminded me of the story of Alice who stepped through a mirror and visited an alternative world.

In analyzing any situation, the viewer brings to the task some kind of basic outlook about politics and politicians. The possible outlooks can be light or darkness at the end of the tunnel, optimism or pessimism, or glass half full-half empty. As a skeptic and sometimes cynic, I usually opt to look through a dark lens, but with a willingness to be proven wrong.

Right now I'm prone to draw a parallel between the formation of a new Iraqi government and what's going on in the soon-to-end special session of the U.S. Congress. In Congress there has been a breakout of bipartisanship after two years of obstructionist GOP partisanship. The seeming bipartisanship is the result of President Obama's "must" legislation for retaining middle class tax cuts and extending unemployment benefits joining with a Republican "must" list to extend tax cuts for the upper income while also squeezing the President for other tax advantages for the wealthy, primarily the estate tax. And there is some bipartisanship going on with the Senate's decision to take up consideration of another Obama "must", ratification of the nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia. Come January and the new Congress with GOP control of the House and more seats in the Senate, this current bipartisanship will be hard to find as Republicans turn their attention to their biggest "must", ousting Obama in 2012 and taking complete control of Congress.

In Iraq there is another "must" dynamic in play. For more than nine months since the parliamentary elections, political fighting between those in office and those wanting in, plus the traditional division between the Shiites, Sunni, and Kurds have prevented formation of a government. Now with the recent decision to have the former and interim Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki form the new government, the Iraqi constitutional clock started to tick requiring the new government to be formed by December 25. (Given the nature of Iraqi politics, it puzzles me why they are suddenly so constitutional minded.) So a "must" situation has forced the contenders to settle their differences on forming a multiparty/faction coalition. The major holdout had been Ayid Allawi, leader of a secular Shiite-Sunni party that had narrowly won the parliamentary election but was far short of the majority needed to form a government and was unable to put together a coalition. With the "must" deadline approaching, Allawi had to decide whether to enter the al-Maliki coalition or stay out in the cold. He chose to enter. Here is where Ignatius and this blogger see the situation through different lenses.

Ignatius seems to see the political and security situation in Iraq improving to the point where there is light at the end of the tunnel. But to me a number of crucial issues besides who gets what positions in the new government remain to be decided and these issues deal with actual power. Allawi will head a new council to oversee security and foreign policy issues. But, and it's a very big "but", the powers of this council have not yet been decided and it could become a hollow shell with real power retained by al-Maliki and his allies. Supposedly the council's power will be decided very soon. According to reports, the decisions of the new council will require an 80 percent super majorityfor approval. It must be assumed that al-Maliki and his Shiite and Kurdish backers control 60-70 percent and Allawi wants to be sure that the votes he controls will count. It is not difficult, however, to see obstacles to getting an 80 percent vote. Would that mean the decision is left to al-Maliki? Also undecided, at least so far as media reporting, are the crucial issues such as who gets the cabinet seat that controls the security forces, who will head the important oil ministry, expansion of the Kurdish semi-autonomous region to include oil-rich Kirkuk, and the future of U.S. forces in Iraq after 2011 when all troops are to leave. Thus, the December 25 "must" deadline has brought about an Iraqi multipartisanship akin to the bipartisan Christmas deadline in our Congress. But more importantly, like the GOP's next priority on defeating Obama, will al-Maliki move beyond multipartisanship to the power objective by squeezing out the opposition to gain unchallenged control of power for himself and his hardline religious Shiite followers?

To conclude, I hope Ignatius' optimism, however guarded, trumps my skepticism. Countless lives and hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested in the outcome. Until then, I'll stay on this side of the looking glass.

JUDGES, THE MEDIA, AND HEALTH CARE REFORM

The media are making much of the latest decision by a federal judge in Virginia who has ruled that a key part of the new health care reform law requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. This comes after two previous rulings by other federal judges that the requirement is constitutional. The mandate provision does not go into effect until 2014. But before going further on this heavy subject, a lighter health care story is in order.

Cosmo, a follower of this blog, e-mailed me a story about some House Democrats sending a letter to John Boehner, the presumed next Speaker, and Senate Minority Leader McConnell regarding the hypocrisy of Republicans in opposing health reform legislation. The letter urges the two party leaders to have their fellow congressional Republicans refuse their federal health care benefits on the same grounds they opposed reform legislation. In essence, the letter said that lawmakers, incumbents and incoming, who opposed a public/government option as an alternative to private insurance should give up the government-sponsored plan they have as members of Congress. In short, they accuse Republicans of hypocrisy on the issue of health care reform. The letter must have brought tears to the eyes of the weepy-prone Boehner. But the sad fact is that the Democrats who wrote the letter are correct. Now, the latest judicial ruling.

This is strictly impressionistic and not based on hard data of any kind, but it seemed to me with my biased view on the subject that the ruling on Monday against President Obama got more media attention than the two previous rulings backing him. To repeat the central issue: Can the government mandate that the uninsured buy insurance? The judge on Monday declined to strike down the entire law, just the mandate provision. The judicial score now is "yes" by two federal district judges, "no" by one. My impression of greater media attention to the "no" ruling was partially formed by the appearance of the story in a featured spot on the front page of my local newspaper. I may be wrong, but I don't recall such prominence being given to the previous "yes" rulings. The "no" ruling also got top coverage on network television and in major newspapers.

Aside from the ruling on that part of the law regarding the mandate issue, the media also pointed out that the issue will certainly end up in the U.S. Supreme Court before 2014. But it was some of the political interpretations that were the most interesting. One was that the "no" ruling would "embolden" congressional Republicans in their efforts to repeal all or parts of the new law. To this blogger, it is difficult to see how the ruling will embolden the GOP lawmakers. They were already clearly on record with their views on the unconstitutionality of the mandate, and with so many members of Congress being lawyers, they yield to no one in their presumed knowledge of what the Constitution intends or doesn't intend. The ruling will certainly be cited in GOP repeal arguments, but it will have little effect on the legislative repeal strategy. And with so many legal challenges yet to be decided, the significance of this case escapes me. The reality is that no matter what the final score at the district and appeals court levels, it the final decision of the Supreme Court that matters. Which brings me to judicial ideology, often referred to as philosophy.

The stories I've read are quick to point out which President appointed the judges making the rulings. The two "yes" judges were appointed by President Clinton; the "no" judge was named by President George W. Bush. Thus, no surprises since judges when nominated by a President are presumed to fit within the general ideology and policy preferences of the President. It must be stressed, however, that this is not always true. President Eisenhower said that one of his greatest mistakes was to name Earl Warren as Chief Justice since, as it turned out, Warren came to head a very liberal court which handed down a number of liberal landmark decisions. Despite the exceptions, judicial ideology/philosophy and not a naive belief that judges are neutral interpreters of the Constitution is a major dynamic underpinning judicial rulings. That, of course, is the scarey part of knowing that the Supreme Court will make the final decision. The current court is divided 4 to 4 on the liberal/conservative scale but has tended to lean more often to the right with the swing vote decided by Justice Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by President Reagan in l988. If Kennedy goes with his conservative colleagues on the mandate issue, then a key part of health care reform will be lost.

In sum, there is a long way to go before a final winner can be decided. In the meantime, we can only hope that the media will find a happy medium in reporting and analyzing winners and losers as the process proceeds.

A FEW NOTES ON THE TAX BILL

When Opportunity Knocks

Nothing could be more designed to aid special interests than a tax bill that "must" be enacted in the last days of a dying Congress. Thus it is for the Obama-GOP agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts for an additional two years. But what President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell quickly discovered was that the extension of the cuts for the wealthy, plus an additional big win for the wealthy on the estate tax immediately faced opposition from many congressional liberals. House Democrats voted in caucus not to support the agreement. Solution: the time honored approach of adding more ornaments to the tax Christmas tree in hopes of attracting the support needed for passage.

Okay, no surprises there. But, to this blogger, one ornament added that has a particularly unpleasant smell is the extension of the ethanol tax credits and the tariff that protect the U.S. corn-based ethanol against the far more efficient use of sugar as the basic crop for producing ethanol. The ethanol support program has been around for some time--subsidies, protection against foreign competition, and required use of ethanol to be mixed with gasoline. The extension now added to the tax bill is simply an effort to get more congressional votes out of the corn belt, just as extensions of a multitude of other tax credits are directed toward other votes.

There are two things about Washington's ethanol policy -- past, present, and likely the future -- that have been and continue to be objectionable. One, reliance on corn as the primary renewable crop source for ethanol has driven up significantly the price of corn. That in turn has had a rippling effect on the price of feed grains for the cattle, hog, and chicken producers which, of course, ends up as higher prices for the consumer. And as corn prices became more attractive, farmers expanded their corn acreage at the expense of other crops which in turn drove up those prices. A counter argument is that ethanol subsidies and mandated usage has cut down on oil imports. Presumably that would be felt at the gas pump but as gas prices along with food prices are going up again, it is difficult for the consumer to see the value of the supposed tradeoff.

Two, corn-based ethanol is grossly inefficient to produce compared with sugar-based ethanol. According to the research, for ethanol made from corn, one unit of energy used for the processing produces 1.3 units of energy in the fuel. For sugar-based ethanol, the ratio is 1 to 8. The greatest source for the sugar-based stuff is Brazil where sugar cane is abundant. So to keep the more efficient and cheaper ethanol out of the country, we both put a protective tariff on imports and also set a limit on the amount that can come in.

Strange Bedfellows -- Seemingly

When Republican Senator Jim DeMint, the self-annointed leader of the Tea Party (TP), and liberal, independent Senator Bernie Sanders are both opposed to the Obama-GOP tax agreement, it is something of a wonderment. But when you look at their reasons for opposition, you think, "aha, of course".

DeMint's primary opposition seems to be that the agreement doesn't do enough for the wealthy. For him it wasn't enough to just extend for two years the tax cuts for the high income earners. He wanted the cuts made permanent. President Obama, backed by liberal congressional Democrats, had originally wanted the reductions for those households earning more than $250,000 a year to expire on December 31, as the law currently calls for. And, although the wealthy are treated generously under the Obama-GOP agreement on the estate tax, DeMint wanted that tax eliminated altogether.

Sanders in an 8+ hour solo performance before a nearly empty Senate chamber said he opposed the agreement because it gave away too much to the wealthy. Contrary to DeMint, he argued that the tax reduction for those earning above $250,000 should be ended altogether and the estate tax provisions are excessively generous to those with the most money.

What should also be noted is the silence from TP activists outside of Congress. Since the TP started in early 2009, its bedrock issue has been to reduce spending and cut the debt NOW. The Obama-GOP agreement as it now stands would add over $800 billion to the deficit over the next two years and who knows that will happen after that. As evident from the so-called "temporary" Bush tax cuts which have been running for seven years, getting rid of reductions and tax credits is not easy. Where is the TP outrage? Has the so-called grass roots TP now been co-opted by the establishment GOP as the defenders of the wealthy?

There is no "in sum" or "to conclude" to end this posting. The purpose is just to air a few random thoughts that have occurred to me as the tax debate goes on.

THE MIDDLE EAST: DARKNESS AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL

At one point during the Vietnam war then U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said he saw "light at the end of the tunnel," his upbeat assessment of American military progress there. It didn't turn out that way. If we apply the same imagery to the situation in the Middle East today, it would be difficult to conclude anything other than that for U.S. policy in the region--there is darkness at the end of the tunnel. This posting takes a look at where things stand on the Israeli-Palestinian so-called peace process and Iraq and its political future. (See an earlier posting on this issue--The Peace Process That Isn't and Maybe Never Was.) A third big regional problem is Iran's political interference in Iraq and Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, but that subject is too big to squeeze into this posting, suffice it to say there is also no sign of light there.

First, the Israel-Palestinian peace process and its goal of creating an independent Palestinian state through the return of territory captured by Israel in the l967 war. There was much fanfare in early September when President Obama hosted a meeting in Washington intended to restart the moribund peace process. At the end of the meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to keep the process going. One more meeting was quickly held but things broke down soon after that. The stumbling block was the same issue that had plagued the process before the Washington meeting, Israeli housing settlements on land the Palestinians want returned. The scenario went something like this.

The Washington meeting was made possible when Israel agreed to a moratorium on settlement building but that freeze ended in late September. Abbas said he would not return to the talks unless the freeze was extended. To get Israel to agree to another 90-day moratorium, the U.S. offered Netanyahu an arms sale, a U.S. veto of any Palestinian effort to take the issue directly to the United Nations Security Council, plus a later security agreement with Israel. All of this was just to get Israel to extend the freeze an additional 90 days during which it was optimistically and perhaps naively believed there could be some general outline on lands to be exchanged. Right wing opposition within his government forced Netanyahu to say no to a further freeze and Abbas repeated his position--no freeze, no talks. After further efforts to get the talks restarted, the U.S. has now abandoned that effort with no alternative approach on the horizon. Thus, the often interrupted peace process has once more broken down, even before it really got restarted. Now to another regional headache, Iraq.

As often stated by analysts and on this blog, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein, Iran's chief antagonist, opened the door to greater Iranian influence in Iraq. That increased influence has been made easier by the ties that have been established and are getting stronger between the Shia-dominated government of Iraq and its co-religionists in Iran. In his efforts to retain power after the close elections last March, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has allied himself with the U.S. arch enemy in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr, an influential Shia leader who took up residence in Iran after he was forced out of Baghdad by U.S. forces. He still resides in Iran. (See previous post -- Iran: The 800 Pound Gorilla Is Getting Bigger)

Meanwhile, al-Maliki made direct overtures to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the latter's support against al-Maliki's primary opposition, a secular Shia-Sunni coalition. It has been nine months since the parliamentary election and al-Maliki is in the process of forming a government but no final arrangement has been confirmed. It appears evident, however, that U.S. efforts to curb Iranian influence in any new government are failing. Add to this the continued violence between Shia and Sunni and, more recently, attacks on Iraqi Christians and the picture is one of a significant lack of security. The U.S. government, with doubtful backing of the American public, would like to retain a military presence in Iraq, but an agreement between al-Maliki and former President Bush calls for the withdrawal of all American forces by the end of next year. The latest on this is that al-Maliki is not backing away from that deadline and sticking with that arrangement may be part of the deal between him and al-Sadr who has been adamantly opposed to what he regards as continued U.S. military occupation.

And if all of this isn't enough, there is increasing activity by Syria in shipping arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon to increase its military threat on Israel's northern border. Syria is also seeking to reassert its overall influence in Lebanese affairs, an influence that was seemingly ended when Syria, under United Nations pressure, withdraw its last troops from Lebanon in 2005. Syria first sent troops into Lebanon in l976 to help quell the violence of Lebanon's civil war. Syria also appears to be a source for the growing infiltration of terrorists into bordering Iraq. The Obama administration through direct talks with Syria had hoped to steer that country away from its destabilizing activities in the region and from its strengthening ties to Iran. At this point, the U.S. effort does not appear to have succeeded and Obama, because of Republican opposition, cannot even get Senate approval to send a new ambassador to Damascus to carry on its policy of engagement.

In sum, the U.S. policy/policies in two big problem areas of the Middle East are not doing well. In the case of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and Iranian interference in Iraqi politics, there doesn't seem to be any sign of light at the end of the tunnel. The policy now is --lengthen the tunnel.

WHEN FRIENDS FALL OUT: HAGGLING BECOMES LOUDER IN THE WASHINGTON BAZAAR

Two posts ago, the imagery of back and forth haggling over price in a Mideast bazaar was used to characterize the fight between Democrats and Republicans over issues to be resolved in this special session of Congress. Two levels of haggling were noted: 1) what issues would get resolved before final adjournment which is coming soon; and 2) what would be the specifics of the various pieces of legislation that are finalized.

Just when it seemed that the basic structure of the biggest issue of all, taxes, had been resolved, another round of haggling has appeared, although it now sounds more like shouting than haggling. And this time the escalated haggling, or shouting, is not between Democrats and Republicans, but among Democrats themselves. More specifically, between President Obama and his liberal Democratic supporters in Congress who believe the President, in coming to terms with the Republicans, has given away too much to the wealthy.

For months the featured part of the tax issue was what to do about the temporary (now running seven years) Bush tax cuts for higher income earners. Initially Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership supported extending the cuts for the middle class but were opposed to doing the same for couples reporting income of more than $250,000 a year. As the election campaigning went on and as it was becoming increasingly apparent that it was going to be a good year for the GOP which wanted all tax cuts extended, there was less Democratic insistence on ending the reductions for the higher income. Finally, after the election, with all Bush tax cuts scheduled to end on December 31, and with the GOP scheduled to take over the House next year, the issue seemed to be reduced to how long to extend the temporary reductions for all tax brackets.

A few days ago the "how long" seemed to be resolved--extend the cuts for everyone for another two years. In exchange the GOP agreed to a Democrat-backed 13 month extension of unemployment benefits affecting an estimated 7 million jobless workers over that period. But as stated in the previous posting, "It's difficult to imagine that a tax bill can make its way through Congress without efforts to turn it into a Christmas tree ('tis the season) for other pet tax-related ideas." It is the added ornamentation, along with the upper income tax extension, that has liberal congressional Democrats angry about the Obama-GOP deal which liberals see as a sell out to the wealthy.

The earlier post said that the issue of the estate tax may be too big to deal with in the short time remaining. But not only did the GOP get it put on the Christmas tree, but the specifics also got them a much better deal than could be expected. And that is a part of what troubles liberal Democrats. Prior to this year the federal estate tax exempted the first $3.5 million of an estate with anything above that taxed at 45 percent. For 2010 there was no federal estate tax at all, but beginning on January 1, the exemption is to drop to $1 million with the rate going up to 55 percent. What the GOP succeeded in selling to Obama was to get the exemption set at $5 million with the rate dropping to 35 percent. In short, the new provisions, if finally approved, would give another big tax break to the wealthy. Another ornament that aids the wealthier taxpayer is that the Obama-GOP agreement leaves the capital gains tax, a significant source of upper income wealth, at 15 percent rather than having the gains taxed at the same rate as ordinary income as long sought by many congressional Democrats.

The tree does include some tax credits that help middle income families but another ornament that seems to add to the take-home pay for middle and lower income earners also tilts to the advantage of the wealthier taxpayer. That is the ornament providing that for one year the social security tax of workers would drop 2 percentage points from 6.2 to 4.2 percent. A look at the structure of the social security tax shows again the the better off make out better. Social security is a flat rate tax and thus is regressive. A wage earner only pays on the first $106,800 of income. So a person making that limit or more will save $2,136; a person earning $50,000 saves less than half of that, $1,000. The object of the one year reduction is to provide an economic stimulus by giving people more money to spend and thus, hopefully, boosting the economy. If, however, the added income is used to pay down credit card balances or is saved, the stimulus would be lost.

Finally, does resolution (maybe) of the tax issue, help clear the way for other things Obama wants, primarily Senate ratification of the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia? First of all, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that nothing else will be considered until the tax bill and a resolution providing for continued funding of the government are finally passed. That could take some time and time is running short. Obama can forget about getting repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell on military recruitment. There is likely to be some political maneuvering on an immigration bill, the DREAM proposal to help eligible children of undocumented parents gain citizenship, but final congressional approval is unlikely. Again, stay tuned. The bazaar is still open a bit longer.

REMEMBERING PEARL HARBOR AND FRANK HEWLETT

As a World War II buff I could not let tomorrow's 69th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in l941 go by without using today's posting to make a personal note, so forgive the frequent use of "I", "me", and "my".

I remember hearing of the attack on the radio soon after it occurred. At the time I was in grade school but clearly remember the occasion. As the family and I were hearing about the attack via radio, my future wife was watching the smoke and flame from the heights of Wilhemina Rise in Honolulu where she lived. This is a lead in to talking about Frank Hewlett who made it possible for me to go to Honolulu where I met my future wife; he was himself a World War II story. Before telling a bit about Frank, let me briefly relate how he came to be my life-changer.

Frank and I met in l959 when I was a fresh-out-of-college reporter for United Press International in Washington, D.C. At the time Frank. who had retired from United Press (it became UPI after UP merged with the International News Service in 1958), was a stringer for several newspapers, including the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Since part of my assignment was to cover Hawaii news, we had frequent occasions to get together. On one occasion we were having lunch at the National Press Club when I casually remarked that the next time he talked with his Honolulu boss, to ask if they might have an opening for a new reporter. Three days later I got a call from the managing editor asking if I was serious about coming to Hawaii. I was, and two weeks later I was on a Matson cruise ship heading for the Islands. Soon after I met my wife-to-be. Now back to Frank's story.

Just before the fall of Manila in December l941, Frank and his wife, Virginia, were evacuated to Corregidor island from where he traveled back and forth to Bataan to report on that historic but tragic battle; his wife served as a nurse on Corregidor. As the Japanese got close to capturing Bataan and threatening Corregidor, Frank was evacuated to India. He was told to wait there and his wife would soon follow. It didn't turn out that way. Virginia was captured by the Japanese and spent the war as a prisoner for the next 2-1/2 years. My wife and I met Virginia when we later moved to Washington. As told to us by Frank at a party at his home in nearby Virginia, his wife was not the same after her wartime ordeal. She would plan and prepare parties and dinners but would not join the guests. She preferred to stay in the kitchen while the guests socialized. And because of her diet while in captivity, rice became an essential part of her meals.


In talking about his war experiences, Frank made it clear he was no fan of General Douglas MacArthur, the Philippines commander. He noted that MacArthur was called by some "dugout Doug" when MacArthur and his family left the islands during the battle of Bataan to take his command to Australia at the order of President Roosevelt. It was some years later in reading the book, "The Rising Sun" by John Toland, I found out that Frank, in covering the Bataan battle was the author of a well known verse of the time, about the men fighting there.

We're the battling bastards of Bataan:
No mama, no papa, no Uncle Sam,
No aunts, no uncles, no cousins, no nieces,
No pills, no planes or artillery pieces,
And nobody gives a damn.

One story he told was about his writing the first news report on the rescue of the survivors a PT boat crew whose boat had been rammed by a Japanese destroyer in the Solomon Islands in l943 -- the captain of the boat was Lieutenant Junior Grade John F. Kennedy. On the night Kennedy was elected President in l960, I was on the desk at UPI when Frank's original story about the rescue was recovered from the files and sent out over the wire. Frank was one of the people who was given a PT 109 gold tie clip by Kennedy.

A final story about Frank and his close connection with the Pacific War occurred at a summer outdoor party we attended at Frank's home. He introduced us to one of his friends, Colonel Rufus Bratton, the army's intelligence liason officer in Washington at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Bratton was responsible for delivering decoded messages from the broken Japanese diplomatic code to President Roosevelt and other top civilian and military leaders privy to the secret information. Bratton was one of the featured persons in the 1970 move, "Tora, Tora, Tora" about events in the U.S. and Japan leading up to and including the December 7 attack. Bratton's role was played by E. G. Marshall.

So when another December 7 to Remember Pearl Harbor rolls around, it's a time for me to also remember Frank Hewlett, a kind and gentle man who was both a life changer and a personification of my remembrances of World War II.

HAGGLING IN THE WASHINGTON BAZAAR

When one uses the term "bazaar", it brings forth the image of a Mideast market place where the buyer and seller haggle back and forth over the price of a whatever. That's what is going on these days in Washington as President Obama and congressional Democrats haggle with the GOP leadership over what can be accomplished during the remaining days of this special session of Congress. From the vantage point of this blogger, it certainly appears that the Republicans are driving a hard bargain and are likely to get close to the price they want.

The GOP edge came with the election victories a month ago with the new Congress starting in January shifting to Republican control of the House and a diminished Democratic majority in the Senate. The Republicans were further aided on Tuesday when Obama did something of a mea culpa (to the chagrin of this blogger) when he said that maybe in the past he hadn't reached out to the GOP legislators as much as he should have. All of this means the Democrats have to salvage what they can from their agenda within boundaries set by the Republicans.

Returning to the bazaar analogy, there are actually two levels of haggling. One is which specific pieces of legislation can be considered in the short time remaining in the special session. And, two, haggling over the specifics for each of the pieces that may be passed. The GOP leadership has already taken level one haggling one step further in saying that nothing else will be considered until there is final agreement about the Bush tax cuts and, in the absence of any appropriations, continued funding of the government. So whatever legislation the Democrats want is being held hostage until the Republicans get what they want. The Republicans have so completely taken over agenda setting that it's hard to believe Democrats control the Congress.

Other big issues for Obama and the Democrats are: 1) extension of benefits for about 2 million unemployed workers whose checks stopped on November 30 or will stop on December 31; and 2) Senate ratification of the nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. Obama and many of his congressional supporters would also like to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy on military recruiting and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid keeps making utterances about passing immigration reform legislation this year. The reality is that neither repeal of DADT nor immigration reform will go anywhere. Now for a look at the partisan haggling at level two, the specifics of items that have better prospects.

Political posturing over the tax issues has been going on for months. The very costly income tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush are due to expire on December 31. Obama and a majority of congressional Democrats had originally taken a strong position on retaining middle income cuts but against continuing tax cuts for households earning above $250,000 a year. The end game, being played on Republican terms, now seems to have gotten down to simply how long to extend the cuts for all income brackets--1, 2, or 3 years. While the upper income cuts have been the featured aspect of the tax issue, there are some other tax matters still unresolved and it remains to be seen if these might become a part of any tax package. It's difficult to imagine that a tax bill can make its way through Congress without efforts to turn it into a Christmas tree ('tis the season) for other pet tax-related ideas.

Although it may be too big to deal with in the short time remaining, one involves another tax treatment of the wealthy -- the estate tax. Prior to this year the federal estate tax exempted $3.5 million of an estate with anything above that taxed at 45 percent. For 2010 there has been no federal estate tax at all but beginning on January 1, the exemption drops to $1 million and the rate goes up to 55 percent. It is difficult to believe that the GOP will leave it at that. Either they will try to squeeze a better deal for the wealthy into the current income tax negotiations, or it will certainly be a priority in the new Congress. Perhaps the estate tax will be part of the haggling, something to be bargained over in exchange for extension of unemployment benefits where a big issue is how to pay for it -- add the $12+ billion to the deficit (Democrats) or cut spending by an equal amount (Republicans).

That leaves the arms reduction agreement, on Obama's "must" list, which appeared to be dead about two weeks ago when GOP Senator John Kyl, a key player on the issue, said the treaty should be held over until next year. In the past few days, however, prospects have improved for action this year as more Republicans seem to be shifting toward ratification during the special session as the Obama administration moved to allay their stated concerns over nuclear weapon modernization and development of an anti-missile system.

In sum, the haggling is still going on but the bazaar will soon be closing and buyer and seller are being forced to come to a final price. And that price seems to clearly favor the Republicans because when the bazaar reopens in January, the political balance between the hagglers will have changed significantly.

CHINA REINVENTS CO-PROSPERITY SPHERE

One of Monday's posts, Asian Artifacts of World War II, backgrounded the World War II and Cold War antecedents of the current Korean crisis, along with the continuing strain between Japan and Russia over possession of the Kuril Islands.

One more artifact of World War II concerns a concept rather than an actual issue or event. About l940, Japan, dependent upon imports of raw materials for its economic and military survival, developed the concept of a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, to include Japan, China, Manchuria, and parts of southeast Asia. It envisioned an anti-colonialism, "Asia for the Asians" empire under Japanese control. It sought to establish such an economic/military empire primarily through force -- invasion and conquest. At the time the concept was developed, Japan already occupied Manchuria and the key coastal areas of China. To that it added southeast Asia, including the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. But Co-Prosperity was one-way trade; take everything and ship it back to homeland Japan.

Of course that Co-Prosperity Sphere collapsed with the defeat of Japan in l945. But today we can see the resurrection of the concept, if not the name, although radically different in design and implementation.

The neo-Co-Prosperity Sphere is based on China's very aggressive economic investment strategy in significant areas of the same part of the world. The obvious difference from the Japanese use-of-force model is China's use-of-money strategy. China has and continues to invest heavily in development of the natural resources in the region, such as bauxite for aluminum in Cambodia, to guarantee its own economic development. Investments in extracting raw materials puts money into a country but does not contribute much to that country's own industrial development. But, while focusing on its own resource needs, China is also investing billions in infrastructure and job-creating activities in the region (as well as in other parts of the world). These latter forms of investments, such as manufacturing facilities in Vietnam, may increase further since China is discovering that labor costs in some parts of southeast Asia are even lower than its own cheap labor costs; that is, China is now exporting jobs.

Thus, China's investment strategy has two tracks. One is exploitive in the same way as the Japanese and the old colonialism approaches; take out the raw materials but leave little development behind. Second, invest in infrastructure and manufacturing facilities that aid China's own emerging economy as well as the less developed economies and thus contain a "Co-Prosperity" feature.

It must also be noted and stressed that this neo-Co-Prosperity Sphere has an important political component in that the economic relationships that have developed also provide a buffer zone to combat the U.S. strategic presence in the region through its military forces as well as alliances with countries such as Japan and South Korea. In a previous post, it was pointed out how during the Cold War the U.S. sought to contain Soviet Union expansion by encircling it with a series of military alliances stretching from Europe through southeast Asia. While these alliances, except for NATO, were ineffective as military deterrents, the idea of a new U.S. containment policy has not been lost on China. Some of China's investments in the region have created some problems between Beijing and host countries. But the growth of such investments continues, creating an economic interdependency that is difficult for the U.S. to match, and thus blunts any possible containment objective. As also noted in that previous post, the U.S. is making it clear to China and the periphery nations that the U.S. plans to maintain its strategic position in the Asia-Pacific area. This will be done through economic investments (public and private), although not equal to China's resources, and the continued presence of strong military forces in the region.

In sum, where the Japanese failed to realize their ambitions for a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, China today appears to have adopted the concept, implicitly if not explicitly, with better success.

ARROGANCE OF "EXCEPTIONALISM"

Normally, I would post only one item today, but a story in the Washington Post this morning put such fire in my belly that another seemed to be in order. The original post on ASIAN ARTIFACTS OF WORLD WAR II follows the one on "exceptionalism".

-0-0-0-0-

ARROGANCE OF "EXCEPTIONALISM"

While the media attention today is on WikiLeaks and the possible effects on U.S. diplomacy, the Washington Post carried a far more troublesome article, "American exceptionalism: an old idea and a new political battle."

The heart of the "exceptionalism" idea is that our country is superior to other countries in the world and, adding on, to deny that means you are both un-American and godless. A few quotes from the article:

"The reorientation away from a celebration of American exceptionalism is misguided and bankrupt." -- Mitt Romney past and likely future candidate for President in his pre-campaign book.

"America the Exceptional" -- title of a chapter in Sarah Palin's new book.

"To deny American exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation."-- Mike Huckabee another past and likely future candidate for President in an interview.

This sampling of a new era of jingoism/chauvinism has two things in common: 1) they are from very conservative right wing Republicans who wannabe the next President; and 2) they are barely disguised attacks on President Obama who speaks of the country's greatness but has shied away from the term "exceptional" in defining this country's place in the world. As the various Republican wannabes gear up their campaigns, they will be competing for whatever the superlative of "exceptionalism" may be (perhaps "exceptionalismest"), egged on by right wing talk show cheerleaders such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. "Exceptionalism" ("E") will take its place alongside God, belief in God, God's work, etc., as a theme already prominent in right wing rhetoric.

There is no question that the United States is a superpower and as such has an international responsibility that exceeds that of most other nations, a responsibility that must include restraint and sensitivity, not just hubris. But to think of ourselves as exceptional is to equate our self-interest with what is good for the rest of the world, a meaning implicit in "E". That is arrogant. Other nations have their own self-interests and they are not subordinate to ours, a distinction we often ignore. This is particularly evident when we translate our "E" and arrogance into military adventures such as Iraq. There, in pursuit of the mythical weapons of mass destruction and in seeking to implant our model of democracy in historically inhospitable soil, we have not only failed or are failing in both objectives but also have left the entire region more vulnerable to our own version of the "great satan"--Iran. Ditto for much of what we have done and are doing in Afghanistan.

Here it is time for another quote to balance the jingoism of "E". This is from the book "Arrogance of Power" written by the late Senator William Fulbright in the context of the massive U.S. intervention in Vietnam in the l960s.

"Power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is particularly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations -- to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image. Power confuses itself with virtue and tends also to take itself for omnipotence. Once imbued with the idea of a mission, a great nation easily assumes that it has the means as well as the duty to do God's work."

The most frightening point of Fulbright's argument is what he sees as the U.S., in pursuing political, military, and ideological objectives, is prone to also see itself in the Biblical role of doing God's work. Onward Christian soldiers. That is, we are God's chosen nation and as such we have been annointed to go forth and do what we want knowing we have his blessing. Thus does the arrogance of "E" wrap itself in messianic robes and pronounces the non-believers of "E" as un-American and godless.

The culture wars within this country and abroad have become ugly enough, as evident in the growing anti-Muslim attitudes in the U.S. Now this newly emboldened "E" view held by the right wing threatens to poison our relations even with our friends. The WikiLeaks will create some difficulties in pursuing our diplomacy, but "E" is a far more insidious toxin that is likely to seep into our relations in the international community. "Exceptionalism" diminishes us.

ASIAN ARTIFACTS OF WORLD WAR II

The current crisis in Korea is a good reminder of the grip that World War II and the Cold War continue to have on international politics. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in l990, the 45-year old Cold War was considered at an end. But the latest North-South Korea shooting confrontation presents the occasion to revisit important leftover parts of both wars.

When Japan surrendered in l945, the Korean peninsula was divided at the 38th parallel with the northern half occupied by Soviet Union forces and the south by the United States. It was intended to be a temporary division with the two parts to be unified as a joint trusteeship following a national election. As we know, that never worked out.

At the end of World War II, the Cold War was already underway with disagreements on the future of eastern Europe, occupied by Soviet troops. With the further freezing of the Cold War, the Soviet half of Korea refused to participate in the unification election held in l948, so it was held only in the U.S.-occupied southern half. The result was a dictatorship in the north with the leadership in 2010 soon to be passed to the third generation of the same family. In the south a democracy emerged, although it has had its ups and downs with democratic governance. Over the 65 years of division there has been a major North-South war and numerous lesser but sometimes serious confrontations. The current one is considered the most dangerous since the Korean War ended with an armistice in l953.

So remnants of World War II and the Cold War live on in that part of the world.

Since this post is a rummaging around in some residue of those wars, it is also worthwhile noting that there is another leftover piece in this same part of the world. Japan and Russia still have not signed a peace treaty ending World War II between the two countries, although they have not resorted to armed conflict as has occurred in Korea.

In early 1945, a U.S., British, Soviet Union summit meeting was held at Yalta, in the Soviet Crimea. One of the things agreed on at that conference was that Russia would go to war with Japan three months after the war in Europe ended. Germany surrendered in early May and the Soviet Union declared war on Japan in early August, on schedule. Besides the Yalta agreement, the Soviets were also motivated to get into the war quickly after the U.S. dropped its first atomic bomb on Japan, thereby hastening the likelihood of an early Japanese surrender. The second A-bomb was dropped on August 9, the same day the Soviets invaded Manchuria, thus guaranteeing that it would be in on getting some of the spoils of war.

Besides sending troops into Manchuria, another of its first moves was to occupy the northernmost part of Japan, the Kuril Islands. Soon after the occupation the Soviets expelled the 17,000 Japanese residents of the islands. Japan wants the Kurils back, but Russia has repeatedly said no. The two countries have signed an agreement to end the state of war, but conclusion of a permanent peace treaty has been elusive because of the dispute over the islands.

In sum, World War II and the subsequent Cold War continue to leave their imprint. In the case of Korea, this has meant off and on military confrontation. For Japan and Russia, armed conflict has not occurred nor is it likely to, but the dispute over the Kurils has left some persistent,strained relations.

BE BACK ON MONDAY

THINGS TO BE THANKFUL FOR

Since we are on the eve of Thanksgiving Day, it seemed appropriate to express thanks to people for their singular contribution to the knowledge and welfare of the body politic.

John Boehner -- for giving new meaning to the first law of politics: You have to know how to fake sincerity.

Mitch McConnell -- for putting on his Darth Vadar mask so we can see who he really is and what he stands for.

Mamoud Ahmadinejad -- that he doesn't have any more syllables in his name.

Hamid Karzai -- that his efforts to hide his corruption behind a benign countenance are futile.

President Obama -- that MAYBE he has finally had at least a dim epiphany about bipartisanship. (Couldn't hedge it any more than that.)

Hillary Clinton -- for not putting anything in writing about her future political plans.

Joe Miller -- thank God the Tea Party loved him.

Christine O'Donnell -- ditto her.

Sarah Palin -- for the TV reality show, Saturday Night Live.

Tea Party -- for illuminating what is meant by the "dark side".

Glenn Beck -- whose next book should be "Crying All the Way to the Bank Wrapped in a Flag".

Gene Autry -- for living on in old westerns for us old folk.

-0-0-0-0-

GOP: PUTTING THE TORCH TO EVERYTHING

Economist Paul Krugman called them a part of the "Axis of Depression".

Senator Charles Schumer attacked their "scorched earth policy".

If you haven't already guessed, the "them" and "their" are the Republicans who have adopted a take-no-prisoners strategy to gain full control of the Congress and the White House in 2012. A quick recap.

A part of that strategy has been in place for the last two years with the GOP goal to win back the Congress in the midterm elections three weeks ago. That goal was partially successful with the GOP taking more than 60 seats from the Democrats in the House, far more than enough to make John Boehner the next likely Speaker. And they came close in the Senate, reducing the Democratic majority from 59 seats (including two independents) to 53. The Republican victory was greatly aided by the state of the American economy. A further big boost for the GOP came from the Tea Party movement which exploited the struggling economic picture with heated campaign rhetoric about the need to cut spending, reduce the deficit, halt the liberal/socialist Democratic threat to the Constitution, and stop the intrusion of big government into our lives.

Within Congress this was translated into virtual bloc voting by GOP lawmakers against various Democratic spending and tax proposals aimed at stimulating economic recovery. That partisanship was aimed not only at winning the midterm elections, but also to lay the groundwork for making Obama a one-term President in 2012. To achieve the GOP political goals, they supported nothing that would give Obama and congressional Democrats legislative successes, even if it meant prolonging economic problems. The GOP mantra for economic recovery was and remains cut spending and give more tax breaks for the upper income and business. With Congress' current special session, the "scorched earth policy" has been extended to foreign policy with enough GOP opposition to block ratification of the nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia.

That brings us to Krugman's reference to the GOP being part of the "Axis of Depression". The Axis imagery was most recently used by President George W. Bush with his "Axis of Evil" which included Iran, Iraq (before our invasion), and North Korea. Krugman has freshened the term to include a strange mixture of partners--China, Germany, and the GOP. The new Axis formed around the Federal Reserve's program to purchase $600 billion of bonds.

So, not content with the legislative obstructionist strategy, Republicans inside and outside of Congress have come out in opposition to the Fed program. The aim of the Fed is to buy the bonds to help drive down interest rates and thus contribute to economic growth by encouraging consumers to borrow and spend more. It's an effort to stimulate the economy through monetary policy since fiscal stimulus remedies are blocked in Congress by the GOP.

The Fed program also has the effect of increasing money supply and in doing so it has the collateral effect of devaluing the dollar. It is the devaluation effect that has China and Germany in a tizzy. Both have large export surpluses and a devalued dollar is seen as a threat because it may boost American exports and thus make us more competitive in world trade. In short, China and Germany see the Fed purchase as a threat to their economic self-interest. Fair enough, if you don't consider China's currency manipulations to preserve their exports.

But the GOP opposition to the fed is based on a far less credible self-interest argument, the threat of inflation because of the increase in money supply. That argument sounds hollow indeed. Right now we have a very low inflation rate and with our economy likely to limp along for some time, inflation hardly seems to be a near-term problem. In fact, to some economists, the problem is not inflation, but deflation as experienced by Japan in the 1990s. In the absence of a credible case for the threat of inflation, it appears that the real GOP concern is that the Fed purchase may indeed help economic recovery, with political benefits accruing to the Democrats.

So Schumer's "scorched earth" label for GOP strategy, based on Republican obstructionism in Congress, is too narrow in scope. The Republicans have now extended the reach of their legislative opposition/obstructionism to anything that will help the Democrats, including the Fed's monetary policy tools.

DISAPPEARANCE OF THE MIDDLE: BIPOLARIZATION OF POLITICS

Since the midterm elections more than two weeks ago, I have been looking for a shorthand way of how to think about our politics--where it is and where we are heading. That took me to two quotes.

"I won" is how President Obama put it to Republican congressional leaders during discussion of tax policy at a White House meeting in early 2009. "Mission Accomplished" was the wording on the banner when former President George W. Bush landed aboard an aircraft carrier shortly after toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. For both Obama and Bush, the two expressions carried the implicit add on, "end of story". As both came to realize, it wasn't the end of the story for either President or the nation, but rather the beginning of a painful "to be continued". Seven years later the Iraq war continues at the cost so far of tens of thousands of lives (Iraqi and U.S.) and hundreds of billions of dollars, with 50,000 troops still stationed there. Obama's "to be continued" has been to confront defeat on his promise to bring a new spirit of bipartisan harmony to Washington and inaugurate a change in direction for the nation.

The Iraq war was certainly a divisive issue from the outset, but it is actually less divisive now because a large and growing majority of people has coalesced around the need for a decision to "get out". For Obama, however, the unhappy fact of the current political polarization is that it is growing. What we think of as the political middle seems to have disappeared, at least for now, as we drift toward increased bipolar politics. What is perhaps the most troublesome thing about the collapse of the middle is that it seems to be based more on the virulence of the rhetoric than on the substance of the issues. And, it is sad to acknowledge, here is where the Tea Party movement has had its greatest impact -- accelerating the emergence of a bipolar political world of extreme right conservatism and an increasingly passionate left wing liberalism/progressivism.

The middle, at least for now, has drifted toward the right. That drift has occurred in part because of the realities of a seemingly intractable economic problem characterized by high unemployment and slow growth, along with the uncertainty created among families about their own future. Obama and the Democratic Congress have been blocked in their proposed remedies by the obstructionist, partisan, and continuing strategy of Republicans to make Obama a one-term President. The drift to the right has also had appeal because of the simplistic rhetoric designed and exploited by the Tea Party since its start in early 2009, and subsequently picked up by traditional and moderate conservatives in order to get elected or re-elected. That simplistic rhetoric calls for cut spending, cut taxes, reduce the deficit, stop the liberal/socialist subversion of the Constitution, and end the growing intrusion of government into our lives. After the recent elections, Obama's "I won" has been replaced by the Republican "we won".

Unfortunately, the "we won" of the midterm elections in only a resting point on the way toward the GOP goal of total victory in 2012, total meaning a takeover of the Senate and the White House. Mitch McConnell couldn't have made it more clear in publicly stating his crass legislative strategy for the next two years -- do whatever it takes to make Obama a one-term President. Thus, any Obama effort to seek a bipartisan compromise by shifting toward the middle will find there is no one there to greet him. At the same time, his liberal/progressive base will attack him for abandoning both his and their values and goals.

Twice above in this post I have referred to the drift of the political middle toward the right as "at least for now". That could change if an unforseen event occurs that requires the two parties to come together to deal with whatever it is. The early drift of the Bush administration was transformed by the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, an event that reshaped and continues to have a major hold on our national psyche. Absent such an event, "at least for now" may have some staying power for at least two more years, and perhaps beyond. Until 2012, GOP/Tea Party failure to convert the rhetoric into substance will be explained by continued left wing Democratic control of the Senate and the White House, reflected further by the House Democrats retaining Nancy Pelosi as their leader. After 2012, who knows?

In sum, throughout the now ended campaign there was much discussion and lamenting about the lack of civility in our political discourse. With less or no moderating influence from the middle, the lack of civility in our polarized political world is likely to rise to an even higher decibel level.

GOP HULA: ALL HIPS AND NO HANDS

In a previous posting, I referred to the Hawaiian hula dance and said the real story is told in the movement of the hands, not the hips. On Monday we witnessed the hip movement when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reversed his position on earmarking funds for pet projects (aka pork barrel). As recently as last week he was staunchly defending earmarks but at his Monday meeting with newly elected senators, he flip flopped and joined House Speaker-to-be John Boehner who had already taken a sanctimonious stand against earmarking. (The day after the McConnell switch the Senate Republican caucus voted to end earmarks.)

The symbolism/hypocrisy of the GOP anti-earmarking is really glaring since the GOP lawmakers were at the forefront of pork barrel spending when they recently controlled Congress. But what is even worse is that their new-found religion is eye catching (hips) rather than real (hands). First, the $16 billion of earmarked funds represents less than one percent of the budget and could not carry much of the burden of the GOP/Tea Party commitment to significantly reduce federal spending. But that is the lesser part of the symbolic/hypocritical stand on earmarking.

Opposition to earmarking has little or nothing to do with spending cuts, as McConnell correctly argued in his pre-flip flop position. What earmarking does is simply break off a piece of the spending pie and give that piece to a favorite project in the home district or state of a representative or senator. A hypothetical example. A total of $50 million is provided for "agricultural research". Representative X wants and gets $500,000 for a project back home to probe the sex life of centipedes. He/she hasn't added that project and money to the cost of agricultural research, but only made sure his/her district got some of the money. In short, earmarking has little or nothing to do with the size of the pie, only how it is divided. The real (hands) test in the new Congress will come as specific appropriation bills are considered and whether the new congressional true believers can resist the back-home pressure to bring home some pork.

But that $16 billion of earmarked funds talked about so much is small change compared to the huge pot that sends big money back home. That's the $700+ billion defense budget, of which about $150 billion comes off the top for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whenever a Secretary of Defense proposes a shutdown or cutback of a specific piece of military hardware or the closing of a military installation, congressional opposition immediately forms to oppose such cutbacks. If you are looking for bipartisanship, this is where you'll find it.

Just as a small and very incomplete example. Secretary of Defense Gates has taken a position against the excessive increases in cost that plague the production of the F-35 fighter aircraft. Right now the plan is to purchase nearly 2,500 of them at a cost of $382 billion over a 25 year period. European countries hope to buy an additional 3,000 planes, meaning even more money. Various parts of the plane are produced in the U.S. and abroad (abroad because of anticipated future sales and European contributions to development costs). In the U.S. there are major manufacturing and assembly factories in Texas, California, and Florida, as well as subcontractors scattered in many other states. The wide distribution of contracts and subcontracts in both populous and small states assures that there would be wide geographic, nonpartisan congressional opposition to any proposed major reductions in F-35 purchases. Thus, the defense budget has large sums of money that could be considered as politically protected earmarking. (Interestingly, Senator John McCain has targeted the F-35 as a program where cuts could be made. Although Arizona benefits from the F-35 program, his proposing some cuts may be a last vestige of his "maverick" reputation. Or, perhaps, like Gates, he is looking at controlling the growing costs rather than any reductions in the number of planes to be purchased.)

It is also important to note that Representative Howard McKeon, the incoming Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has already balked at cutting defense spending, citing the two ongoing wars as demonstrating our need to sustain the defense budget. (His California district includes Palmdale where a significant part of the F-35 production takes place.) There is no doubt that his stand is welcomed by the powerful defense interests. So far on the issue of cutting defense spending, we have seen some hand movements by Gates but the GOP/TP to this point hasn't even shown any hip action on one of the big pots of money where spending cuts are possible.

In sum, all that we have seen so far from the GOP/TP commitment to any specifics for spending cuts is symbolism. That symbolism is also part of the early congressional infighting over whether the Tea Party tail is going to wag the GOP establishment dog, or the other way around. On earmarks, the tail wagged the dog. The Boehner position and the McConnell reversal on earmarking appears to be no more than a symbolic effort to show the more conservative new members of both chambers that the establishment has listened to them and "gets it". Put another way, the establishment Republicans in Congress are now gyrating their hips to two audiences --the public and the Tea Party along with its fellow travelers.

POSTINGS: NEW AND OLD

The new post below is a look at the GOP and Tea Party and what's currently going on in Congress.

In addition. November 14, was the 50th anniversary of an important historical event, the integration of an elementary school in New Orleans, the first elementary school in the nation to be integrated. I couldn't let this go by without referring to two previous writings on this subject. The first is one of my earliest posts: Charley, if you could hear it now: Racism. That post also indicates how this blog came to be labeled Charley-liberaldog. The Steinbeck book referred to was the inspiration for launching this blog in mid-July. The second post, A Tale of One City--Two Eras, is a 50-year-later look based on a visit to New Orleans and the school and linking that history to the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

-0-0-0-0-0-0-

TO THE VICTORS: THE RIGHT TO FIGHT OVER THE SPOILS

The Republican election victory two weeks ago was a win for both the GOP and the Tea Party (TP), the latter setting the tone for the so-called discontented voter while, at the same time, pushing the GOP ideologically farther to the right. The question now is the one speculated on throughout the campaign. Will TP winners remain outside the tent of the establishment GOP and continue to be the discordant political and policy voice of the extreme right? Or, will it be co-opted by the GOP establishment and become just another part of a more conservative voice in Congress? This week's special session of Congress does not include the newly elected TP members, but it does give an opportunity for an initial look for answers to these questions since some preliminary GOP-TP skirmishes are underway.

In the House, the ever vocal, rampaging Representative Michelle Bachman has already and quickly lost her bid for the number four leadership position in the GOP. Bachman was the founder last summer of the Tea Party Caucus in the House which has more than 50 members. As the founder of the group, the promotion of the two-term Congresswoman to a leadership position would have been recognition of the contribution of the TP movement to the midterm election victory of Republicans. Instead, with the backing of the current GOP leadership (except for presumed new Speaker John Boehner who took an Olympian position and pretended to stay out of the fight), the post went to Jeb Hensarling, a four-term term conservative from Texas. So the first foray of the Tea Party to establish itself as a voice to be listened to inside the party estab;ishment fell flat.

Over in the Senate, the early issue of TP vs. GOP establishment is a bread and butter issue of pork barrel politics-- what to do about earmarking billions of dollars for favored projects in the home districts/states of members of the two chambers? A fundamental position of the Tea Party since its founding in early 2009, has been to cut federal spending with earmarking being one of the favorite targets for such cuts. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has defended earmarking, arguing that such funding comes from large pots of program money and if some of that is not earmarked for favorite projects of lawmakers, spending choices will be left in the hands of the administration/bureaucracy. The Senate voice for ending earmarking is Jim DeMint of South Carolina who has become a self-appointed leader of the TP which says it has no leadership structure. Rather the TP prefers to see itself as a grass roots movement expressing the voice of the people who "want to take their government back," whatever that means. That self-perception comes despite the fact that it, they, or whatever pieces there are of the TP, receive substantial financial backing from wealthy individuals and vested interests whose goal is serving their own political and economic self-interests. DeMint and the TP were the initial victors in the Senate earmarking dispute when McConnell backed down on the first day of the special session, but the issue is likely to come up again next year when specific appropriations are dealt with.

Meanwhile, outside of Congress, there are groups with Tea Party in their name or which serve as umbrella organizations for TP activists and as recipients of substantial outside financial support from those seeking to operate through so-called grass roots organizations. Before each new Congress there is an official orientation held to introduce first-time members to the nuts and bolts of their new jobs: organizing their office, the various staffing and other funds available to them, the legislative process, how to cast electronic floor votes, the basic rules of congressional decorum, and how to survive in Washington on $174,000 a year. The official orientation will be held this week. This year the Tea Party and like minded organizations have gotten in on the orientation act to give their particular slant on how to do things, and how the new members should think about certain issues that will come up.

One of these, FreedomWorks (FW) held a retreat last week. FW, headed by one-time Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey, receives substantial outside funding and has been a major organizer of TP activists and activities. The retreat, according to The New York Times, included topics such as: "guidelines to undoing the health care law; Monetary Policy and Economic Theory," and practical tips for living in Washington. Other TP and TP linked groups seeking to implant their views on the new members through some kind of orientation are the Tea Party Patriots, the Claremont Institute (a conservative California think tank), and Americans for Prosperity. Interestingly, according to news reports, a dispute has arisen between the Patriots group and the Claremont Institute with the former accusing the latter of falsely claiming to be the official orientation organization for the new TP legislators.

In sum, who co-opts whom (establishment GOP v Tea Party) in the new Congress will take some time to determine. My bet is on the establishment which, through the re-election of many long time incumbents, controls the power structure (at least in this House), meaning the leadership positions as well as the powerful committee and subcommittee chairs. But, through the orientation programs of those representing or pretending to represent the so-called grass roots Tea Party activists, various organizations are already at work to implant their ideological/policy agendas into the new Congress. The one thing you can be sure of, these TP or TP-linked groups are not teaching new members the old axiom of the one-time, legendary House Speaker Sam Rayburn: "To get along, go along."

TIME MAGAZINE'S PERSON OF THE YEAR

It is the time of the year for TIME magazine to again select its Person of the Year, to be announced in early December. The choice can be a person, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that "for better or for worse . . . has done the most to influence events of the year." At the extreme of "worse" was Hitler (1938), although in that year we did not yet not realize how evil "worse" could get. At the "better" end was Gandhi in l930, although the British probably would not have thought so. Which brings me to this year's nominees.

My personal choice at the "worse" end would be nominee Glenn Beck, although this is not to equate him with Hitler. But his God's messenger-on-earth approach to right wing proselytizing certainly had some "worse" features in terms of his playing to the dark side of our culture/moral-values war. Happily, he doesn't rise to the standard of doing "the most to influence events of the year". On doing the "most to influence", a top contender among the nominees would have to be "The Unemployed American." If a major news event of the year was the November 2 midterm elections and the huge Republican victory, then the plight of the unemployed workers played a big role in that victory. Whether translated into "It's the economy stupid" or "Jobs, jobs, jobs", the seemingly intractable problem of unemployment is a major indicator of our continuing economic problem -- recession and a sluggish recovery. It is a problem that has certainly been exploited by the Republicans and the Tea Party (TP) movement even while they opposed various stimulus proposals to deal with the problem.

For the GOP/TP "stimulus" itself became a cuss word. Their way of tarring the term was to look at President Obama's nearly $800 billion stimulus package enacted in early 2009, and say that Obama and the Democratic Congress added to the growing budget deficit and debt but "where are the jobs"? Their data point is the unemployment rate which was and is stuck at well above 9 percent. Ignored was the counter argument from some economists that the rate would have been even higher without the stimulus money and tax incentives that created and saved jobs.

The GOP resistance to getting more money into the economy to promote consumer spending, the bedrock of our economy, extended to legislation that was most certain to promote such spending in the quickest way. This is extension of unemployment payments to jobless workers whose benefits were running out. Opposition to further extensions of jobless benefits encompassed the usual right wing mantra about spending and deficits, but was broadened to suggest that such extensions made the jobless lazy; that is, it is easier to just sit back and cash the unemployment checks than to go out and look for work.

Which brings us to the special session of Congress which begins next week. The primary attention of the media has been on the issue of what to do about the temporary tax cuts enacted under the W. Bush administration, tax cuts that explain much of the deficit/debt problem passed on to Obama and railed against by the GOP/TP. Less attention has been given to another major issue on the agenda for the special session -- a further extension of emergency unemployment benefits due to expire at the end of the month.

As Christmas approaches, the big question is whether the Republicans will play Santa Claus or Scrooge. To be fair and balanced, it should be noted that while the Republicans have been united in their opposition to another extension, they were joined before the election by some Democrats who expressed concern about the effect of extending jobless benefits on the deficit/debt problem. It will be interesting to see how those Democrats who lost will now vote with the pre-election posturing out of the way. Come to think of it, it will also be interesting to see if the TP's success in pushing the GOP farther to the right will spillover to Democrats in the House and Senate seeking re-election in 2012. Will they also view becoming more conservative as a move in the right (no pun intended) direction?

In sum, in selecting Person of the Year, TIME should again look to a group rather than a person as it has in a number of previous selections since l927 when all of this began. "The Unemployed American" would certainly fit the criterion for "most to influence events of the year". On the "better" end of the scale, it would give positive recognition to the millions of workers and their families who have suffered and continue to suffer the devastating effects of no job. On the "worse" end, it would shine a light on those who have opposed legislative remedies while castigating Obama and his congressional supporters for their failure to get the economy moving.

FOREIGN POLICY: WHAT A DIFFERENCE HAVING MONEY MAKES

China's President Hu Jintao just completed a two-country visit to Europe last week where he indicated that China may be buying up some debt of financially hard-pressed countries in Europe, as well as announcing some major business deals. One deal made while he was in Paris was a $20 billion purchase of jet planes from Europe's Airbus company, the competitor to Boeing for dominance in China's aircraft market.

Meanwhile, President Obama is on a 10-day four-nation tour in Asia to promote a variety of U.S. interests, including expanded trade relations. While in India, a $10billion job-creating package for U.S. workers was reported which included the purchase by India of U.S. military and civilian aircraft.

The big difference between the two Presidents is that Obama is looking for ways to help the sluggish American economy by increasing exports which in turn creates U.S. jobs. (The U.S. made no friends with the recent announcement by the Federal Reserve that it would purchase $600 billion of Treasury bonds to foster economic growth. But that additional injection of dollars into the money supply will lessen the value of the dollar against other currencies and make their exports more expensive.) By contrast, Hu, presiding over a $2.7 trillion surplus in its foreign reserves, is in a position to help other countries with their financial and economic problems.

For some time China has been making significant investments in Africa and South America to assure its access to a variety of natural resources, as well as providing capital for infrastructure development. It has also heavily invested in the purchase of companies around the world, including the United States. China's investment/political strategy has now expanded to Europe to help or indicate a willingness to assist financially strapped countries such as Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland. That help could come in the form of Chinese purchase of some existing debt, as already done in Greece, or of bonds yet to be issued by these countries. This is occurring while China has already become the largest holder of outstanding U.S. Treasury obligations. No less important are the Chinese commitments already made or in progress for major infrastructure investments in Europe, such as port development in Greece and transportation projects to better link developed western with developing eastern Europe and Turkey.

In short, China, an emerging economy with vast cash reserves, has become an economic/financial power in its ability to gain and sustain influence in both developed and undeveloped/developing areas of the world. Meanwhile, handicapped by annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion, the U.S. counter strategy is necessarily directed toward a far less costly diplomatic approach of developing or strengthening its relations with countries bordering China and nearby countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

We have long had a variety of close relations with countries such as Japan, South Korea, New Zealand the Philippines, and Australia, as well as Taiwan. What we now seem to be doing through visits by Obama and other high administration officials such as Secretary of State Clinton is to seek closer ties with countries such as India with whom U.S. relations have ranged from warm to chilly over the years, depending on how India perceived our ties with its chief adversary, Pakistan. India has some major issues with China. Not only are they competitors in economic growth in Asia, but India also has had serious border disputes with China going back to the early l960s, when they fought a major war.

We have also been reaching out to give support to other countries which have current or recent problems with China. One of these is Vietnam which has significant territorial disputes with China, including one that led to a major military conflict in l979. Vietnam is also opposed to China's efforts to control the South China Sea and its potential resources. And recently Vietnam announced that it was opening its port at Cam Ranh Bay to foreign navies. Cambodia, which has some outstanding problems to be resolved with the U.S., is unhappy with China for the construction of dams on the Upper Mekong River which has slowed the flow of needed water to Cambodia. In a very recent visit to both Cambodia and Vietnam, Secretary Clinton stressed the U.S. commitment to maintaining a dominant role in Asia-Pacific affairs, including opposition to China's claims regarding the South China Sea. In turn, China has let it be known that it is unhappy with what it sees as U.S. intervention in its regional interests and internal affairs.

The U.S. efforts to enhance its presence in South and Southeast Asia have also led to some Chinese concern that we are reverting to a Cold War strategy of "containment". With that policy we sought to hem in Russia with a chain of military alliances that extended from western Europe (NATO), the Middle East (CENTO*) to Southeast Asia (SEATO**) We also flanked Russia in the east through our security ties with Japan. Ultimately the Middle East and Southeast Asia alliances proved to be weak and meaningless but the concept of "containment" or "encirclement" did not disappear and has now been resurrected by the Chinese as we try to build and/or strengthen our ties with countries extending from Japan to India.

In sum, China, with its economic growth and its financial resources is now sowing seeds in our traditional backyard, western Europe, presumably not only to make money on their investments but also to seek to re-orient or weaken Europe's ties with the United States while strengthening its own. Our counter on-the-cheap, diplomatic strategy is the slower process of building or rebuilding relationships with countries on China's periphery as a means of establishing or maintaining a strong deterrent to any Chinese ambitions for external expansion.

-0-0-0-0-

* Central Treaty Organization, at its height included Iran, Iraq, Pakistan,Turkey, and Britain. Turkey was the linking tie between NATO and CENTO.

**Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, at its height included France, Britain, Australia, Thailand, Philippines, New Zealand, and Pakistan. Pakistan was the linking tie between CENTO and SEATO.

POLITICS AND FOREIGN POLICY

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made two statements last week: 1) she is not interested in running for President, and ; 2) the last elections won't affect foreign policy; politics stops at the water's edge. The first we have to take her word ; on the second we should be more skeptical. The fact is that our domestic politics is a major influence on foreign policy and, what is more, it is often at the heart of foreign policy problems, or at least the ability to pursue a policy. Put another way, the basic policy goal may remain the same, but significant changes in domestic politics may force significant adjustments in pursuit of those goals.

Consider just one example which is the influence that the sizeable Cuban-American community in Florida has had and continues to have on our relations with Cuba. We fought a long and costly war in Vietnam which in reality we lost. Not only have we since made peace with Hanoi, but we also now seek to strengthen our ties with Vietnam as part of our larger efforts to maintain our strategic dominance in the Asia/Pacific region vis a vis China. We have not been able to come to a similar accommodation with Cuba, primarily because of our domestic politics. With Rep. Ros-Lethinen, a Cuban-American from Florida, likely to take over the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, easing of travel restrictions to Cuba is unlikely. Obama would like to ease restrictions and may now have to see what executive power he can use to do it. But given the painful,excessive importance of Florida's presidential electoral vote, Obama isn't likely to take the chance on his own. If you have any doubt about the importance of the Florida electoral vote, ask former Vice President Al Gore.

Then there is the never ending problem of Mideast policy. Obama has been perceived as being less supportive of Israel than his predecessors, meaning that in order to improve our relations with the Muslim world in general, Obama is seen as leaning hard on Israel to make concessions to get the so-called "peace process" restarted. Settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem is the highest priority of this administration's Mideast policy. The election of a more conservative, Republican Congress may force Obama and Secretary Clinton to at least downplay the importance of a settlement in judging their foreign policy success or failure. In the process, Obama may have to be seen as being more supportive of the Israeli point of view. Reason: a key part of the expanded right wing base of the GOP is the religious right which has been most supportive of Israel on a wide range of Mideast policy issues, including taking a more aggressive stand/war to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions. Obama has been pursuing a "separate track" approach on dealing with Iran, meaning a willingness to talk with Tehran on mutual problems in Afghanistan while maintaining a hardline on economic sanctions on the nuclear weapons issue. "Separate track" may now draw increased criticism from the right and work its way into the broader body politic.

There is also the problem of relations with Russia. The Obama administration has been seeking improved relations with Moscow on a wide range of issues. Getting Russian support on further U.N. economic sanctions on Iran gave some evidence of progress. But the center piece of improved relations was the agreement on a new treaty to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons possessed by the two countries. However, final agreement requires that it be approved by two-thirds of the Senate, 67 votes. Senate consideration of the treaty was sidetracked in part by the press of domestic legislation before the Senate, but also because of resistance by a number of Republican senators who have a general distrust of Russia when it comes to nuclear disarmament, as well as some specific concerns such as the treaty's impact on development of future U. S. anti-missile weapons systems. With the increase of Republican strength in the Senate, the future of the treaty is even less clear and with it the course of further improvement of U.S.-Russian relations.

These are just a few areas where one can be skeptical of Secretary Clinton's "no change" in foreign policy statement. There are other problems: issues such as the rate of troop drawdown in Afghanistan where Republicans are in no hurry, and China and trade/currency issues on which members of both parties have a similar view about a hardline on China. There are also less obvious problem areas such as relations with Turkey, South America (particularly Brazil), and trade policy in general and its relation to loss of U.S. jobs overseas. It is difficult to see how the latest domestic political battle, translated into major Democratic losses, will not blowback on these issues and how the Obama administration may be forced to re-tune or re-structure its foreign policy. Finally, all of this will have to be done in a world where Obama's election "shellacking" now means the overall perception of him as "a" or "the" world leader is weakened.

GOP LEADERS DO THE HULA

To this blogger, the elections have again highlighted a central, nonpartisan congressional problem -- that is, no matter who controls the Congress there is a structural problem that defies major changes in spending policy. This post is not to spell out with any procedural precision how Congress' structural impediments to change will operate with any specific proposal. Rather, it is to array the moving parts that are imbedded in the congressional process and make both campaign and post-election promises difficult to achieve.

Early in the primary elections season, the media latched on to the anti-incumbency theme to explain voter discontent and the Tea Party as the vehicle for this discontent. To the anti-incumbent theme, I said, "humbug". Since Tuesday much has been written and stated by the analysts and pundits about the Tea Party and its wins and losses in the House and Senate and what this means in moving the Republican establishment farther to the right. But the fact is that the power structure in both the House and Senate remains in the hands of long-time incumbents who are not easily nudged in a new direction. In both chambers that power structure is the party leadership and the chairpersons of the committees and subcommittees where the legislative work is done; in this case a new Republican power structure in the House and a continuing Democratic power structure in the Senate, however diminished in votes. While the party leadership has been more assertive in seeking to control the content and flow of policy in recent years, the presumed new House Speaker John Boehner has made a point of saying he wants to decentralize some of that power, presumably returning some of it to the committees and subcommittees.

That leads us to one of the core issues of the Tea Party movement since its beginning in early 2009 and now echoed by establishment party leaders -- a commitment to cutting federal spending, however unspecified, and reducing the deficit in both the near and long term. Doing something about this issue will provide an early encounter with reality.

It was noted above that the power structure is controlled by long-time incumbents, the only change being in the House where that power will switch from Democrats to Republicans. But whether control is by Democrats or Republicans, the long established and continuing problem is the existence of policy "iron triangles" or policy subsystems. These triangles/subsystems are made up of congressional committees/subcommittees, concerned interest groups, and related bureaucracies who dominate policymaking in their particular areas. Committees are chaired by persons who have built up seniority on the committee and they have that seniority because they are repeatedly re-elected from safe districts and thus are not easily nudged to accommodate the latest ideological outbreak. For example, in farm subsidy policy, the iron triangle includes members of the Agriculture Committees, the corresponding appropriations subcommittees, farm interest groups in general and crop-specific organizations, and bureaucratic units within the Agriculture Department who administer the policy, write the regulation for that policy, and spend the money.

There is an iron triangle for every policy area you can think of. If an entirely new policy area opens up, a new iron triangle will form. This was the case in the mid-l960s when a new anti-tobacco, health oriented subsystem formed after enactment of legislation requiring warning labels on cigarette packages. That subsystem became the political base for further legislation and regulations on a wide range of anti-tobacco policies. The power of these triangles grows as their policy area expands and/or they have more money; their power shrinks when the opposite occurs. Thus, those with the biggest stake in the game, the triangle/subsystem partners are likely to oppose any authorizing legislation or appropriations decisions that run counter to their interests. Further, these triangles don't fight alone. For example, if the farm subsidy interests are threatened, they may seek a quid pro quo deal with urban oriented constituencies concerned with the food stamp program which falls within the same agriculture legislative subsystem. And if necessary, they will make mutually beneficial deals with legislators from another iron triangle. The point here is that these iron triangles are fundamental structural stumbling blocks to major policy changes, and sometimes even minor ones.

In short, in the opinion of this blogger and contrary to what Boehner and Senate Minority Leader McConnell may say, we are not on the threshold of a new millenium in congressional fiscal policymaking or a return to any basic principles of the Republican party. The basic principle at stake is power. We are, in fact, simply re-entering the long dark tunnel of the congressional policy process and the only difference, at least in the House, is which party is carrying the dim flashlight so others cannot see in. Or, to use a different metaphor, the American public must remember the first rule of the hula dance. The story is told in the movement of the hands, not the hips. Right now what we are getting is a lot of hip action.