Without a doubt, the last two weeks have been a time of troubles for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and across northern Africa. The overthrow of a pro-U.S. government in Tunisia, massive street demonstrations against the U.S.-allied Egyptian government, a near Hezbollah takeover in Lebanon, a series of major bombings in Iraq, and further deterioration for the so-called Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This posting is about how one of these, the Egyptian protests, could spill over into our already nasty domestic politics in a way reminiscent of the l950s McCarthy era.
The events in Egypt have been unsettling enough, but also disturbing is a less noticed statement by Republican Representative Thaddeus McCotter admonishing those who see the anti-Mubarak demonstrations as "an uprising for populist democracy." Instead McCotter said we should be supporting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak against the protesters. That statement appeared to be contrary to President Obama's warning to Mubarak about the use of violence against the demonsrators. In distancing himself from Mubarak, Obama said, "The United States will continue to stand up for the rights of the Egyptian people." The difference of views between Obama and McCotter would seem to be no contest with Obama's leverage far outweighing that of a Republican Congressman who presumably was speaking for himself rather than issuing any party position.
Adding to this political positioning was an opinion piece in today's Washington Post by Elliott Abrams, a national security advisor to former President George W. Bush. Abrams takes a different view from McCotter but makes his case within a domestic political context. Abrams said Bush was right and Obama has been wrong in judging the popular demand for freedom in the Arab world. The worrisome aspect of the McCotter and Abrams positions is the possible implication for our domestic politics if Mubarak is forced from office and Egypt is governed by a less pro-U.S. or an anti-U.S. leader. Here a bit of history is in order.
In l949, the Chinese communists forced the nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek to flee to the island of Formosa, now Taiwan. The United States had been a strong backer of Chiang during World War II despite the efforts of some in Washington and the war zone to get the U.S. to also assist the Chinese communist army which was also fighting the Japanese. The case was made, unsuccessfully, that the communist army was a more effective fighting force that than of Chiang. After the war when the communists under Mao Tse-tung were warring with the nationalists for control of China, President Truman gave his full support to Chiang. The victory of the communists quickly entered the political bloodstream in the U.S. with the question--"Who lost China?"
The attack on Truman was led by the "China Lobby" which included such influentials as Republican Senator William Knowland of California, known as the Senator from Formosa, and Republican Representative Walter Judd of Minnesota, a one time missionary in China. The "Who lost China?" question was also a part of the communist witch hunt in Congress carried out through the hearings of Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin. McCarthy and others charged that the Chiang government was sold out by various pro-communist China experts in the State Department and the academic community. The pressure on the Truman administration was so great that some believe it forced the United States to enter the Korean War in l950 to show a determination of the U.S. to halt the further spread of communism on the Asian mainland.
So, are the McCotter and Abrams statements, although in disagreement, a way of staking out an early GOP, or more specifically anti-Obama, position on the question "Who lost Egypt?" if Mubarak falls? Forget the fact that for decades Democratic and Republican Presidents have in varying degrees supported Mubarak, the answer from the right wing, with cheerleading from right wing talk shows, is likely to be Obama and Hillary Clinton's State Department. Egypt may not seem to cast as large a shadow today in our foreign policy as China did in l949, but Egypt is a key player in our Middle East foreign policy. It was the first nation warring with Israel to sign a peace treaty with Israel; it continues to play a key role in our efforts to get an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement; and is an important part of our efforts to have a regional counterbalance to the growing threat of Iranian dominance in the Middle East. Further, Mubarak is a secular Muslim leader, although dictatorial and corrupt, and his overthrow could mean the coming to power of a fundamentalist Islamic leader, a scarey prospect indeed in a very fragile, religious sensitive region. If the powerful but illegal Muslim Brotherhood comes to power, it is almost certain to end Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. What then?
In sum, the Egyptian troubles are a major threat to our entire foreign policy in the Middle East, a policy which has enough shakey foundations, but there is also some major potential spillover into our domestic politics which hardly needs another acrimonious issue. Given the political bitterness over "Who lost China?", we hardly need a rerun with "Who Lost Egypt?"
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
THE TEA PARTY VS. THE GOP: AND THE WINNER IS . . . .
We are beginning to get some clarity on a big political question. The question before and after last year's elections was whether any newly elected Tea Party (TP) candidates or fellow travelers would continue to push their right wing agenda when they got to Congress or would they be absorbed into the GOP congressional establishment and its policy agenda.
Right now it looks like the Tea Party victors have gotten some leverage on that question, although there has not yet been an eyeball to eyeball confrontation between the TP and establishment GOP. That will likely come when the issue of raising the national debt limit has to be dealt with this spring.
One of the central issues for the TP was and remains reducing federal spending. On the surface at least it appears that the TP, particularly in the GOP-controlled House, has moved the establishment GOP in their direction, to the political discomfort of Speaker Boehner, his leadership team, and their followers. Last fall when Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor issued the "Pledge to America", the Pledge called for a $100 billion reduction in spending for the current fiscal year (which began on Oct. 1) but excluded any cuts in defense spending. The establishment pledge of no defense cuts has now been changed to include the defense budget, a policy shift in line with TP budget plans. But there are significant differences between the TP and GOP establishment on how much and what to cut out of the defense budget.
But while the House leadership has been wringing its hands on the specifics of this year's cuts, the TP types are turning up the rhetoric and the numbers. Representative Michelle Bachmann, organizer of the House Tea Party Caucus last year, has now called for a cut of $400 billion for the current fiscal year, already four months underway. On the other side of the Capitol, TP- darling Senator Rand Paul has pushed the number even farther, calling for a $500 billion cut this year. And last week the conservative House Republican Study Committee proposed cutting $2.5 trillion from the budget over the next 10 years, averaging $250 billion annually.
While the far right seems to be in a bidding war on budget cuts, the best the House leadership could do was get passage of a toothless resolution that would reduce the current year spending by an estimated $60 billion, chump change to the extremists. President Obama in his State of the Union message called for a five year freeze in non-security spending. But none of this, Democratic or Republican, will have any substantive meaning until Congress finally deals with some actual spending decisions. Right now it's all political posturing.
And beyond her far out budget cutting proposal, one has to note more grandstanding by Bachmann with her usual "in your face" style of politics, choosing to anoint herself a GOP respondent to Obama's speech. She did this despite Majority Leader Cantor's obvious displeasure and his insistence that Representative Paul Ryan was the party's official responder.
Not content with stirring up policy issues, the TP, like everyone else, is looking ahead to the 2012 elections. TP activists outside of Congress have already put several GOP senators on the to-be-watched list , meaning that unless those senators adhere to TP positions on various issues., they may face a challenger in the primary by far right conservatives blessed with a TP endorsement.
All of this TP-driven extremism makes the establishment GOP nervous that their newly regained strength with the voters may be lost if the GOP comes to be perceived as too extremist in its right wing conservatism. It has probably not escaped their notice that Obama's recent rise in the polls, as transitory as poll results can be, has come from a favorable shift back to Obama by some independent voters. Add to that the fact that the polls also show growing popular support for health care reform, an issue on which the GOP seems willing to spend a lot of time and effort, and perhaps political capital, to repeal or gut.
To conclude, in the TP vs. establishment GOP confrontation, the best is yet to come.
Right now it looks like the Tea Party victors have gotten some leverage on that question, although there has not yet been an eyeball to eyeball confrontation between the TP and establishment GOP. That will likely come when the issue of raising the national debt limit has to be dealt with this spring.
One of the central issues for the TP was and remains reducing federal spending. On the surface at least it appears that the TP, particularly in the GOP-controlled House, has moved the establishment GOP in their direction, to the political discomfort of Speaker Boehner, his leadership team, and their followers. Last fall when Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor issued the "Pledge to America", the Pledge called for a $100 billion reduction in spending for the current fiscal year (which began on Oct. 1) but excluded any cuts in defense spending. The establishment pledge of no defense cuts has now been changed to include the defense budget, a policy shift in line with TP budget plans. But there are significant differences between the TP and GOP establishment on how much and what to cut out of the defense budget.
But while the House leadership has been wringing its hands on the specifics of this year's cuts, the TP types are turning up the rhetoric and the numbers. Representative Michelle Bachmann, organizer of the House Tea Party Caucus last year, has now called for a cut of $400 billion for the current fiscal year, already four months underway. On the other side of the Capitol, TP- darling Senator Rand Paul has pushed the number even farther, calling for a $500 billion cut this year. And last week the conservative House Republican Study Committee proposed cutting $2.5 trillion from the budget over the next 10 years, averaging $250 billion annually.
While the far right seems to be in a bidding war on budget cuts, the best the House leadership could do was get passage of a toothless resolution that would reduce the current year spending by an estimated $60 billion, chump change to the extremists. President Obama in his State of the Union message called for a five year freeze in non-security spending. But none of this, Democratic or Republican, will have any substantive meaning until Congress finally deals with some actual spending decisions. Right now it's all political posturing.
And beyond her far out budget cutting proposal, one has to note more grandstanding by Bachmann with her usual "in your face" style of politics, choosing to anoint herself a GOP respondent to Obama's speech. She did this despite Majority Leader Cantor's obvious displeasure and his insistence that Representative Paul Ryan was the party's official responder.
Not content with stirring up policy issues, the TP, like everyone else, is looking ahead to the 2012 elections. TP activists outside of Congress have already put several GOP senators on the to-be-watched list , meaning that unless those senators adhere to TP positions on various issues., they may face a challenger in the primary by far right conservatives blessed with a TP endorsement.
All of this TP-driven extremism makes the establishment GOP nervous that their newly regained strength with the voters may be lost if the GOP comes to be perceived as too extremist in its right wing conservatism. It has probably not escaped their notice that Obama's recent rise in the polls, as transitory as poll results can be, has come from a favorable shift back to Obama by some independent voters. Add to that the fact that the polls also show growing popular support for health care reform, an issue on which the GOP seems willing to spend a lot of time and effort, and perhaps political capital, to repeal or gut.
To conclude, in the TP vs. establishment GOP confrontation, the best is yet to come.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
CHANGE OF POSTINGS
To My Readers and Followers--
This is to let you know that Charley Liberal Dog postings will be made less frequently for a time, going temporarily from three times to twice a week. My wife and I will be traveling for a few weeks, to be followed immediately by putting our house up for sale and relocating to a warmer climate. All of this will take a stretch of time and considerable effort. And with an aging body and mind, it is necessary to temporarily cut back on the very enjoyable task of keeping up with the news online and offline and writing the postings.
Sadly, the reduced postings means fewer occasions to beat up on John Boehner, the Tea Party, and Hamid Karzai (among others) and expressing my cynicism or skepticism on aspects of our foreign and domestic policies (with an occasional "well done").
I hope you will check the semiweekly posting and continue to comment. The next posting will be tomorrow, Thursday. I'll be back to the regular schedule as soon as the lousy housing market allows. Many thanks.
Charley
This is to let you know that Charley Liberal Dog postings will be made less frequently for a time, going temporarily from three times to twice a week. My wife and I will be traveling for a few weeks, to be followed immediately by putting our house up for sale and relocating to a warmer climate. All of this will take a stretch of time and considerable effort. And with an aging body and mind, it is necessary to temporarily cut back on the very enjoyable task of keeping up with the news online and offline and writing the postings.
Sadly, the reduced postings means fewer occasions to beat up on John Boehner, the Tea Party, and Hamid Karzai (among others) and expressing my cynicism or skepticism on aspects of our foreign and domestic policies (with an occasional "well done").
I hope you will check the semiweekly posting and continue to comment. The next posting will be tomorrow, Thursday. I'll be back to the regular schedule as soon as the lousy housing market allows. Many thanks.
Charley
Monday, January 24, 2011
SHRIVER AND TUCSON: A TALE OF TWO ERAS
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. . . ." The death of Sargent Shriver last week brought to mind this opening quote from Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities," London and Paris at the time of the French Revolution. Shriver's death, like Dickens' linking of the two cities, intertwines with the shooting in Tucson just over two weeks ago. Both events kindled further thoughts about a major issue on our national political agenda -- the need to tone down the anger in our political discourse.
The Tucson shooting was hastily linked by some of the media as being a consequence of the shrillness and vitriol that have become part of our political environment. While any tie between the shooting and the meanness of our politics was cut with the evidence that the tragedy was simply the non-political act of a deranged individual, the issue of political civility remains. This is where the death of Shriver and the Tucson shooting are linked.
Although much has been written to the contrary, there is still a general tendency to view our toxic political rhetoric, however bad, as something recently on the scene. Shriver's death rekindles the history of a time when as Dickens said, it was the best and worst of times. Shriver, brother-in-law of President Kennedy, came onto the public stage in the l960s as the first director of the Peace Corps and a few years later as the head of President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty program, and in l974 as the running mate in Senator George McGovern's failed quest for the presidency. It was a time when we trusted government and believed it could solve our deep social and economic problems, a trust that started to shift with the Vietnam war and Watergate and ended in the l980s when President Reagan pronounced his belief that government itself was the problem. That Reagan-era belief has persisted and is at the heart of the Tea Party/right wing rhetoric today.
As to the l960s "best of times", it began with President Kennedy's changing the national tone about citizen involvement in public affairs. Although I am not a Kennedy fan nor a believer in the Camelot mythology, he did bring a new tone to political discourse and, in the process, gave the younger generation a sense of greater commitment to public service. With Kennedy's assassination and the Johnson presidency, aided by an influx of a new wave of liberal lawmakers in Congress with the l964 election, there was an outpouring of legislation that changed the nation. Included were such landmark laws as the Civil Rights Act of l964, the Voting Rights Act of l965, medicare, medicaid, the first significant program of federal aid to education, and major immigration reform. And to deal with the problems behind the urban riots, we had the War on Poverty, the now defunct Model Cities program, and various housing development and anti-discrimination programs. Thus, to this blogger who shared that era, it was the best of times. But it was also the worst of times that makes today's political clash and clang less ear and mind shattering.
The "worst of times" began with the Kennedy assassination in l963 followed five years later by two more assassinations--Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. The assassinations alone would be sufficient to call the period our time of troubles. Add to that the the Vietnam war itself and the sometimes violent anti-Vietnam war demonstrations that began in the second half of the 60s and carried over into the early l970s until our involvement in the war ended in l973. The anti-war crescendos came in the summer of l968 at the Chicago riots outside the Democratic presidential convention, and again in l970 on college campuses when President Nixon expanded the war with military incursions into Cambodia. On top of that were the destructive urban riots that began in l964 and reached a climax with the King assassination in the spring of l968.
The anti-war movement could be viewed, at least in part, as a generational conflict with the younger generation making its demands directly and confrontationally on the "establishment" rather than through any traditional "let us reason together" process. Likewise the urban riots which occurred primarily in northern cities. The civil rights acts dealt with state and local legal discrimination against blacks in the south, but did little for the urban blacks of the north who faced a variety of forms of daily de facto discrimination. Like the younger whites who took on the establishment over the war, the younger blacks took the lead in violently confronting the system on bread and butter issues such as job and housing discrimination.
The combination of the anti-war movement and the urban riots forced Johnson from office and the window of opportunity for liberal legislation which opened with the l964 election closed two years later when more conservatives were returned to Congress. It should also be noted that the GOP had its own ideological shakeup at its l964 national convention with a bitter fight between followers of liberal Nelson Rockefeller and backers of arch conservative Barry Goldwater who went on to win the nomination but lost a landslide election.
So Shriver's death and the Tucson shooting provide an opportunity to give another perspective on the issue of political civility. I suppose there might be some kind of grand conclusion that could be drawn here. But suffice it to say that comparing the then-and-now, today may not be the "worst of times" but our current ideological/cultural divide seems likely to prevent a renewal of "the best of times".
The Tucson shooting was hastily linked by some of the media as being a consequence of the shrillness and vitriol that have become part of our political environment. While any tie between the shooting and the meanness of our politics was cut with the evidence that the tragedy was simply the non-political act of a deranged individual, the issue of political civility remains. This is where the death of Shriver and the Tucson shooting are linked.
Although much has been written to the contrary, there is still a general tendency to view our toxic political rhetoric, however bad, as something recently on the scene. Shriver's death rekindles the history of a time when as Dickens said, it was the best and worst of times. Shriver, brother-in-law of President Kennedy, came onto the public stage in the l960s as the first director of the Peace Corps and a few years later as the head of President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty program, and in l974 as the running mate in Senator George McGovern's failed quest for the presidency. It was a time when we trusted government and believed it could solve our deep social and economic problems, a trust that started to shift with the Vietnam war and Watergate and ended in the l980s when President Reagan pronounced his belief that government itself was the problem. That Reagan-era belief has persisted and is at the heart of the Tea Party/right wing rhetoric today.
As to the l960s "best of times", it began with President Kennedy's changing the national tone about citizen involvement in public affairs. Although I am not a Kennedy fan nor a believer in the Camelot mythology, he did bring a new tone to political discourse and, in the process, gave the younger generation a sense of greater commitment to public service. With Kennedy's assassination and the Johnson presidency, aided by an influx of a new wave of liberal lawmakers in Congress with the l964 election, there was an outpouring of legislation that changed the nation. Included were such landmark laws as the Civil Rights Act of l964, the Voting Rights Act of l965, medicare, medicaid, the first significant program of federal aid to education, and major immigration reform. And to deal with the problems behind the urban riots, we had the War on Poverty, the now defunct Model Cities program, and various housing development and anti-discrimination programs. Thus, to this blogger who shared that era, it was the best of times. But it was also the worst of times that makes today's political clash and clang less ear and mind shattering.
The "worst of times" began with the Kennedy assassination in l963 followed five years later by two more assassinations--Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. The assassinations alone would be sufficient to call the period our time of troubles. Add to that the the Vietnam war itself and the sometimes violent anti-Vietnam war demonstrations that began in the second half of the 60s and carried over into the early l970s until our involvement in the war ended in l973. The anti-war crescendos came in the summer of l968 at the Chicago riots outside the Democratic presidential convention, and again in l970 on college campuses when President Nixon expanded the war with military incursions into Cambodia. On top of that were the destructive urban riots that began in l964 and reached a climax with the King assassination in the spring of l968.
The anti-war movement could be viewed, at least in part, as a generational conflict with the younger generation making its demands directly and confrontationally on the "establishment" rather than through any traditional "let us reason together" process. Likewise the urban riots which occurred primarily in northern cities. The civil rights acts dealt with state and local legal discrimination against blacks in the south, but did little for the urban blacks of the north who faced a variety of forms of daily de facto discrimination. Like the younger whites who took on the establishment over the war, the younger blacks took the lead in violently confronting the system on bread and butter issues such as job and housing discrimination.
The combination of the anti-war movement and the urban riots forced Johnson from office and the window of opportunity for liberal legislation which opened with the l964 election closed two years later when more conservatives were returned to Congress. It should also be noted that the GOP had its own ideological shakeup at its l964 national convention with a bitter fight between followers of liberal Nelson Rockefeller and backers of arch conservative Barry Goldwater who went on to win the nomination but lost a landslide election.
So Shriver's death and the Tucson shooting provide an opportunity to give another perspective on the issue of political civility. I suppose there might be some kind of grand conclusion that could be drawn here. But suffice it to say that comparing the then-and-now, today may not be the "worst of times" but our current ideological/cultural divide seems likely to prevent a renewal of "the best of times".
Friday, January 21, 2011
RANDOM THOUGHTS ON RANDOM MATTERS
So much has been happening in the last week or so that today's post is a set of observations on various matters, rather than the usual focus on one subject.
The Hu Visit
Once more being the world's number one economy has paid off. Before Chinese President Hu Jintao left Washington, he left behind a very large package of $45 billion in contracts for buying U.S. products. With lots of cash in their pockets, a visit by a high ranking Chinese official carries with it the expectation that the visitor will leave behind some cash/contracts, either to buy things or invest in a country's debt. So if you've got the world's largest economy and are visited by the highest Chinese official, you expect the largest dropping. We were not to be disappointed. A lot of jobs will be created in the U.S. with the $45 billion and, meanwhile, China also continues to fund our debt. So, as said twice in previous blogs, it's nice to have money.
Health Care Repeal
At the same time the Chinese president was living up to expectations, so were the House Republicans. The newly controlled GOP House, in a grand political gesture, voted unanimously to repeal President Obama's health care reform law. Setting aside the fact that repeal would never make it through the Senate, Speaker Boehner and his brethren pushed ahead with what House Republicans said was the promise they had made to America during last year's election campaigns.
In Hamlet, Shakespeare writes, " the time is out of joint", meaning something is not right and must be corrected. So it may be with the GOP grandstanding about repeal of health care reform being what the people want. It is true that during the campaign while the GOP and the Tea Party were demonizing "Obamacare" as forcing "socialized medicine" down the throats of America and creating the myth of "death panels", public opinion was nervous and against proposed reforms, but the most recent polls show Americans are now evenly split upon repeal. And the likely trend is that as the benefits of the reforms come to be increasingly welcomed, the public tilt will be against repeal. So the GOP may be overplaying the repeal issue to their future disadvantage. So the time for the grand political gesture may be "out of joint" with political reality.
Obama Poll Ratings
Adding to the time "out of joint" on the issue of health care reform, are the latest results of various polls showing President Obama's job rating has gone back above 50 percent. The current ratings boost, always subject to reversal, is generally attributed to three things: 1) a general feeling that the economy is improving as more jobs are created and as individual 401 savings recover; 2) the more transitory effect flowing from the high ratings given to his memorial speech following the Tucson shootings; and 3) his unexpected success in winning several major victories in the post-election special session of Congress, restoring Obama's leadership image. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell must be having many sleepless nights if he contemplates how it was Obama's ability to attract enough bipartisan support that produced the wins.
Joe Lieberman
The best news this week beyond the 5-year extension of the loan of two Chinese pandas to the Washington zoo was the announcement by Independent Senator Joe Lieberman that he would not seek re-election in 2012. In his best years as a Democrat, he could be viewed positively as a Henry "Scoop" Jackson type Democrat, liberal on domestic policy but a right wing hawk on foreign policy. But since his return to the Senate in 2007 as an Independent, he has simply become a pain in the posterior to the Senate Democrats whose caucus he joined. The pain level reached its peak in 2007 when he endorsed Republican Senator John McCain in his presidential campaign against Obama and again while playing hard to get during Democratic efforts to hammer out a health care package in the Senate.
But to end that on a light note, or laughter: McCain said Lieberman would be a good choice to replace Secretary of Defense Gates when he leaves his job later this year.
The State Dinner for Hu
It's no wonder Congress is held in such low esteem. Three of the four congressional leaders chose not to go to the White House state dinner for Chinese President Hu. The absentees were two Republicans, Boehner and McConnell, and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. Forgetting their national leadership roles, they chose to serve their political/personal agendas and snub the dinner. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who has spoken out often against Chinese trade, currency, and human rights policies, set these views aside to carry out her national leadership role.
To close, there are a few other odds and ends such as the new Alabama governor saying non-Christians are not welcome as his brothers, and the death of Sargent Shriver who exemplified the time when the nation believed in its government and its ability to solve problems -- but space says maybe some other time, at least for Shriver.
The Hu Visit
Once more being the world's number one economy has paid off. Before Chinese President Hu Jintao left Washington, he left behind a very large package of $45 billion in contracts for buying U.S. products. With lots of cash in their pockets, a visit by a high ranking Chinese official carries with it the expectation that the visitor will leave behind some cash/contracts, either to buy things or invest in a country's debt. So if you've got the world's largest economy and are visited by the highest Chinese official, you expect the largest dropping. We were not to be disappointed. A lot of jobs will be created in the U.S. with the $45 billion and, meanwhile, China also continues to fund our debt. So, as said twice in previous blogs, it's nice to have money.
Health Care Repeal
At the same time the Chinese president was living up to expectations, so were the House Republicans. The newly controlled GOP House, in a grand political gesture, voted unanimously to repeal President Obama's health care reform law. Setting aside the fact that repeal would never make it through the Senate, Speaker Boehner and his brethren pushed ahead with what House Republicans said was the promise they had made to America during last year's election campaigns.
In Hamlet, Shakespeare writes, " the time is out of joint", meaning something is not right and must be corrected. So it may be with the GOP grandstanding about repeal of health care reform being what the people want. It is true that during the campaign while the GOP and the Tea Party were demonizing "Obamacare" as forcing "socialized medicine" down the throats of America and creating the myth of "death panels", public opinion was nervous and against proposed reforms, but the most recent polls show Americans are now evenly split upon repeal. And the likely trend is that as the benefits of the reforms come to be increasingly welcomed, the public tilt will be against repeal. So the GOP may be overplaying the repeal issue to their future disadvantage. So the time for the grand political gesture may be "out of joint" with political reality.
Obama Poll Ratings
Adding to the time "out of joint" on the issue of health care reform, are the latest results of various polls showing President Obama's job rating has gone back above 50 percent. The current ratings boost, always subject to reversal, is generally attributed to three things: 1) a general feeling that the economy is improving as more jobs are created and as individual 401 savings recover; 2) the more transitory effect flowing from the high ratings given to his memorial speech following the Tucson shootings; and 3) his unexpected success in winning several major victories in the post-election special session of Congress, restoring Obama's leadership image. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell must be having many sleepless nights if he contemplates how it was Obama's ability to attract enough bipartisan support that produced the wins.
Joe Lieberman
The best news this week beyond the 5-year extension of the loan of two Chinese pandas to the Washington zoo was the announcement by Independent Senator Joe Lieberman that he would not seek re-election in 2012. In his best years as a Democrat, he could be viewed positively as a Henry "Scoop" Jackson type Democrat, liberal on domestic policy but a right wing hawk on foreign policy. But since his return to the Senate in 2007 as an Independent, he has simply become a pain in the posterior to the Senate Democrats whose caucus he joined. The pain level reached its peak in 2007 when he endorsed Republican Senator John McCain in his presidential campaign against Obama and again while playing hard to get during Democratic efforts to hammer out a health care package in the Senate.
But to end that on a light note, or laughter: McCain said Lieberman would be a good choice to replace Secretary of Defense Gates when he leaves his job later this year.
The State Dinner for Hu
It's no wonder Congress is held in such low esteem. Three of the four congressional leaders chose not to go to the White House state dinner for Chinese President Hu. The absentees were two Republicans, Boehner and McConnell, and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. Forgetting their national leadership roles, they chose to serve their political/personal agendas and snub the dinner. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who has spoken out often against Chinese trade, currency, and human rights policies, set these views aside to carry out her national leadership role.
To close, there are a few other odds and ends such as the new Alabama governor saying non-Christians are not welcome as his brothers, and the death of Sargent Shriver who exemplified the time when the nation believed in its government and its ability to solve problems -- but space says maybe some other time, at least for Shriver.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS: THE ENDLESS ROLLERCOASTER RIDE
This may not be accurate but to the casual observer it seems that everytime a high U.S. official visits China or vice versa, the lead into the story deals with the visit being an opportunity to repair U.S.-Chinese relations-- political, military, and/or economic. So it is with the current visit to Washington of Chinese President Hu Jintao. I don't know whether it's because the Chinese are easily offended or that they think they still need to muscle their way into the role of a world power, a world in which its chief competitor is the United States. If the first, then maybe there isn't too much we can do about it; if the second, "enough already", you've arrived. Then, of course, U.S. leaders tend to get preachy from time to time such as Secretary of State Clinton's taking the pulpit recently in Qatar admonishing a group of Arab leaders about their need to reform politically and economically, or else. Such preaching can be offensive and over time we certainly have done some preaching to China.
And the Chinese seem to cherry pick when it wants the U.S. to involve itself in China's issues with other nations. For example, China would like U.S. involvement in settling China's long standing border dispute with India. But takes a "butt out" attitude about China's disputes with Japan and a number of Southeast Asia countries over control of various islands in the China Sea. Having said all that, I'll now get to the business of what this posting is about, which is to use the Hu visit to update two earlier postings -- "What a Difference Having Money Makes" and "China Reinvents the Co-Prosperity Sphere."
Since those postings, there have been significant developments. The starting point of the first piece was that the U.S. is upon hard economic and financial times while China continues to build up its huge reserve of foreign currencies, now about $2.5 trillion, plus gold. The key point was that President Obama's November trip, while focused on building closer ties with India, was also a sales job. That is, making deals that would increase our exports and thus create needed jobs in this country. While Obama was doing a kind of "on the cheap" tour, Hu was using some of the Chinese cash to buy European products (and thus help Europe's job creation) and embedding China into Europe's financial problem by committing or semi-committing his country to helping Europe with its fiscal crisis and thus taking pressure off of the Euro. That effort goes on.
Just last week the Chinese Vice Premier was in Europe making more trade deals and assuring European leaders that China would be buying more debt of the countries in trouble, particularly Portugal and possibly Spain if the need arises. It had already purchased some Greek bonds. It should also be noted that Japan has told European leaders that it also would buy some of the debt to ease pressure on the Euro. These commitments, of course, are not just some form of international altruism or trying to make political points. Both countries have an economic stake in preventing any further decline in the value of the Euro. A decline makes Chinese and Japanese exports to Europe more costly and thus reduces the flow of trade. Now to Chinese expansion of its neo- Co-Prosperity Sphere.
As noted in the earlier posting, the Chinese seem to be succeeding where the Japanese utterly failed during World War II. As stated, Japan sought to create an East Asian economic empire through invasion and conquest, followed by economically raping the conquered countries to guarantee the economic security of the homeland. That ended with Japan's defeat in l945. What seems to have emerged today is a strategy by China to create a co-prosperity zone through investments and trade. And as noted previously, China has made important inroads into the economies of Southeast Asia. Less noticed has been its economic and financial invasion in Central Asia, an area once part of the Soviet Union before its collapse in 1991.
The region now has five independent countries -- Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. According to reports, China has been quietly inserting huge sums of money there to develop, for example, oil and gas infrastructure that will help assure its energy needs in the future. Also, according to these reports, trade in general has grown greatly between China and these countries after a vacuum was created with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The United States is not a disinterested party in what happens in Central Asia. In addition to our general concern about any kind of Chinese expansion, it's a region involved in supply routes for our war in Afghanistan with a major U.S. air base in Kyrgyzstan. According to an item from WikiLeaks, China offered that country $3 billion to shut down the base. Russia has also sought to have the base closed down. Kyrgyzstan did threaten to close the base, but chose instead to settle for a higher rent which rose from $17 to $60 million a year. Neither country wants a U.S. military presence in a region that has always been in the sphere of influence or under complete control of China or Russia. In addition to efforts to economically integrate Central Asia into its Co-Prosperity Sphere, China also sees more integration of the region helping with its sometimes very serious problem of conflict between the Chinese and Muslim residents in parts of the region.
In sum, Hu's visit to Washington comes at a time when China is on the move with the U.S. government itself unable to counter proportionally with direct economic and investment tools, relying on our business community, our military presence in the region, and our efforts to build better political and trade relations there. So the state visit is a very important part of our seeking smoother if not a hugging relationship with China, but don't be surprised if something else comes along to chill the relationship still another time.
And the Chinese seem to cherry pick when it wants the U.S. to involve itself in China's issues with other nations. For example, China would like U.S. involvement in settling China's long standing border dispute with India. But takes a "butt out" attitude about China's disputes with Japan and a number of Southeast Asia countries over control of various islands in the China Sea. Having said all that, I'll now get to the business of what this posting is about, which is to use the Hu visit to update two earlier postings -- "What a Difference Having Money Makes" and "China Reinvents the Co-Prosperity Sphere."
Since those postings, there have been significant developments. The starting point of the first piece was that the U.S. is upon hard economic and financial times while China continues to build up its huge reserve of foreign currencies, now about $2.5 trillion, plus gold. The key point was that President Obama's November trip, while focused on building closer ties with India, was also a sales job. That is, making deals that would increase our exports and thus create needed jobs in this country. While Obama was doing a kind of "on the cheap" tour, Hu was using some of the Chinese cash to buy European products (and thus help Europe's job creation) and embedding China into Europe's financial problem by committing or semi-committing his country to helping Europe with its fiscal crisis and thus taking pressure off of the Euro. That effort goes on.
Just last week the Chinese Vice Premier was in Europe making more trade deals and assuring European leaders that China would be buying more debt of the countries in trouble, particularly Portugal and possibly Spain if the need arises. It had already purchased some Greek bonds. It should also be noted that Japan has told European leaders that it also would buy some of the debt to ease pressure on the Euro. These commitments, of course, are not just some form of international altruism or trying to make political points. Both countries have an economic stake in preventing any further decline in the value of the Euro. A decline makes Chinese and Japanese exports to Europe more costly and thus reduces the flow of trade. Now to Chinese expansion of its neo- Co-Prosperity Sphere.
As noted in the earlier posting, the Chinese seem to be succeeding where the Japanese utterly failed during World War II. As stated, Japan sought to create an East Asian economic empire through invasion and conquest, followed by economically raping the conquered countries to guarantee the economic security of the homeland. That ended with Japan's defeat in l945. What seems to have emerged today is a strategy by China to create a co-prosperity zone through investments and trade. And as noted previously, China has made important inroads into the economies of Southeast Asia. Less noticed has been its economic and financial invasion in Central Asia, an area once part of the Soviet Union before its collapse in 1991.
The region now has five independent countries -- Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. According to reports, China has been quietly inserting huge sums of money there to develop, for example, oil and gas infrastructure that will help assure its energy needs in the future. Also, according to these reports, trade in general has grown greatly between China and these countries after a vacuum was created with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The United States is not a disinterested party in what happens in Central Asia. In addition to our general concern about any kind of Chinese expansion, it's a region involved in supply routes for our war in Afghanistan with a major U.S. air base in Kyrgyzstan. According to an item from WikiLeaks, China offered that country $3 billion to shut down the base. Russia has also sought to have the base closed down. Kyrgyzstan did threaten to close the base, but chose instead to settle for a higher rent which rose from $17 to $60 million a year. Neither country wants a U.S. military presence in a region that has always been in the sphere of influence or under complete control of China or Russia. In addition to efforts to economically integrate Central Asia into its Co-Prosperity Sphere, China also sees more integration of the region helping with its sometimes very serious problem of conflict between the Chinese and Muslim residents in parts of the region.
In sum, Hu's visit to Washington comes at a time when China is on the move with the U.S. government itself unable to counter proportionally with direct economic and investment tools, relying on our business community, our military presence in the region, and our efforts to build better political and trade relations there. So the state visit is a very important part of our seeking smoother if not a hugging relationship with China, but don't be surprised if something else comes along to chill the relationship still another time.
Monday, January 17, 2011
CONGRESS LOOKS HOMEWARD -- AS USUAL
It was interesting to note that despite the fact that the new Congress had just started, the first weekend found members back in their home districts. Speaker Boehner reacted to the Tucson shooting with a statement from his district in Ohio; Minority Leader Pelosi gave her statement from San Francisco. Why this caught my attention is that when I was Chief of Staff (then less pretentiously called Administrative Assistant) for a Hawaii Congressman, a member of the House was allowed just two trips a year to the home district. Now, if my calculations are correct, a member from a district 1,500 miles from Washington, for example, has an annual travel allowance of nearly $65,000 which probably also allows the Member to take a staff person with him or her from time to time. Why two trips a year was enough in the early 60s but is now provided for every or nearly every weekend escapes me. On the other hand, the reason should be obvious. When it comes to taking care of itself, Congress is not given to moderation.
I raise this point to note the explosion in funding for Congress since my time. Each House member receives on average of about $1.5 million for staff and office support. Some of the funds and staff added over the years reflect the need for more help to service the growing size of a district. The average population of a House district has increased from about 412,000 in l960 to 708,000 today, an increase of about 70 percent; and of course the inflation factor has to be considered. But Congress, which is held in minimum low esteem by the public, has been lavishing more and more money upon itself for years, not just for members but also for padding the staffs of the many committees and subcommittees. So when Speaker Boehner talks about reducing the House budget by 5 percent, it is difficult to be impressed.
And with the Tucson shooting, there has been considerable talk about increasing the security for House and Senate members. One House member suggested a plexiglass shield to enclose the public gallery to protect members on the House floor against any shooting and/or bomb throwers in the gallery. Other House members, always alert to an opportunity to further fatten their coffers, have proposed a 10 percent increase in already overly generous staff budgets to cover security. Before Congress comes arguing about the need for more money to enhance security, it should shake out the currently bloated congressional budget and do what needs to be done without more money.
There was a time when a mass shooting such as occurred in Tucson would have been followed by a loud cry from a significant number of legislators for stronger gun controls. However, in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, there seems to be little said about gun control per se, apparently because the Congress has been cowed over the years by the National Rifle Association so those who might normally support stronger gun controls are wary of crusading in a legislative area filled with political land mines. Even the idea of banning excessively large bullet clips such as one that can hold 30+ bullets seems to be too bold an idea to be attracting much support; likewise the renewal of a ban on assault weapons.
So what is Congress likely to do? Answer: protect itself.
As noted above, one proposal is for a plexiglass shield to close in the public gallery and some are going for the money to add to the budget for office staff. A Texas Republican said members should be permitted to carry a weapon on the House floor. And then there is the proposal of Representative Peter King of New York whom I noted previously will be holding hearings on so-called radicalization of American Muslims. To that bad idea he has added another flowing from the Tucson shooting. King wants to make it a crime to bring a firearm within 1,000 feet of a government official. Thus our legislators would seek to protect themselves from another Tucson-type tragedy. Aside from the elitist appearance of the proposal, there is also the mind-stretching problem of enforcement. One thousand feet is more than three football fields. Would King's proposal, to have any prospect of being meaningful, mean encircling the area with enough security personnel and/or screening devices to detect a firearm? And what would "government official" mean? Would it include an official of the Department of Agriculture's extension service who visits a farmer who has a cabinet full of hunting weapons? Or, to keep it simple, "government official" would be defined as a person in the highest echelons of the bureaucracy.
The bottom line is that being a member of the House and Senate does indeed carry with it personal risk, but as shown in Tucson, there is also risk for the member's constituents if it involves a public gathering. So if anything is to be done, Congress needs to come up with a solution that is not unseemingly built around their own security and adding further to their elitist image.
I raise this point to note the explosion in funding for Congress since my time. Each House member receives on average of about $1.5 million for staff and office support. Some of the funds and staff added over the years reflect the need for more help to service the growing size of a district. The average population of a House district has increased from about 412,000 in l960 to 708,000 today, an increase of about 70 percent; and of course the inflation factor has to be considered. But Congress, which is held in minimum low esteem by the public, has been lavishing more and more money upon itself for years, not just for members but also for padding the staffs of the many committees and subcommittees. So when Speaker Boehner talks about reducing the House budget by 5 percent, it is difficult to be impressed.
And with the Tucson shooting, there has been considerable talk about increasing the security for House and Senate members. One House member suggested a plexiglass shield to enclose the public gallery to protect members on the House floor against any shooting and/or bomb throwers in the gallery. Other House members, always alert to an opportunity to further fatten their coffers, have proposed a 10 percent increase in already overly generous staff budgets to cover security. Before Congress comes arguing about the need for more money to enhance security, it should shake out the currently bloated congressional budget and do what needs to be done without more money.
There was a time when a mass shooting such as occurred in Tucson would have been followed by a loud cry from a significant number of legislators for stronger gun controls. However, in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, there seems to be little said about gun control per se, apparently because the Congress has been cowed over the years by the National Rifle Association so those who might normally support stronger gun controls are wary of crusading in a legislative area filled with political land mines. Even the idea of banning excessively large bullet clips such as one that can hold 30+ bullets seems to be too bold an idea to be attracting much support; likewise the renewal of a ban on assault weapons.
So what is Congress likely to do? Answer: protect itself.
As noted above, one proposal is for a plexiglass shield to close in the public gallery and some are going for the money to add to the budget for office staff. A Texas Republican said members should be permitted to carry a weapon on the House floor. And then there is the proposal of Representative Peter King of New York whom I noted previously will be holding hearings on so-called radicalization of American Muslims. To that bad idea he has added another flowing from the Tucson shooting. King wants to make it a crime to bring a firearm within 1,000 feet of a government official. Thus our legislators would seek to protect themselves from another Tucson-type tragedy. Aside from the elitist appearance of the proposal, there is also the mind-stretching problem of enforcement. One thousand feet is more than three football fields. Would King's proposal, to have any prospect of being meaningful, mean encircling the area with enough security personnel and/or screening devices to detect a firearm? And what would "government official" mean? Would it include an official of the Department of Agriculture's extension service who visits a farmer who has a cabinet full of hunting weapons? Or, to keep it simple, "government official" would be defined as a person in the highest echelons of the bureaucracy.
The bottom line is that being a member of the House and Senate does indeed carry with it personal risk, but as shown in Tucson, there is also risk for the member's constituents if it involves a public gathering. So if anything is to be done, Congress needs to come up with a solution that is not unseemingly built around their own security and adding further to their elitist image.
Friday, January 14, 2011
FURTHER NOTES ON TUCSON
President Obama's call for toning down our political rhetoric and bringing more civility into our political discourse is certainly to be applauded. The lack of such civility has been noted for some time and not suddenly discovered with the shooting in Tucson which, according to the evidence so far, was unrelated to our toxic political atmosphere. But one would have to be pretty naive to think that Obama's speech or the many previous warnings about the potential danger of inflamed political rhetoric will now lower the decibel level of the shrill. There may be a short term toning down but one should be skeptical about its staying power. I hope my skepticism is unwarranted. We'll see. Two points:
1. We have arrived, unhappily, at the time when too much of our politics and too many of our politicans are driven by the extremes of their party, particularly on the right. As the Tea Party drove mainstream conservative Republicans farther to the right, liberals at the other end of the spectrum have demanded more attention from Obama and Democrats in Congress. With this kind of increased polarization and the shrillness that goes with it, both sides look for things with which to demonize the other. For example, on the right they have come up with the "birthers" who say Obama was not born in the U.S. and thus can't be President and the claim that Obama is a Muslim, not a Christian. While the vast majority of Americans reject that kind of "stuff", it is out there and doesn't go away despite the evidence to the contrary.
And so it will remain with the linkage now made between vitriolic political rhetoric and would-be political assassins. While evidence in the Tucson shootings rejects this theory for that shooting, it doesn't mean the next mentally deranged person won't be driven by his or her own political demons which include the political atmosphere. The point is that the linkage has gained a foothold in the national psyche and will emerge as needed by whomever can make political points with it. And despite the appeals for more civility by both Democrats and Republicans, the shrillness is likely to continue with a principal source continuing to be right wing radio talk shows which dominate the airwaves.
2. I must preface this point by saying I am no fan of Sarah Palin and am in full+ agreement with what has been said about her lack of qualifications to be President. This point relates to the quick judgment made by some of the media regarding Palin's use of crosshairs to target persons she thought should be defeated in the last election. This, it was implied, illustrated the toxic political atmosphere that motivated the shooting. While cleared of any association with the "why" of the shooting, she had set herself up for hasty judgment. Her frequent identification with gun culture language (e.g., "don't retreat, reload") and her macho willingness to have herself filmed using a shotgun or rifle is a part of her background. So the association made between Palin and the motivation of the shooter, is now added to that part of her background and won't just disappear. It will have the same standing as the "birthers" and the assertions about Obama's religion. Such views are held by a small minority on the right fringe and thus it will be with the fringe at the other end of the spectrum regarding Palin. This kind of stuff just doesn't go away. However recessed in the mind it might be, it is now a part of her political baggage to be whispered and trotted out as needed in the future and presented as fact rather than disproved theory.
In sum, while all evidence points to the Tucson shooting as the act of a mentally deranged person driven by his own non-political demons, our dark side, confrontational politics and its potential for random, deadly violence now has a place on the national agenda.
1. We have arrived, unhappily, at the time when too much of our politics and too many of our politicans are driven by the extremes of their party, particularly on the right. As the Tea Party drove mainstream conservative Republicans farther to the right, liberals at the other end of the spectrum have demanded more attention from Obama and Democrats in Congress. With this kind of increased polarization and the shrillness that goes with it, both sides look for things with which to demonize the other. For example, on the right they have come up with the "birthers" who say Obama was not born in the U.S. and thus can't be President and the claim that Obama is a Muslim, not a Christian. While the vast majority of Americans reject that kind of "stuff", it is out there and doesn't go away despite the evidence to the contrary.
And so it will remain with the linkage now made between vitriolic political rhetoric and would-be political assassins. While evidence in the Tucson shootings rejects this theory for that shooting, it doesn't mean the next mentally deranged person won't be driven by his or her own political demons which include the political atmosphere. The point is that the linkage has gained a foothold in the national psyche and will emerge as needed by whomever can make political points with it. And despite the appeals for more civility by both Democrats and Republicans, the shrillness is likely to continue with a principal source continuing to be right wing radio talk shows which dominate the airwaves.
2. I must preface this point by saying I am no fan of Sarah Palin and am in full+ agreement with what has been said about her lack of qualifications to be President. This point relates to the quick judgment made by some of the media regarding Palin's use of crosshairs to target persons she thought should be defeated in the last election. This, it was implied, illustrated the toxic political atmosphere that motivated the shooting. While cleared of any association with the "why" of the shooting, she had set herself up for hasty judgment. Her frequent identification with gun culture language (e.g., "don't retreat, reload") and her macho willingness to have herself filmed using a shotgun or rifle is a part of her background. So the association made between Palin and the motivation of the shooter, is now added to that part of her background and won't just disappear. It will have the same standing as the "birthers" and the assertions about Obama's religion. Such views are held by a small minority on the right fringe and thus it will be with the fringe at the other end of the spectrum regarding Palin. This kind of stuff just doesn't go away. However recessed in the mind it might be, it is now a part of her political baggage to be whispered and trotted out as needed in the future and presented as fact rather than disproved theory.
In sum, while all evidence points to the Tucson shooting as the act of a mentally deranged person driven by his own non-political demons, our dark side, confrontational politics and its potential for random, deadly violence now has a place on the national agenda.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
MORE TOXIC POLITICS ON THE WAY
It seemed appropriate to observe the media coverage of the Tucson shooting before making any comment of my own. As typical of the media, whether it involves a mass shooting, a giant oil spill, or a plane crash, the first report on the event occurring is hastily followed by "Whose fault was it?" The "whose fault" was immediately answered by the capture of the shooter at the scene. It quickly followed that he has some severe mental problems.
At that point the question turned to "why?" For some of the media the shooting was linked with the growing toxicity of our political discourse which in turn pressed on the mental imbalance of the shooter. In creating that set of linkages, some attention was given to Sarah Palin whose pre-election campaign website showed through the use of crosshairs that Representative Gabrielle Giffords was one of Palin's election targets. The upshot of all of this has been the right wing accusing the left wing of politicizing the shooting, arguing that the shooting of 20 people, six of whom were killed, was the work of a lone, deranged person-- PERIOD. He was not driven by the vitriol of our politics but was simply driven by his own demons.
But there was so much talk about the lack of political civility being a possible conditioning force behind the killings that this has become a fixed part of debate and news analysis. And since the left for some time has been attacking right wing rhetoric as the source of the growing political virulence and violence, the political toxicity/shooting linkage gained considerable traction in public discussion and cannot be dismissed simply by the right saying it was just a mentally unbalanced individual. The linkage between our toxic political atmosphere and the shooting is not likely to go away. It is just the latest but most tragic chapter about the current clash and clang in our political environment and how it is poisoning our political life. This toxicity was the subject of my first posting on this blog last July 13.
Which brings me to a new but related aspect of the virulence story that is likely to further reinforce the dark side of politics in the near future. It involves the anti-Muslim sentiment in this country which came to the fore with the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) in 2001 when teams of Arabs crashed their planes into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and an open field in Pennsylvania. In two previous postings, "Clash of Civilizations" and "More on Anti-Muslim Rhetoric," I noted the increasing and very vocal opposition to the proposal for building a mosque/Islamic social center near the WTC site. While the outcry by many in New York City (and fellow travelers from other parts of the country) was the loudest, there has been smaller but no less intense opposition to building new mosques in other parts of the country. In Oklahoma there was a fight over a proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban international or Islamic law as a basis for Oklahoma judges decisions.
Now we are on the threshold of the anti-Muslim war being carried into Congress, more specifically the House of Representatives, and even more specifically the Homeland Security Committee. With the GOP takeover of the House, that committee got a new chairperson, Peter King of Long Island, N.Y. Even before assuming the chair King announced that he would hold hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims and what he says is their lack of cooperation with law enforcement authorities. "The American media, American politics, the inside elite refuse to discuss this issue. When someone like myself says 'Let's raise the issue,' I am immediately denounced as a bigot, as a McCarthyite," he has said.
King has a reputation of being blustery and blunt so it is difficult to believe that his hearings will not turn into a hot media event with political grandstanding and also serve as a rallying platform for a multitude of persons and organizations with anti-Muslim agendas. Committee grilling, at least by some members, of various American Islamic leaders is likely to be perceived as a legislative lynching by the average Arab American and many others who do not share the anti-Muslim sentiment. If indeed the hearings are viewed that way, then what may follow will be American Muslim alienation from the larger society and an incentive for developing homegrown Muslim radicals, one of the greatest concerns of those responsible for our national security.
In sum, the high noise level in our political discourse, renewed with the Tucson shooting, may soon reach another level of toxicity when Rep. King brings our Muslim citizens before his committee.
At that point the question turned to "why?" For some of the media the shooting was linked with the growing toxicity of our political discourse which in turn pressed on the mental imbalance of the shooter. In creating that set of linkages, some attention was given to Sarah Palin whose pre-election campaign website showed through the use of crosshairs that Representative Gabrielle Giffords was one of Palin's election targets. The upshot of all of this has been the right wing accusing the left wing of politicizing the shooting, arguing that the shooting of 20 people, six of whom were killed, was the work of a lone, deranged person-- PERIOD. He was not driven by the vitriol of our politics but was simply driven by his own demons.
But there was so much talk about the lack of political civility being a possible conditioning force behind the killings that this has become a fixed part of debate and news analysis. And since the left for some time has been attacking right wing rhetoric as the source of the growing political virulence and violence, the political toxicity/shooting linkage gained considerable traction in public discussion and cannot be dismissed simply by the right saying it was just a mentally unbalanced individual. The linkage between our toxic political atmosphere and the shooting is not likely to go away. It is just the latest but most tragic chapter about the current clash and clang in our political environment and how it is poisoning our political life. This toxicity was the subject of my first posting on this blog last July 13.
Which brings me to a new but related aspect of the virulence story that is likely to further reinforce the dark side of politics in the near future. It involves the anti-Muslim sentiment in this country which came to the fore with the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) in 2001 when teams of Arabs crashed their planes into the twin towers, the Pentagon, and an open field in Pennsylvania. In two previous postings, "Clash of Civilizations" and "More on Anti-Muslim Rhetoric," I noted the increasing and very vocal opposition to the proposal for building a mosque/Islamic social center near the WTC site. While the outcry by many in New York City (and fellow travelers from other parts of the country) was the loudest, there has been smaller but no less intense opposition to building new mosques in other parts of the country. In Oklahoma there was a fight over a proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban international or Islamic law as a basis for Oklahoma judges decisions.
Now we are on the threshold of the anti-Muslim war being carried into Congress, more specifically the House of Representatives, and even more specifically the Homeland Security Committee. With the GOP takeover of the House, that committee got a new chairperson, Peter King of Long Island, N.Y. Even before assuming the chair King announced that he would hold hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims and what he says is their lack of cooperation with law enforcement authorities. "The American media, American politics, the inside elite refuse to discuss this issue. When someone like myself says 'Let's raise the issue,' I am immediately denounced as a bigot, as a McCarthyite," he has said.
King has a reputation of being blustery and blunt so it is difficult to believe that his hearings will not turn into a hot media event with political grandstanding and also serve as a rallying platform for a multitude of persons and organizations with anti-Muslim agendas. Committee grilling, at least by some members, of various American Islamic leaders is likely to be perceived as a legislative lynching by the average Arab American and many others who do not share the anti-Muslim sentiment. If indeed the hearings are viewed that way, then what may follow will be American Muslim alienation from the larger society and an incentive for developing homegrown Muslim radicals, one of the greatest concerns of those responsible for our national security.
In sum, the high noise level in our political discourse, renewed with the Tucson shooting, may soon reach another level of toxicity when Rep. King brings our Muslim citizens before his committee.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
IRAQ MISADVENTURE: A TURKISH ALTERNATIVE?
Last month I posted two pieces on Iraq. The first, "Darkness at the End of the Tunnel", followed by "Stepping Through the Looking Glass". The first was very pessimistic about political events in Iraq and its effect on U.S. policy. In the second, I tried to see if there was some reason for optimism I was overlooking. The first posting had it right.
The "darkness" conclusion was further confirmed last week with the return to Baghdad of the U.S.'s arch Iraqi nemesis, Muqtada al-Sadr. He didn't sneak back from Tehran in the dark of night. He returned in triumph from three years of self-imposed exile in the Iranian capital after being driven out of Baghdad through the combined efforts of the U.S. and the then-and-still Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. And no less important is what has been noted before, that al-Maliki owes the "still" P.M. to al-Sadr who helped to clear the political path for al-Maliki by casting his (al-Sadr) 40 parliamentary votes for the P.M. to form a new coalition government. While it has not been stated outright, it is most likely that part of the deal was that al-Maliki would stand by the 2011 timetable for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the country.
The status of forces agreement on troop withdrawal was negotiated between al-Maliki and former President George W. Bush who made a mess of things in Iraq in the first place. (see July 19th posting). But even with the withdrawal date clearly established, there were and still are hawks in the Bush and Obama administrations and Congress who want to leave some troops in place to act as a kind of strategic trip wire (not just for training security forces) against any Iranian efforts to insert itself militarily into Iraqi affairs. Such a trip wire won't stop Iranian political interference which already has had significant impacts in Baghdad, probably including pressing al-Sadar to join the government coalition to give Iran a strong voice inside the governing tent. Al-Sadr's return should further dim U.S. hopes for retaining forces there, but as Yogi Berra said, "It ain't over 'til it's over". With nearly a year before the troop deadline, there could be a fall out between al-Maliki and al-Sadr and give new hope to our hawks. Certainly the byzantine world of Iraqi politics gives aid and comfort to such hopes.
But for the purpose of this posting, let us presume that all of our troops are gone by December 31. What then in terms of countering assumed Iranian ambitions in Iraq and the region? Militarily we still have plenty of force in the region in Kuwait and Qatar and on the sea. That force is sufficient to serve our strategic interests in protecting oil rich Saudi Arabia and the bordering states such as the Emirates, Qatar, etc. But we have seen what the use of so-called hard power or force has gotten us since 2003. We are not seen as liberators who rescued a country from a dictatorship but as invaders and occupiers, or worse--new Christian crusaders seeking to destroy Islam. It is time to simply think of our regional goal as stability. The starting point for that will be our exit from Iraq and ending the instability created by our invasion, our continued presence, and the collateral empowerment of Iran. We have to stop thinking in terms of implanting our political values and face the reality of how we are perceived by those who live there.
If the goal of regional stability is indeed what we seek, then pass the torch to someone better able to advance that goal. The candidate that comes to mind is Turkey, a member of NATO and long time friend of the United States. It is Muslim (Sunni) and it has and is further developing important, cultural, diplomatic, and economic ties with adjoining Islamic nations in the region, including Iran. Further, since l949 Muslim Turkey has had diplomatic relations with Israel although that has been strained in recent years with Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2008/09 and Israel's forcefully halting a humanitarian aid vessel heading for Gaza last year in which eight Turks were killed. And Turkey's image in the Muslim world has improved considerably with its shedding of the earlier perception of its being a U.S. lackey. The change came with Turkey's refusal in 2003 to allow the U.S. to use Turkey as a northern invasion route to Iraq and its more recent "no" vote (as a non-permanent member) in the U.N. Security Council against another round of economic sanctions against Iran.
The biggest obstacle to Turkey's soft power approach is the United States. Our primary way of countering Iran is reliance on military force. A policy of stepping aside and allowing Turkey's soft approach to promote stability in a region that includes Iran may be too shocking to the hawks and Israel's strong supporters in Congress. Further, the fact that a Muslim led Turkish government replaced a secular government (although policy was often driven by the military) in Ankara in 2003 makes them suspect as a reliable regional stabilizer. That is, the hawks, along with many others with anti-Muslim sentiments, would argue that somewhere down the line the Muslim-led government in Turkey will become increasingly fundamentalist and become a part of the problem.
But one can only speculate so far. Right now it would be a great leap forward for us to just get out of Iraq and stop the hand wringing by some about how we can somehow keep a credible military force there, in whatever capacity. If it is regional stability we seek (we who contributed so much to regional instability) we should step aside and let the Turks try their way -- and without our trying to kibbitz from the sidelines.
The "darkness" conclusion was further confirmed last week with the return to Baghdad of the U.S.'s arch Iraqi nemesis, Muqtada al-Sadr. He didn't sneak back from Tehran in the dark of night. He returned in triumph from three years of self-imposed exile in the Iranian capital after being driven out of Baghdad through the combined efforts of the U.S. and the then-and-still Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. And no less important is what has been noted before, that al-Maliki owes the "still" P.M. to al-Sadr who helped to clear the political path for al-Maliki by casting his (al-Sadr) 40 parliamentary votes for the P.M. to form a new coalition government. While it has not been stated outright, it is most likely that part of the deal was that al-Maliki would stand by the 2011 timetable for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the country.
The status of forces agreement on troop withdrawal was negotiated between al-Maliki and former President George W. Bush who made a mess of things in Iraq in the first place. (see July 19th posting). But even with the withdrawal date clearly established, there were and still are hawks in the Bush and Obama administrations and Congress who want to leave some troops in place to act as a kind of strategic trip wire (not just for training security forces) against any Iranian efforts to insert itself militarily into Iraqi affairs. Such a trip wire won't stop Iranian political interference which already has had significant impacts in Baghdad, probably including pressing al-Sadar to join the government coalition to give Iran a strong voice inside the governing tent. Al-Sadr's return should further dim U.S. hopes for retaining forces there, but as Yogi Berra said, "It ain't over 'til it's over". With nearly a year before the troop deadline, there could be a fall out between al-Maliki and al-Sadr and give new hope to our hawks. Certainly the byzantine world of Iraqi politics gives aid and comfort to such hopes.
But for the purpose of this posting, let us presume that all of our troops are gone by December 31. What then in terms of countering assumed Iranian ambitions in Iraq and the region? Militarily we still have plenty of force in the region in Kuwait and Qatar and on the sea. That force is sufficient to serve our strategic interests in protecting oil rich Saudi Arabia and the bordering states such as the Emirates, Qatar, etc. But we have seen what the use of so-called hard power or force has gotten us since 2003. We are not seen as liberators who rescued a country from a dictatorship but as invaders and occupiers, or worse--new Christian crusaders seeking to destroy Islam. It is time to simply think of our regional goal as stability. The starting point for that will be our exit from Iraq and ending the instability created by our invasion, our continued presence, and the collateral empowerment of Iran. We have to stop thinking in terms of implanting our political values and face the reality of how we are perceived by those who live there.
If the goal of regional stability is indeed what we seek, then pass the torch to someone better able to advance that goal. The candidate that comes to mind is Turkey, a member of NATO and long time friend of the United States. It is Muslim (Sunni) and it has and is further developing important, cultural, diplomatic, and economic ties with adjoining Islamic nations in the region, including Iran. Further, since l949 Muslim Turkey has had diplomatic relations with Israel although that has been strained in recent years with Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2008/09 and Israel's forcefully halting a humanitarian aid vessel heading for Gaza last year in which eight Turks were killed. And Turkey's image in the Muslim world has improved considerably with its shedding of the earlier perception of its being a U.S. lackey. The change came with Turkey's refusal in 2003 to allow the U.S. to use Turkey as a northern invasion route to Iraq and its more recent "no" vote (as a non-permanent member) in the U.N. Security Council against another round of economic sanctions against Iran.
The biggest obstacle to Turkey's soft power approach is the United States. Our primary way of countering Iran is reliance on military force. A policy of stepping aside and allowing Turkey's soft approach to promote stability in a region that includes Iran may be too shocking to the hawks and Israel's strong supporters in Congress. Further, the fact that a Muslim led Turkish government replaced a secular government (although policy was often driven by the military) in Ankara in 2003 makes them suspect as a reliable regional stabilizer. That is, the hawks, along with many others with anti-Muslim sentiments, would argue that somewhere down the line the Muslim-led government in Turkey will become increasingly fundamentalist and become a part of the problem.
But one can only speculate so far. Right now it would be a great leap forward for us to just get out of Iraq and stop the hand wringing by some about how we can somehow keep a credible military force there, in whatever capacity. If it is regional stability we seek (we who contributed so much to regional instability) we should step aside and let the Turks try their way -- and without our trying to kibbitz from the sidelines.
Friday, January 7, 2011
A NEW ERA OF STATES RIGHTS?
The states are not waiting for Congress to do what the states rights advocates believe state governments are empowered to do or the federal government is barred from doing by the Constitution.
The current major states rights issues revolve around immigration, and the right of any state to overturn an act of Congress. For these two issues it is the classic battle between Article VI of the Constitution making the federal government action the supreme law of the land and Article X of the Bill of Rights reserving undefined powers to the states. Another piece of state-sponsored ferment is over health care reform with various state lawsuits challenging the federal government's authority to mandate that individuals carry health insurance. Some of the immigration and health care issues are making their way through the federal courts and it may be sometime before a final decision is made by the U.S. Supreme Court.
To me the most interesting states effort to put the brake on what they regard as overreaching federal control is the effort to get a constitutional amendment that would allow a state to "repeal" or "nullify" an act of Congress. This claimed power has a long history in this country, going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, a set of acts designed to curb criticism of the U.S. government and how it handled its tense relations with France. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison quietly penned resolutions for two states that attacked the acts. The heart of the resolutions was that the United States was a voluntary association of states and the acts were unconstitutional violations of free speech and an intrusion into state authority.
Again in l832, South Carolina passed an act of nullification against two tariff laws which the state felt were harmful to southern states. President Andrew Jackson threatened to use force against South Carolina but the issue was resolved before troops were sent in.
A more recent issue of states rights was over civil rights legislation and President Truman's desegregation of the military. Southern states were particularly angry and in l948, South Carolina's Senator Strom Thurmond bolted the Democratic party's presidential nominating convention and ran for the presidency himself as the candidate for the States Rights Democratic Party, sometimes called Dixiecrats.
Now in 2011, the issue of nullification of federal laws by the states has been revived in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment. Getting the Constitution amended is a formidable task but Republican state legislators, led by Virginia plus the Tea Party, intend to pursue the effort. These opponents of judicial activism (non-right wing judges) are very active in seeking constitutional amendments. Apparently the new House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, is prepared to back the effort. Congress must approve such an amendment and submit it for ratification of 38 states. It is a challenge to the imagination to believe Congress will act to reduce its own legislative power.
An equally interesting case of constitutional tampering has to do with the 14th amendment giving automatic citizenship to persons born in the United States. Last summer Senators Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, John Kyl, and John McCain indicated they would support Senate consideration of changing the 14th amendment so that citizenship is not automatically given to children of undocumented residents, so-called "anchor babies". Like the case of the nullification proposal, amending the Constitution regarding citizenship is very difficult. There have been only 26 amendments and 10 of these are the Bill of Rights. Some state lawmakers are looking for a way around the amendment problem by getting the states to coordinate action to establish a form of state citizenship and the issue of state and U.S. citizenship would eventually get to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision on the constitutionality of automatic citizenship to persons born here.
In sum, while not getting the attention of Speaker John Boehner's plan to repeal health care reform, cut spending, etc., etc., etc., there are some determined efforts at the state level to push their own agenda on national policy issues.
The current major states rights issues revolve around immigration, and the right of any state to overturn an act of Congress. For these two issues it is the classic battle between Article VI of the Constitution making the federal government action the supreme law of the land and Article X of the Bill of Rights reserving undefined powers to the states. Another piece of state-sponsored ferment is over health care reform with various state lawsuits challenging the federal government's authority to mandate that individuals carry health insurance. Some of the immigration and health care issues are making their way through the federal courts and it may be sometime before a final decision is made by the U.S. Supreme Court.
To me the most interesting states effort to put the brake on what they regard as overreaching federal control is the effort to get a constitutional amendment that would allow a state to "repeal" or "nullify" an act of Congress. This claimed power has a long history in this country, going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, a set of acts designed to curb criticism of the U.S. government and how it handled its tense relations with France. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison quietly penned resolutions for two states that attacked the acts. The heart of the resolutions was that the United States was a voluntary association of states and the acts were unconstitutional violations of free speech and an intrusion into state authority.
Again in l832, South Carolina passed an act of nullification against two tariff laws which the state felt were harmful to southern states. President Andrew Jackson threatened to use force against South Carolina but the issue was resolved before troops were sent in.
A more recent issue of states rights was over civil rights legislation and President Truman's desegregation of the military. Southern states were particularly angry and in l948, South Carolina's Senator Strom Thurmond bolted the Democratic party's presidential nominating convention and ran for the presidency himself as the candidate for the States Rights Democratic Party, sometimes called Dixiecrats.
Now in 2011, the issue of nullification of federal laws by the states has been revived in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment. Getting the Constitution amended is a formidable task but Republican state legislators, led by Virginia plus the Tea Party, intend to pursue the effort. These opponents of judicial activism (non-right wing judges) are very active in seeking constitutional amendments. Apparently the new House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, is prepared to back the effort. Congress must approve such an amendment and submit it for ratification of 38 states. It is a challenge to the imagination to believe Congress will act to reduce its own legislative power.
An equally interesting case of constitutional tampering has to do with the 14th amendment giving automatic citizenship to persons born in the United States. Last summer Senators Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, John Kyl, and John McCain indicated they would support Senate consideration of changing the 14th amendment so that citizenship is not automatically given to children of undocumented residents, so-called "anchor babies". Like the case of the nullification proposal, amending the Constitution regarding citizenship is very difficult. There have been only 26 amendments and 10 of these are the Bill of Rights. Some state lawmakers are looking for a way around the amendment problem by getting the states to coordinate action to establish a form of state citizenship and the issue of state and U.S. citizenship would eventually get to the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision on the constitutionality of automatic citizenship to persons born here.
In sum, while not getting the attention of Speaker John Boehner's plan to repeal health care reform, cut spending, etc., etc., etc., there are some determined efforts at the state level to push their own agenda on national policy issues.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
WASHINGTON NEW YEAR: RING OUT THE OLD, RING IN THE OLD
Normally a new Congress gets off to a slow start, taking weeks and sometimes a few months to get down to serious business. The opening day is largely ceremonial, including Nancy Pelosi's turning over the Speaker's gavel to John Boehner. One of the first bits of business being the introduction or rather the re-introduction of hundreds of bills that have gone nowhere in the past and have no future. They are simply bills close to the heart of a Representative or Senator or bills intended to please certain individuals or interest groups back home or wherever.
But there are two bills to be watched. These are H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate. By carrying the "number 1" designation, they are intended to show symbolically what the top legislative priority is for the leadership in the two chambers. This blogger may be wrong, but from the boasting that has been going on by Boehner, H.R. 1 should be a bill to repeal President Obama's health care reform law. The GOP leadership has set January 12 for the vote on repeal. In the Senate, the top priority S. 1 should be immigration reform. Both are carryover commitments from the previous Congress. Now for a bit of recap.
Despite the "shellacking" the Democrats took in last November's congressional elections, it was a successful legislative performance by Obama and his Democratic congressional backers. His pre-election victories in getting passage of an $800 billion economic stimulus package, health care reform, and greater regulation of the financial markets came only after bitter partisan battles that were only won when two or three GOP Senators backed him. In the post-election period he enjoyed remarkable and unexpected success with bipartisan support for a tax bill that Democratic liberals opposed because it was too generous to the wealthy, but also included some new stimulus elements. That was the easy part. The more difficult and generally unexpected wins came with bipartisan support for repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell on gay service in the military, ratification of the START nuclear reduction treaty with Russia, and a health care package for first responders to the 9/11 terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center.
The most notable post-election failure for the Democrats was the inability to attract Senate Republican support for the DREAM act to aid young, undocumented immigrant residents to gain citizenship. But of all Obama's wins, the most detested by the GOP and fellow traveling Tea Partiers was health care reform and thus repeal is on the top of the Republican agenda, at least in the House. And for Senate Democrats, the failure to get either a comprehensive immigration reform proposal or the more modest DREAM act passed should make immigration reform their top priority, The problem for both Republicans and Democrats is that neither priority is likely to make it through the legislative labyrinth, at least in the form they wish.
The GOP controlled House will resoundingly pass the health care repeal but it will languish in the Democratic controlled Senate, despite Boehner's chest thumping about the good prospects for also making it through the Senate. Any House efforts to cut off funding to implement health care reform will also face difficulty in the Senate as well as the prospects of a presidential veto of such a cutoff. Conversely, immigration reform will continue to face difficulties in gaining the needed bipartisan support in the Senate and has little or no future in the House unless reform is watered down and subordinated to new commitments for added border protection.
Add to this the contentious carryover agenda on the issues of providing funds to keep the government going and raising the debt ceiling by spring to avoid a disastrous government default. With Congress failing to pass any appropriation bills for the fiscal year that began last October 1, the government has been living off of short-term continuing funding resolutions with the latest running out soon. This opens the door to Republicans to seek to tie further spending to budget cuts. The GOP House leadership has talked about cutting $100 billion from government spending but has not said what they would cut. The coming argument over continued funding should force the House GOP leadership hand on whose ox is to be gored. And, of course, there remain the Senate and veto obstacles.
Then there is the debt ceiling issue. The current debt limit is $14.3 trillion which is expected to be reached in 2-3 months. If the ceiling isn't raised, you can expect an international financial disaster if the U.S. defaults on its obligations. Despite some Republican and new Tea-Party-member bluster about not raising the debt ceiling, the more responsible legislators from both parties will raise the ceiling to avoid such a default.
In sum, it's a new Congress but the old issues will set the agenda. There is, however, a very important new context -- the elections of 2012. While the public may be paying attention to what comes out of Washington over the next 22 months, Congress itself, and the President, will be focused on setting the stage to their own political advantage. Politics will trump performance. Again, an old story.
But there are two bills to be watched. These are H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate. By carrying the "number 1" designation, they are intended to show symbolically what the top legislative priority is for the leadership in the two chambers. This blogger may be wrong, but from the boasting that has been going on by Boehner, H.R. 1 should be a bill to repeal President Obama's health care reform law. The GOP leadership has set January 12 for the vote on repeal. In the Senate, the top priority S. 1 should be immigration reform. Both are carryover commitments from the previous Congress. Now for a bit of recap.
Despite the "shellacking" the Democrats took in last November's congressional elections, it was a successful legislative performance by Obama and his Democratic congressional backers. His pre-election victories in getting passage of an $800 billion economic stimulus package, health care reform, and greater regulation of the financial markets came only after bitter partisan battles that were only won when two or three GOP Senators backed him. In the post-election period he enjoyed remarkable and unexpected success with bipartisan support for a tax bill that Democratic liberals opposed because it was too generous to the wealthy, but also included some new stimulus elements. That was the easy part. The more difficult and generally unexpected wins came with bipartisan support for repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell on gay service in the military, ratification of the START nuclear reduction treaty with Russia, and a health care package for first responders to the 9/11 terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center.
The most notable post-election failure for the Democrats was the inability to attract Senate Republican support for the DREAM act to aid young, undocumented immigrant residents to gain citizenship. But of all Obama's wins, the most detested by the GOP and fellow traveling Tea Partiers was health care reform and thus repeal is on the top of the Republican agenda, at least in the House. And for Senate Democrats, the failure to get either a comprehensive immigration reform proposal or the more modest DREAM act passed should make immigration reform their top priority, The problem for both Republicans and Democrats is that neither priority is likely to make it through the legislative labyrinth, at least in the form they wish.
The GOP controlled House will resoundingly pass the health care repeal but it will languish in the Democratic controlled Senate, despite Boehner's chest thumping about the good prospects for also making it through the Senate. Any House efforts to cut off funding to implement health care reform will also face difficulty in the Senate as well as the prospects of a presidential veto of such a cutoff. Conversely, immigration reform will continue to face difficulties in gaining the needed bipartisan support in the Senate and has little or no future in the House unless reform is watered down and subordinated to new commitments for added border protection.
Add to this the contentious carryover agenda on the issues of providing funds to keep the government going and raising the debt ceiling by spring to avoid a disastrous government default. With Congress failing to pass any appropriation bills for the fiscal year that began last October 1, the government has been living off of short-term continuing funding resolutions with the latest running out soon. This opens the door to Republicans to seek to tie further spending to budget cuts. The GOP House leadership has talked about cutting $100 billion from government spending but has not said what they would cut. The coming argument over continued funding should force the House GOP leadership hand on whose ox is to be gored. And, of course, there remain the Senate and veto obstacles.
Then there is the debt ceiling issue. The current debt limit is $14.3 trillion which is expected to be reached in 2-3 months. If the ceiling isn't raised, you can expect an international financial disaster if the U.S. defaults on its obligations. Despite some Republican and new Tea-Party-member bluster about not raising the debt ceiling, the more responsible legislators from both parties will raise the ceiling to avoid such a default.
In sum, it's a new Congress but the old issues will set the agenda. There is, however, a very important new context -- the elections of 2012. While the public may be paying attention to what comes out of Washington over the next 22 months, Congress itself, and the President, will be focused on setting the stage to their own political advantage. Politics will trump performance. Again, an old story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)