Bridges Don't Matter

Because the Republicans in the Senate wouldn't even consider passing President Obama's big jobs bill in package form, Senate Majority Leader Reid and the president decided to break that proposal into smaller bites, with a portion served each week. The first portion also didn't make it into an up-or-down vote, which was pretty surprising in that it dealt with plans to enable increased hiring of teachers and first responders (police and fire fighters). The next portion is scheduled for the coming week and involves money for improving highways and transportation.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Senate Democrats unveiled the next provision of President Obama's jobs plan they will bring for a vote -- $60 billion for highways, transit and airports -- as they attempt to pressure Republican opponents. ...

Polls show the public supports federal building on infrastructure. This proposal would provide $50 billion for highway, transit and aviation improvements, upgrading 150,000 miles of road and improving 4,000 miles of rail tracks, Democrats said.

The proposal would also launch a $10-billion infrastructure bank, which local agencies could tap for infrastructure construction projects. [Emphasis added]

This last part of the bill surely resonated in Los Angeles County. Just a few days before this article was published, a report was released that a number of bridges in the area are "structurally deficient, including one that is heavily traveled each day:

A stretch of the 10 Freeway, spanning the Los Angeles River and a maze of surface streets near downtown, routinely carries more than 300,000 vehicles a day. Built in 1959, the bridge has cracks in its concrete deck and is in need of repair.

It earned particular notoriety this week when a transportation advocacy nonprofit declared it one of the most heavily trafficked structurally deficient bridges in the U.S. ...

Doug Failing, executive director of highways for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said the group's findings are "reason to be concerned, although not reason to be panicked."

Structurally deficient bridges are not on the brink of collapse but are in need of repair to extend their life spans, Failing said. Most of the county's bridges were built in the 1950s and '60s with roughly 50- to 60-year life spans; putting off repairs will only multiply future expenses and could prove dangerous, he said. ...

Martin Wachs, director of transportation, space and technology at the Santa Monica-based Rand Corp., said infrastructure repair serves as a fast way to create jobs but that securing funding can be tough and unpopular.

"Politically there's almost no obvious reward for fixing something before it collapses as opposed to building something new," Wachs said. "We constantly turn our backs on the importance of our infrastructure. Eventually when we face the music, it's going to cost more and it's going to be more difficult and complex," he said. [Emphasis added]

So, the public needs and wants improved infrastructure and that's one way to create jobs, but the chances of the Republicans passing this part of the package are rated to slight to none. Why? Because we're coming up on an election year and the GOP wants to deny Barack Obama and Democrats any kind of momentum. Apparently they'd rather bridges in Los Angeles and Pittsburgh actually fell down, killing people. Apparently they'd also rather grant more tax breaks to corporations than putting the rest of us back to work now.

Ordinarily I would say the GOP is taking a huge risk, that the American public will realize just what the GOP is doing and reject the obstructionism and calculated recalcitrance. Even I am not that naive, however. I didn't see any howling from the Democrats about the defeat of the proposal to fund more cops and firefighters. I don't anticipate any when this portion goes down either.

The hard times will continue.

Recess Appointments

President Obama announced six recess appointments to his administration yesterday, all but one of which were not terribly controversial. Senate Republicans will not be happy with the appointment of James Cole to the number two spot at the Department of Justice. They remember that he was part of the team that investigated Newt Gingrich's ethics. Still, the appointment of four new ambassadors and the government's printer are hardly earthshaking.

From the New York Times:

Mr. Obama’s action will allow Mr. Cole and the other nominees — four ambassadors, as well as the official who runs the Government Printing Office — to serve for one year. The deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, defended the move, saying Mr. Obama felt he had no choice, especially in Mr. Cole’s case.

“We’ve been working hard with the Republicans and have seen some movement forward,” said Mr. Messina, who is with the president here. “There were some that, for whatever reason, they could not help us with and we felt were mission critical, and clearly the deputy attorney general is a critical position to help enforce the laws of the land.”

I'm not a big fan of recess appointments. I would prefer the president respect the constitutional role of the Senate to advise and consent. Still, there is a current backlog of about 550 appointments languishing in the Senate, all of whom will have to be re-nominated once the 112th Congress convenes. The GOP have made it quite clear that there will be even more obstruction starting January 5, 2011, so, with the exception of appointments to the federal bench, President Obama will have to continue the practice of recess appointments.

Of course, changing the filibuster rule in the Senate would unclog the backlog, allowing for up-or-down votes on the nominees, but we all know that isn't going to happen. We're in for another two years of congressional dysfunction.

Just Say No

The Republican party continues to thwart any meaningful legislation that they can, even legislation that would help business, a constituency they claim as their own. In a vote on a bill which would help out small businesses by providing government-guaranteed loans and some tax breaks, a bill that is backed by the US Chamber of Commerce, not one Republican crossed the aisle to move the bill forward.

From the New York Times:

Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected a bill to aid small businesses with expanded loan programs and tax breaks, in a procedural blockade that underscored how fiercely determined the party’s leaders are to deny Democrats any further legislative accomplishments ahead of November’s midterm elections.

The measure, championed by Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, had the backing of some of the Republican Party’s most reliable business allies, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business. Several Republican lawmakers also helped write it.

But Republican leaders filibustered after fighting for days with Democrats over the number of amendments they would be able to offer. A last-ditch offer by Democrats to allow three was refused by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. [Emphasis added]

Adding amendments to a bill is a long-established, if lamentable, part of the sausage making process in Congress. Both parties know this, and both parties engage in it. That part of the process might be justified if the amendments bore some kind of relationship to the subject of the bill, but that is too often not the case, and it certainly is not the case here. Democrats decided they could live with three of the amendments because, with a little creative thinking, three of them did have a tangential connection:

The three Republican amendments that Democrats seemed open to debating would eliminate a provision in the new health care law requiring businesses to file 1099 forms reporting when they buy more than $600 in goods from other businesses, extend a tax credit for biodiesel fuel and extend a credit for research and development.

But that wasn't good enough for the GOP. Rather than pass a bill that would help out small businesses, a group Republicans always claims is "the engine that drives our economy", Republicans wanted more. Much more.

Republicans had also wanted amendments on other topics, including the estate tax, nuclear loan guarantees, border security and the expiring Bush tax cuts.

It's not difficult to see what the GOP is engaging in: extortion. Americans don't mind if the tax cuts for the wealthiest expire. In fact, if that happens, the burgeoning deficit which seems to bother some folks might be reduced a bit. The Republicans know that a bill which would extend those tax cuts wouldn't be introduced by the Democrats, and would anger the public if they tried to introduce it. The same goes for the estate taxes, which at the present favor only the super wealthy. Consequently, the Republicans wanted to use the poorly lit back door to keep their donors happy.

And, just as importantly, it's an election year. The Democrats have managed to pass some major legislation, as hackneyed and insufficient as it is. The Republicans didn't want another arrow added to the Democratic quiver. That fact is so clear that the reporter who has the byline on the article, David M. Herszenhorn, embedded it in the story's lede.

Once again, getting re-elected and getting the power back is all that matters to those yahoos. It's nice our press is finally willing to point that out, even if only occasionally. Now it's time for the Democrats to acknowledge that fact and to trumpet it.

Nothing New Makes The News

The Party of No continues to thwart any meaningful legislation from the Senate (otherwise known as the World's Most Exclusive Country Club). Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) was the culprit this time.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) was seeking the unanimous consent of the Senate to move forward on the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act, which would retroactively boost the legal cap of $75 million on how much companies must pay for economic damages.

But Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) blocked the effort, saying it would make drilling too expensive for smaller companies. "Big Oil would love to have these caps there so they can shut out all the independents," he said, echoing the argument of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who halted an identical move last week.

The legislative maneuvering came as federal officials expanded the no-fishing zone to nearly a fifth of the Gulf of Mexico. The closure now totals 45,728 square miles, extending southeast from the blowout site.

And your point, Sen. Inhofe? I mean, if an oil company can't afford to pay the cost of willful incompetence, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to drill for oil. The size of the company doesn't matter, the results of its cost cutting when it comes to critical safety elements should. Even at $10 billion, the cap is suspiciously low. This latest disaster is going to cost far more than that.

BP has pledged to pay all "legitimate" claims of economic damage despite the current cap of $75 million. But Democratic lawmakers want to see a $10-billion cap set into law, just in case BP resists paying what is expected to be billions of dollars in claims.

The April 20 BP blowout is expected to cause billions of dollars in damage to fisheries and tourism, which would be covered by the bill.

That's just part of the damage, the calculable part. There's also the incalculable part: the loss of species, the ruination of the estuaries, the degradation of the environment.

Sen. Inhofe and his oil drilling buddies should be glad that there are few real progressives in the Country Club, people who would insist on there being no cap and who would insist on criminal sanctions and a corporate death sentence for any company found to have intentionally cut corners to make a few extra bucks.

A pox on all of the oil grubbers.

The Country Club

The NY Times has a rather pointed editorial decrying the US Senate rule for allowing secret holds on presidential nominees. The problem has become acute as the Party of No continues to thwart President Obama's nominees to such critical positions as the federal judiciary:

The United States Senate was supposed to have dropped its insidious tradition that let members put endless secret holds on nominations and other important matters. The abuse continues, more murky than ever.

The reform, adopted three years ago, required senators to identify themselves within six days of blocking a nominee, and to state their objection. That stricture has been routinely violated with cheesy gamesmanship. Members — mostly in the Republican minority — pass secret holds among themselves to foil the time limit.

Right now there are 52 nominees on secret holds — all noncontroversial in committee debates. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat of Missouri, is so fed up that she is challenging her colleagues from the Senate floor to fess up. “If you’re gonna stall and block, let’s see who you are,” she demanded in one speech. Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, echoed her, urging secret holders to “have the guts to go public.”

Sen. McCaskill has introduced a bill that would limit the secret part of the hold to only two days, but the editorial suggests that the bill has no chance of passing. How shameful is that?

The whole process stinks. As more than one Republican crowed not so long ago, "Elections have consequences." A new president, regardless of party, has a right to make nominations and the right to an "up-or-down vote," something the GOP has apparently forgotten in their zeal to halt any kind of meaningful governance by the current resident of the White House. Holds, secret or not, need to be removed from the arsenal of the obstructionists. Confirmation hearings and the debates that go with them should be sufficient to vet any nominee.

But, then, this is the US Senate: the most exclusive country club in the world. Such a change in the rules is, I guess, unlikely.

At least this time around.

Rogue Elephants

Here's an embarrassing fact: people in other countries know more about how our government works than people in this country know about how other governments operate. That's one of the lessons I've learned by visiting Watching America. Given the bellicosity of the US over the years, I suspect such knowledge is necessary as a matter of survival, but I'm still amazed at the depth of that knowledge and the astuteness of the analyses which accompany it.

This opinion column from Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung provides a classic example. The subject is the GOP response to the passage of the health care reform bill and is titled "Enraged Elephants."

But into the history books will also go the last fourteen months, during which Americans were witness to an unprecedented battle. Compared to the populist propaganda attacks launched by conservatives in and around America’s Tea Party movement, our little verbal skirmishes between coalition partners in the Berlin government look almost like peace talks. Republicans now attack the reforms like a herd of enraged elephants (in line with their party’s mascot) gone off the deep end.

Obama the tyrant, opposing the will of the people; the socialist who wants to turn America into a communist country. There were no comparisons so crude that opponents of health care reform wouldn’t stoop to using to demonize Democrats and their reform initiative. Right up to the actual vote, Republican representatives agitated against it; now that it’s been passed, their opposition continues. At least ten states, some with Democratic governors, now plan to challenge the new law in court.

...

The shrill Tea Party movement had a lot of success, and representatives got a taste of their displeasure in town hall meetings. But in the end, mobilizing their rage didn’t work. The bill was signed into law and thereby became a huge problem for Republicans: What happens if people start realizing over time that all the sky-is-falling rhetoric used by the conservatives hasn’t come true? What happens if America doesn’t magically change into communist China as promised? What happens if more Americans get healthy and stay that way?

...

The more Republicans try to demonize the new law in the run-up to the November elections, the more they will come off looking like sore losers. It’s also doubtful that public anger over the law will last that long — especially if the apocalyptic prediction from Republicans that it will spell the end of the United States doesn’t materialize. If the economic picture begins to brighten at all, anger against the Obama administration will be short-lived. Many say conservative opposition will start collapsing as soon as people start seeing their health care situation improving. The stubborn patriots Republicans depicted themselves as could soon start looking like mere naysayers. [Emphasis added]

I suppose an argument can be made that with only two political parties, following US politics is considerably easier than following the politics and governance of a country with a multiple-party parliamentary system. Still, the two US parties are not exactly monoliths. We have liberal Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, DLC types, and Southern Democrats. We have social conservatives, economic conservatives, and moderates in the Republican Party. Complicating matters further is the fact that there is a sizable chunk of 'independent' voters with no formal party allegiance, a bloc that both parties turn themselves inside out to woo come election time. One need only look at the sausage-making process on this bill alone to see just how complicated our political landscape can be.

While I think the author of this opinion piece is rather optimistic about the effect the health care reform law will have on the nation, I think his assessment of the foolish response from the Republicans to the bill is right on the money. They've written a check with their mouths that their backsides won't be able to cash. If the economy begins to pick up and the jobless rate falls, a great deal of the anger felt by the more rational elements of the populace will dissipate. Only the fringes will be waving tea bags and indulging in "open carry" actions. The rest of the country will look at them and recoil in disgust. Maybe then David Frum will find a job.

More importantly, maybe then we can get back to the job of designing some real health care reform.

Because There Are Rules

One of the sillier Senate rules is the one that allows a single senator to stop the confirmation of a White House nominee for a federal position in its tracks. The ostensible reason for this rule is that the senator placing a hold on the nomination because the senator wants time to check out some pertinent information on the nominee so the record is complete before the confirmation comes up for a vote. In actuality, the hold is usually imposed whenever a senator wants something in return for lifting the hold.

Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) hold on the White House nominee for head of the Transportation Security Administration falls under the category of "not-until-you-give me ..." category, as a NY Times editorial makes clear.

The Obama administration failed to offer a nominee until September, pleading the time was needed to find the right executive for the important post. Their belated choice, Erroll Southers, is a former F.B.I. agent who earned high marks when he served as chief of homeland security for California. He was easily approved by two Senate committees and heading for bipartisan confirmation — until the South Carolina Republican obstructed.

What’s the problem? Mr. DeMint says he won’t let the nomination go forward until he’s assured that a legal ban on T.S.A. workers unionizing will remain in place. Even after last week’s near-disaster over the Detroit airport, Senator DeMint clung to his union-bashing and knee-jerk warnings about the risks of security workers being allowed to collectively bargain.

He absurdly argued that “union bosses” will only worsen airline security (never mind that other federal workers and all manner of police forces responsibly exercise that right) while suggesting that President Obama has been out to “appease the terrorists.”

I suspect Sen. DeMint, in addition to union trashing, was also engaging in that Grand Old Party game of "Just Say No", but the point is that he could get away with it under the rules of the Senate.

Now, I think it improbable that the lack of a permanent head for one of our security agencies was the direct cause of the nearly successful Christmas Day bomb attempt by an obviously deranged Nigerian man, but it certainly didn't help. That gave the Democrats a tool to use against the Republicans, and for a change, Harry Reid decided to use it. Sen. DeMint is discovering that his own grandstanding has, because of its timing, just turned around and bit him in the backside.

As much fun as it is to watch Sen. DeMint squirm (and I am enjoying every bit of it), it does show once again that the aristocratic body known as the United States Senate has some collegial rules that need to be tossed, and this is certainly one of them. Will the senators make the change? Not without a lot of pressure being brought to bear, but this case just might be the one to stimulate some action.

We'll know in three weeks when the Senate reconvenes.