H.R. 2008 says No. It would prohibit “inserting politics into the Federal acquisition process” by prohibiting the submission of political contribution information as a condition of receiving a Federal contract.
Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
Politics is an odd business, and there’s nothing like the birth certificate controversy to prove that. News that President Obama has released his “long-form” birth certificate seems like an important concession on the part of the president, a win for “birthers” and skeptics of his constitutional qualification for office. But the president and his advisers may have just made lemonade from the lemons this issue has offered them.
First, the controversy as it has stood: 1) There has been no chance that the birth certificate controversy would unseat the president as a legal matter. No chance the Supreme Court would go there. 2) The issue has had only a little relevance to the president’s electoral prospects—nobody who voted for the president will change to a “no” in the next election because of the birth certificate issue—but it has kept opponents of the president energized. 3) It would be better to have this issue go away, but not at the cost of demeaning the president—and the presidency—with a show of birth records to the rabble. (And it is demeaning to the presidency to acknowledge this controversy. It has racial overtones that, hmmm, for lack of better words: racial overtones that suck.)
Now to the present day: The president found a solution that will make the issue go away. The name of the solution is Donald Trump.
Trump is the new Ross Perot. A fascinating experimental candidacy (fascinating mostly to himself, of course). Trump is a media darling because there’s nothing else to do. But he’s totally unelectable. Repeat: Totally. Unelectable. Super-bonus-repeat: Toe. Tuh. Lee. Un. Eee. Leck. Tuh. Bull.
What is Trump in the hard-nosed, political world? A distraction that makes Republicans look slightly buffoonish. “Sideshows and carnival barkers,” as President Obama himself said.
Trump is helping the president by falling for the president’s trap and crediting himself with the release of the birth certificate. The president has given Trump a longer life as Republicans’ buffoon candidate. Using Trump, the president has taken the small net negative offered by the birth certificate issue and turns it into a small, but relevant positive. While Republican party leaders look on, a little political jujitsu on the part of the president has turned Donald Trump into a an albatross around their necks for another few weeks, delaying the time Republicans can build the credibility of a serious candidate and contender (of which there are few).
When Trump’s star falls back to earth, the birth certificate issue will be gone, demoralizing some of President Obama’s fiercest and most dedicated opponents, and mainstream party Republicans will have been dealt a setback as well. Not a bad political play.
Yet another government shutdown looms. At the end of the week, the current “continuing resolution” will run out. The government can’t run without Congress’ authorization to spend money, so House Republicans are negotiating with Senate Democrats and the president about what comes next.
In 1995, Republicans took most of the political blame when there was a shutdown, so the consensus is that they would take the blame if it happened again. But many in the new class of House Republicans are Tea Partiers committed to controlling spending and the deficit. They put House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) in a bind because he can’t compromise too far with Democrats or he’ll lose Tea Party votes and make Republicans look uncommitted to their fiscal principles.
In an effort to protect themselves politically, on Friday House Republicans passed a bill called “The Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011.” The bill would deem H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, to be passed if the Senate doesn’t pass spending legislation for the rest of the fiscal year by Wednesday, April 6th. Now, H.R. 1255 doesn’t have any effect without the Senate passing it and the president signing it, so its real purpose is to point out that the House has passed bills to fund the government—twice, now—and the Senate hasn’t passed any. Who knows if that message will work.
Currently, there appears to be a deal in the works to cut another $33 billion from current spending levels. That’s down from the $61 billion that was under discussion earlier. House budget hawks might not go for this smaller cut.
One recently released poll says that most Americans would be OK with a government shutdown if it meant a bigger cut in spending. Will that cause Republicans to take a stronger line? That’s another one that remains to be seen.
The Washington Post‘s PostPolitics blog has a pretty good piece on government shutdowns . . . except for some really bad word choices in this line:
The White House and congressional leaders are working on a deal that would slash about $33 billion from the federal budget, including $10 billion already cut by two other short-term measures, amounting to the largest reductions in U.S. history.
“Slash”? Really? Largest reduction in U.S. history?
This cut would be less than 1% of the budget, and there have been many cuts of greater than 1% in the past. A chart produced by the Cato Institute this week puts some of these numbers in perspective (disclosure: Cato is where I work by day).
Here’s the current vote on H.R. 1255, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article about the bill.
Congressional Republicans are up in arms at news that the Senate might pass on “omnibus” spending bill—an all-in-one bill that makes government-wide spending decisions—during the lame duck session. (That’s the period after the election but before the new Congress takes office.)
“I will strongly encourage every Republican Member of the Committee, my leadership, and the entire Republican Conference to oppose such legislation,” says Republican Appropriations Committee leader Jerry Lewis, according to an article on NationalJournal.com.
There’s a good argument that the current House and Senate gave up their right to make spending decisions for the 2011 fiscal year when they failed to pass a budget or spending bills by the September 30 end of the 2010 fiscal year. Republicans, including new members associated with the Tea Party movement, might like to show some results in 2011 spending.
(The National Journal article cited above uses some noteworthy language: “Many House Republicans want to start slashing immediately.” Those loaded words—”slashing” instead of “cutting” or “reducing spending”—signal that the author of the article, reporter Humberto Sanchez, doesn’t believe there can be responsible spending reductions. He should probably take a more neutral tone.)
The government is currently running on a “continuing resolution”—a temporary spending measure—that expires on December 3rd.
There’s a difference between politics and policy. Policy is about what bills are in Congress and what they mean. Politics is the about which people you think should represent your policy views. We mostly stick to policy here. We try to help you know more about policy, so perhaps you can do a little bit more about it. But that doesn’t excuse you from engaging just a little bit with politics. You should vote.
When you vote, you affect in a small way what direction policy is going to go—what direction your life and country are going to go. Even when you vote in an election that has already been “called” for one candidate or another, that makes a difference, because political professionals pay attention to margins of victory, not just the simple outcomes.
So vote! There’s an election on Tuesday. Make sure you get there.
The Google gadget below will make that easier. Just enter your address and click “Search” to get voting information for your area. Once you’ve got what you need, send this page to your friends and neighbors. And be sure, on Tuesday, to VOTE!
This past week, we saw news that a package deal on a “jobs” bill between Democrats and Republicans was scuttled. According to the AP, “Senate Democrats balked at a broad bill stuffed with unrelated provisions sought by lobbyists for business groups and doctors.”
That’s out, so it’s in with the new:
The centerpiece of [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid’s new bill is a $13 billion payroll tax credit for companies that hire unemployed workers. The idea, by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would exempt businesses hiring unemployed workers in 2010 from the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax for those hires. It also would provide an additional $1,000 tax credit for workers retained for a full year and deposit an additional $20 billion into the federal highway trust fund – money that would have to be borrowed. There’s also $2 billion to subsidize bond issues by state and local governments for large infrastructure projects
But . . . what is all that stuff?
Why is Congress slapping together bills and—before they’re even introduced—selling them as done deals?
The American public wants to know what they’re getting. It’s like Congress is an anti-Santa—wrapping up and delivering us packages that we don’t necessarily want.
The PBS NewsHour had a segment Friday discussing the extremely low esteem the public has for Washington. The comedy team of Shields and Brooks—er, sorry—commentators Mark Shields and David Brooks—followed up on the public opinion story, and Brooks said something interesting about transparency and Congress:
Bill Galston, who is at the Brookings Institution . . . has a line that government should be shrouded for the same reason middle-aged people should wear clothing, that you just don’t want to see it, necessarily. And I think, as people have seen it more closely, because of transparency and because of TV, they: Oh, I don’t like that very much.
I think that’s true, but I don’t think it captures the whole story. Exposure of how Washington works today is displeasing to the public. For that dynamic to change, Congress has to change its behavior and start acting more like the legislature we learned about in civics class.
When President Obama was running, he gained support because of promises to post bills online for five days before signing them, to put negotiations about health care on C-SPAN, and so on. The public knows that government can operate in the sunshine, but the government is still not doing that.
With the surprise election of Republican Scott Brown to serve as a senator from Massachusetts, the political alignments in Washington, D.C. have been shaken. Both parties are looking around to figure out how they can position themselves for advantage in the upcoming election.
It looks as though they’ll jockey for credit over whether “something gets done” or who gets blame if things don’t get done. That’s business as usual.
My guess is that “package” deals like the ones being batted around now are not going to win the public’s praise in any event. It’s real change in the way lawmaking works—things like earmark transparency, and follow-through on the president’s transparency commitments—that will restore appreciation of the government by a newly empowered and more aware citizenry.
And Santa can come just once a year, with gifts we actually want.
(So why do we gotta be so boring? . . .)
It’s never been more clear that politics is entertainment.
Take a look at this post on Gawker.com. It’s liberals being mad at conservatives for taking a jab at President Obama because he ordered spicy Dijon mustard for his burger. In other words, it’s about nothing at all, but it’s got lots of people interested.
What we do here is much more substantive and slightly more boring. We’re like the financial section of the paper rather than the sports page. But while others are distracted by “Dijongate,” you’re at least half-aware that Congress and the President will be spending about $30,000 per U.S. family between now and the fall.
The bottom line: If you’re reading this, you’re smarter than the average American. And if you don’t care what condiment the President puts on his burger, you have good taste!
A conference committee is a meeting among representatives of both the House and the Senate to work out differences between the two bodies on similar legislation. Both the House and Senate have now passed different versions of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and they need to figure out what the final bill will look like.
I have been to conference committee meetings before as a staffer. Senators, Representatives, and their top staff members huddle in a smallish room and go through the bill hashing out the final product.
Contrary to popular belief, the ones I’ve attended were not in smoke-filled rooms. But they are closed, “insider” affairs. What goes in and what comes out are largely pre-determined by back-channel discussions before the actual meetings.
If conference committee meetings were televised, members of the conference committee would be constrained to explain what they were doing and why. That would be a good thing.
There is some risk in how these ideas are being put forward. Republicans threaten the goals of the transparency community (in which we count WashingtonWatch.com) if they use transparency as a partisan cudgel against Democrats and President Obama.
Republicans should pair their push for openness while Democrats are in control with a pledge to openness of their own. Any openness precedents set now should hold in any Congress, regardless of partisan control.
I’ve got my TiVo ready. Let’s get on with the show!
To the delight of some, the Blagojevich scandal is already taking the smell off the rose of the incoming Obama administration.
It’s a near certainty that White House Chief of Staff-designee Rahm Emanuel was involved in discussions with Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, who planned to sell the U.S. Senate seat that the President-elect recently vacated. The honeymoon is already ending for the candidate of hope and change, Barack Obama.
To others, these charges are nothing but scurrilous slander. It’s a given that representatives of the President-elect are going to talk to the governor responsible for appointing his successor in the Senate. Even if tapes reveal that Emanuel talked with Blagojevich in frank language about the Senate seat, they won’t show any wrongdoing or wrong intention.
If you hold either of these views, this post is for you, because there is an entirely different way to think about the latest political news/scandal.
L’affaire Blagojevich and any repercussions are just politics doing its work: distracting the public’s attention from what really matters – the nation’s policies.
Last week, the Congress debated a multi-billion dollar bailout for an industry in crisis. The cost of the proposal was about $50 per U.S. family. By early March, the Congress must decide how hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent ($thousands per family) as it completes the annual spending process that it kicked down the road back in September. More than $800 per family in spending on Hurricane Katrina relief is still being moved around.
But many Americans don’t even know that their money is being spent – never mind how much – because they focus only on politics. All they know are the scandals and personalities that occupy the front pages and the squwaking heads on cable.
If you hold strong opinions about the Blagojevich scandal and its effect on national politics, you just might be a victim of politics this way. While you watch the drama on the brightly lit stage, the federal government is fishing money out of your pocket and spending it on things you don’t even know about.
Now, it’s perfectly alright to attend to politics, but if you do, you probably buy the newspaper for the sports section. It’s about entertainment.
If you read the financial page or local news – if you want to know about things that affect your life and well-being – you’re the kind of person we work for at WashingtonWatch.com. You look past the scandal and want to know about the policies that are being created and implemented by the federal government. This is the place for you.
We don’t have everything you need to know yet, but we’re working on it. There will be a time when the majority of “political” news is not about politics at all, but about the policies, the ideas, and the spending to support them. This stuff is plenty entertaining – and important. The public can handle intelligent debate about issues.
So maybe you were drawn to reading this post by the idea of scandal in the new Obama Administration. If you were, consider this your invitation to focus on the real policies of the federal government. Turn away from the clash of partisan politics that shouts to steal your attention.
You can sign up here for the WashingtonWatch.com weekly newsletter and familiarize yourself with the policies debated in Congress each week. Or keep reading this blog to learn about many more dimensions of public policy-making. Lots of RSS feeds serve up many dimensions of the issues. You can comment on bills, ask questions of the community, and so on.
Or you can make fun of Rod Blagojevich’s hair!
Voters took a scythe to the Members of Congress who switched their votes to pass the financial services bailout legislation in October and those whose votes in 2000 set the stage for the financial crisis.
Except . . . it was a very dull scythe. Maybe one without a blade.
Of the 59 people featured in our Bailout Rogues Gallery – Members of Congress who switched their votes between Monday and Friday of the same week to pass the bailout legislation – 57 ran for reelection and 55 won. That’s a retention rate of about 96.5% – pretty much exactly in line with historical retention rates. So you people must not have been very mad about that.
As to the Members of Congress and Senators who voted to do away with state regulation on financial derivatives, the story is about the same in the Senate. Eighteen of 20 running were reelected, a 90% retention rate.
But it’s a little different in the House. One hundred forty-three in this bunch ran for reelection and 135 of them won. This is a retention rate of 94.4% – at the low end of recent historical averages. If you count the three Members of Congress who ran for Senate and lost, the rate drops to 92.5%.
All of these numbers are probably statistically insignificant, so there’s nothing to see here. What this illustrates is how insulated Members of Congress and Senators are, even in elections. You vote based on lots of things, and one or two particular votes – even coming near election time – are unlikely to dislodge all the other reasons we choose one candidate over another.
That’s why – broken record – it’s important to monitor events between elections. Watch the bills that come to the House and Senate floors and let your representatives know what you think.