The President’s Good Fortune

I am surprised that I’m not hearing more people remember the greatest lesson of the last six years: that Congress can enact practically anything through the reconciliation process. President Obama is fortunate that Republicans aren’t cleverer than they are.

If they were they could maneuver the president into vetoing simple, short, unambiguous bills that had substantial popular support, wreaking havoc on the Democratic Party for decades.

I don’t think Republicans are that clever. I think they’ll continue to enact mammoth omnibus legislation that includes everything but the kitchen sink and allows the president ample room for plausible deniability. The reason for that is, as Glenn Reynolds puts it, those bills have more opportunity for graft and I see no evidence that Republicans are any more above that sort of thing than Democrats are.

13 comments… add one
  • jan Link

    Now here’s a fine idea — Fire Valerie Jarrett — as a starting point to get the WH moving in a more productive direction.

    For starters, even today, nobody knows precisely what Jarrett does in the White House. What exactly do her titles—senior advisor to the president, assistant to the president in charge of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Office of Public Engagement, the White House Council on Women and Girls—mean? More to the point, Jarrett has often used the aura of authority that these titles give her to stand in the way of talented White House staffers and a smoother-running administration, according to several books that have been written about the Obama presidency, among them Chuck Todd’s forthcoming The Stranger.

  • ... Link

    Donna Brazille remembered the reconciliation process on election night, and thanked Harry Reid for that particular innovation.

    The reason for that is, as Glenn Reynolds puts it, those bills have more opportunity for graft and I see no evidence that Republicans are any more above that sort of thing than Democrats are.

    I think graft is the sole reason for the Republican party to exist at this point, given that they are willing to sell out the long-term interests of both themselves and their constituents all the time. At least Dems have long-term political reasons to support making the country into another Third World shithole.

  • ... Link

    Come on, everyone knows Jarrett’s job is to cocoon the President away from anyone that might disagree with him about anything. That way he can be less inconvenienced by that pesky reality thingy.

  • steve Link

    You are forgetting Harry Reid. I am sure he will behave exactly like McConnell. If any straightforward bill comes up they will add amendments and/ filibuster. Anything that will hurt the Senators too much, not sure what that would actually be, will get vetoed.

    Or, do you have some reason to believe that Reid will not use the filibuster as often as McConnell?

    Steve

  • TastyBits Link

    @Icepick

    … At least Dems have long-term political reasons to support making the country into another Third World shithole.

    Make no mistake, money is the Democrats goal, but in order to amass and hold wealth, they need to amass and hold power. The crap that they spout is just that – crap. It makes them feel good while they f*ck the less well off.

    Jesus, Mother Teresa, Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela were not getting rich on the backs of the poor. Some walk the walk, and others talk the talk.

  • steve:

    Assuming that Harry Reid is Senate Minority Leader in the new Congress, far from a done deal, that alternative may not be available to him. As I wrote in the first sentence of the post, Sen. Reid has cleared the way for a Republican Senate. Everything can now be passed by simple majority through the reconciliation process.

    There are also devices the new Congress could employ to vitiate the president’s veto if they were clever enough to see them and noxious enough to want to.

  • jan Link

    So, question for people….do you think McConnell will go back to the old, original Senate rules of having to have 60 votes? I know the dems now want that to happen. But will the republicans comply, especially since they warned Reid about the risks involved for his party should the Senate switch over to them in the near future.

  • steve Link

    I think, but am not sure, that reconciliation does not necessarily mean McConnell can pass anything he wants. The Senate did , in fact, pass the ACA with 60 votes. Reconciliation was used to pass the modifications made by the House. This strikes me as a bit different than never getting 60 votes for anything. It would not be a means of reconciling differences between House and Senate bills, but rather a means to just pass bills. That said, IANAL.

    Steve

  • sam Link

    I don’t think they’ll have the energy to pass much of anything having expended it on a circular firing squad.

  • Let me give you an example of how the strategy could work, steve. The House and Senate both enact budgets. In reconciliation the president’s travel and staff budgets are struck to zero. That could be passed by a simple majority. And that could happen regardless of what the two original bills said.

    That’s why abusing the reconciliation process was such a risky strategy.

  • Guarneri Link

    I don’t know, Dave. Maybe we are watching different media outlets. The short and sweet bill approach is being touted by many republicans, including reince Prebius.

  • steve Link

    Dave- How does the Senate enact a budget to begin with w/o 60 votes? Yes, if they could do that they could use reconciliation to make a final bill, but how do they pass the initial budget?

    Steve

  • It can unless you think that the Democrats will block everything including things they agree with and that they’ll stay united, something experience tells us will not happen.

Leave a Comment