The idea behind furloughing air traffic controllers was to inflict pain on ordinary Americans–or, as Klein calls them, “the politically powerful”–so as to pressure Republicans to raise taxes and to forgo cuts in inessential spending–or, as Klein calls it, “programs that affects [sic] the politically powerless.” Instead it was Democrats who felt pressure. The House vote on the Reducing Flight Delays Act was 361-41, with just 29 Democrats and 12 Republicans in dissent. The Senate didn’t even bother with a vote, passing the bill by unanimous consent.
as a point of departure for remarking on how the tactics of a community organizer can fall flat. I take a different lesson from it: despite the sharp ideological polarization in today’s Congress it’s still able to reach nearly unanimous interest with astonishing rapidity when it’s in their interest to do so.
That’s why I continue believe that some combination of persuasion, moral suasion, loyalty, friendship, threats of primary challenges, logrolling, and outright payoffs—the traditional political arsenal—would enable the president to accomplish more with the Republicans in Congress than he has to date.
It just takes one example to prove that something is possible. Over the last five years there have been hundreds, some trivial, some more important. It’s worth a try.
It’s become clear that there is no practical path forward for a ‘grand bargain.’ Even if Obama and leadership agree, the rank-and-file of the GOP won’t necessarily fall in line (and on entitlements, the Dems might not either). I think what’s left is small, piece-meal deals on any number of issues. These could even be coupled together: End furloughs for certain Pentagon contractors, along with say, HHS employees.
It’s a governing in pathetically small increments, but it’s at least governing – something that currently isn’t happening.
If I were king, every bill signed into law would need to have a specified funding source and an expiration date. The matter of each bill would be severely constrained. Continuing resolutions, omnibus bills, and “comprehensive” bills are no way to run a railroad. Mostly I think they’re ways of hiding inadequacies, obscuring costs, and burying payoffs to contributors.
When the bond market talks, they will act. I agree with very much that all spending bills should be funded and have expiration dates. I have also thought that maybe there should not be expiration dates on tax cuts or increases. It lets pols use the 10 year CBO estimates to game the numbers.
Steve
Dave, responding to your comment: I hate the phrase ‘for other purposes’ in bills. As in, ‘this bill will fund highways, but also, a senior’s center in X’s district, and maybe planting trees in Y’s district, and whatever else is on our minds.’
I think not only should bill be funded, but also, they should be written like project proposals in a business: What is the need, what is the aim, and what are the expected results of actions?
If we got into that tradition, in the long run I think it could make socially unsolvable issues into workable policy problems. You want a gun control bill? Ok, but spell out what you think the bill will actually accomplish. It prevents Congress passing laws they know will be ineffective to ‘look busy.’