Once the logjam was broken with the compromised (and to many, odious) tax bill that extended obscene tax cuts to the wealthy, but also extended unemployment benefits and other measures that benefit middle class Americans, it seems Obama had a charmed touch on getting his bills passed.
Howard Fineman (Huffington Post) wrote:
But through dogged patience, and adaptable style and a refusal to panic, the president has piled up the longest list of new laws, treaties and administrative actions anyone has seen here in decades.Fineman's new-found respect for the president is evident between the lines of the article.
Obama lost on the immigration reform bill but then went on to pass: food-safety and child nutrition bills, a Korean trade bill, repeal of DADT, the New Start nuclear arms treaty, and aid (albeit reduced in amount) for first responders.
These wins are doubly significant, because they do not represent the GOP leadership having a change of heart. Except for the tax cut compromise, the leaders still opposed most of these bills. It was that Obama and the Senate Democrats were able to get an increasing number of moderate Republicans to break with their leaders and vote for sensible legislation. That bodes well for the future. Some of them will not be back, of course, like Voinovich of Ohio and Bennet of Utah. But it did show a new willingness to break ranks with the GOP leadership and party line that began to have a feeling of momentum toward sanity.
Add these to the health care reform and the tax cut/unemployment benefits bills -- and this has been quite a year for the president and the democrats in Congress.
Now, here's my question: if he had not compromised as he did on the tax cut/unemployment bill -- would these other bills have gotten passed?
This is what I argue with Richard about: if you hold out for what really ought to be, do you not sometimes evoke a backlash in your opponents that keeps you from getting other things as well? I think the past few weeks in the Senate suggest we would have not gotten all these things this week had we held out for letting the tax cuts expire for the wealthy. And I don't like that any better than anyone else does -- but I do like what was accomplished.
Ralph
Time will tell us whether being a "community organizer" is a good credential for a President, or whether having a skilled congressional deal-maker for a President is a good idea.
ReplyDeleteWe had a champion for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" in Jimmy Carter, and they chewed him up and spit him out in short order. Now we have an effective compromiser in a similar circumstance and we complain that we need someone who'll ride the white horse. Clinton split the middle and they got him on a morals charge.
I'm thinking that our problem isn't Carter, Clinton, or Obama. Our problem is Nixon, Reagan, and Bush/Cheney. "They" have an uncanny ability to keep us focused on the wrong side of the equation...
and another thing:
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is that the Republican Party threw its entire weight on the side of irrational tax cuts for the rich at a time when our deficit is soaring and our country is in need of strong government support. And I expect that they cut this deal in part as a way of making Obama look bad to his constituency. They keep us looking at "our guy" instead of at their obvious pandering to the rich and corporate interests to the detriment of the majority of Americans. The issue isn’t how Obama handled them. It’s what he had to handle…
Ralph,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't going to comment on this, but since you called me out I really have no choice.
First, you give Obama credit on things he did little if nothing to push. For example, the person clearly responsible for moving forward the aid to First Responders was Jon Stewart, who made such a deal about it on his show the Dems and Repubs had to act. Obama was silent on this. As he was on DADT - you can't give him credit for a bill he didn't fight for.
Second, you treat this as a numbers game. How many bills pass means nothing. What is the quality of those bills. You need to research beyond the headlines before you can tell if a bill is any good.
The first Responder bill was severely cut back - they can only collect through 2016, instead of 2030. What happens to a deathly sick person after 2016? They're screwed. And it severely cut back lawyer fees, which, realistically, will make it more difficult for First Responders to take on their cases.
The South Korea trade agreement, if you read the analyses by auto and farmer groups is a horrible deal for American workers. This bill is expected to greatly increase the US trade deficit, which will be terrible for the U.S.economy. A good deal for S.Korea,which is allowed to undersell U.S.products,does not have to pay a tariff,and is only required to 'inspect' the safety of their food shipped here once a year - IF they feel like it. If not, they don't have to inspect it. A bad deal for the U.S.economy and workers. Ford took out a full page ad in the NYT explaining why we would get screwed in the treaty. Republicans loved it. That should tell you something.
In the tax bill,the Repubs got close to $800 billion of what they wanted. The Dems $115 billion. And the unemployed got screwed. One year extention and nothing - zero - for long-term unemployed.
Healthcare? How many Repubs and Tea Partiers are already on record as saying they are going to pay for the millionaire tax cuts by repealing it?
Well, that's my rant for the day.
Yes, I think he should have fought harder for things that mattered and compromised less. Because I don't see a lot in this legislation that helps the people I care about - the poor, the working class. I think we could've done a better job.
richard
It's like this -
ReplyDeleteImagine you went to a restaurant and ordered a filet mignon with a red wine reduction sauce. Hours later your dinner arrives. It's a Big Mac.
"You said you were going to bring me a filet mignon," you tell the waiter.
"They're both beef," the waiter says. "And this was the best I could do,the only thing the chef was willing to cook. He really wanted to cook fish. So it's not exactly what either you or the chef wanted, but it's a good compromise."
richard
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd here's my answer, Richard:
ReplyDeleteWould you rather go hungry or eat the hamburger?
Sure, you're disappointed at not getting your steak. You want Obama to be the Obama you voted for? Fine. Give him a Congress to vote for the bills he would also like to pass.
To follow your metaphor: you're the diner, sitting there waiting to have your order delivered. Obama is in the kitchen cooking and doing the best he can with the limitations the restaurant managers have given him to work with. It's not that he wanted to cook fish. He wanted to give you your steak; it's just that he couldn't, because the managers wouldn't pay for top grade beef.
Maybe he could have fought harder with the managers, maybe he had more clout than he realized -- but that's the chef we've got -- and I personally thing he has delivered some decent food in the most difficult of circumstances.
If he followed your druthers, there would have been a lot more hungry people.
And that's my rant for the day. And I don't think we'll ever agree -- because "compromise" is apparently anathema to you.
More: Richard, if I read the implications of your metaphor correctly, it's no wonder you are so unforgiving of Obama.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing in the metaphor about the limitations and difficulties under which the chef is working. It's just his whim -- "he'd rather cook fish" -- that has denied you your steak.
If that's what you actually believe about the situation, then I think you're never likely to be satisfied. Hillary would have disappointed you too, in some way, some how.
And there's no point in citing a lot of facts to convince me. As I've said before, we do not essentially disagree on the ideals or the facts.
ReplyDeleteWhat we disagree on are the strategies and tactics, the process of making legislation, and on our willingness to compromise.
And I disagree with you that Obama did little or nothing to get the bills passed. Take DADT. I think one of the most effective things that helped that get passed was the spadework that Obama and Mullin did in getting support from the military -- first, in the form of the survey which showed support from the rank and file troops for change. Second, even though some of the older, top generals expressed their non-support, they all came in line and said they would make it work.
ReplyDeleteThat probably convinced more of the hesitant lawmakers than arm twisting would have done. And, if I'm not mistaken, it was Obama who continued to press for waiting until the survey results were in. Others in Congress wanted to go ahead with the vote before then. It made him unpopular with the left and the LBGT community to wait, but I think he was right, because it built crucial support for repeal -- and in the end it was the opponents who looked out to touch.
Now as to the New START treaty, there is a detailed article in today's NYT that credits this as Obama's big gamble and win, clear and simple. Even his closest advisers thought it was dead and should be withdrawn -- and he insisted they persist.
And then they thought that bringing up DADT first was a deal breaker for START. But he insisted -- and what happened?
He got both.