Susan Estrich, please check your facts: single party dominance

The New Neo Posted on by

I happen to like Susan Estrich more than I do most liberal Democrat pundits. She isn’t afraid to criticize her own party, for example (see this and this).

But Estrich lost me at the starting gate when this article of hers began thusly:

Something has gone very wrong.

Was it just a year ago that Democrats assumed more control in Washington than the party has had in my lifetime? It was.

Actually, Susan, it wasn’t.

Estrich was born in 1952, and therefore could be said to have been alive and even sentient during the Carter administration. In fact, she was in her the middle of her last year at Harvard Law around the time Carter was inaugurated in January of 1977.

When the Democrat Carter was president, for the first two years of his administration he was dealing with a Congress that consisted of 292 Democrats to 143 Republicans in the House and 61 Democrats and 39 Republicans in the Senate. That’s an even more powerful Democrat presence in Congress than Obama has enjoyed.

And the second two years of the Carter administration weren’t far behind the first two: 277-D to 153-R in the House, 58-D to 41-R in the Senate. Compare this to the present Congress under Obama, 258-D to 177-R in the House (although it keeps changing slightly due to deaths and retirements) and 57-D (down from 58 at the outset), 2 Independents who caucus with Democrats, and 41-R (up from 40 with Scott Brown’s election).

What’s more, if we’re really talking about the lifetime of Susan Estrich, the first two years of the Carter administration don’t even set the record for Democrat dominance in Washington. For the first two years of his administration, JFK had a Congress that consisted of 262-D to 175-R in the House, and a powerful majority in the Senate: 64-D to 36-R. The next Congress, which was shared by Kennedy and then LBJ after the assassination, was very similar, with even more Senate dominance: 258-D to 176-R in the House and 67-D to 33-R in the Senate. And these numbers were increased in the first two years of LBJ’s second term: 295-D to 140-R in the House and 68-D to 32-R in the Senate (nor did they fall so very much below that for the second two years of his second term: 248-D in the House and 64-D in the Senate). When you think about LBJ’s legislative record, remember that, not only did he know the ins and outs of Congress intimately in a way few presidents have, he also had the benefit of majorities that very few have ever known.

So Obama’s lead is hardly unprecedented. In fact, it is dwarfed by other years of Democrat dominance in the second half of the 20th century. Republicans never enjoyed such power during the same period; for the most part, Republican presidents have had to contend with Democratic Congresses or mixed or weakly Republican ones.

Even if we take the entire 20th Century, we’d have to go back to the very beginning—Teddy Roosevelt—to get Republican majorities and a Republican President that begin to approach the Obama/Kennedy/LBJ/Carter figures. Herbert Hoover’s first term came close as well, but then there was a long period of Democrat dominance, culminating in the most strongly one-sided administration and Congress of all during the 75th Congress, the first two years of FDR’s second term: a whopping 333 Democrats in the House and 75 in the Senate. In fact, although that was the peak, the numbers held up pretty well for several elections, with FDR enjoying huge majorities right up until the 78th Congress in 1943, when the Democrats’ grip finally loosened a bit, down to 57 in the Senate and 222 in the House, poor things.

Why am I going into this in such detail? The first point I want to make is that these facts are very easy to check (although I composed this rather quickly, so wouldn’t it be ironic if, in attempting to correct Estrich’s error, I made a few myself?). I continue to be surprised at the sloppiness of the supposed political experts and their sweeping allegations about history. Anyone who was around during those years might not have known the exact figures (I certainly didn’t). But for anyone with a memory, a warning bell should have gone off at Estrich’s claim.

The second point is that, ever since the Great Depression, Democrats have held the reins of government more often and more tightly than Republicans have. The first time this occurred the result was the New Deal, the second time the Great Society. The third was the surprisingly weak administration of Jimmy Carter (he and his Democratic Congress failed to get along). Except for the Camp David accords, the main events of the Carter’s years were negative: losing Iran to the mullahs, and stagflation. What will be Obama’s legacy?

Reconciliation and sunset provisions

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s my question: do bills passed by the reconciliation process require the inclusion of a five-year sunset provision? And if so, why has this fact hardly been mentioned in the ongoing discussion about using reconciliation to pass health care reform?

Here’s a seemingly relevant Wiki entry:

The Byrd rule [for the reconciliation process]…allows Senators to raise a point of order against any provision held to be extraneous…Importantly for sunset provisions, the Byrd Rule also defines as extraneous provisions that “would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure.” Since the Budget Act states the budget resolution covers at least the four years following the “budget year” which is typically the year following the year in which it adopted, that is the usual period of time. However, budget resolutions have covered periods as long as ten years, so a reconciliation measure may cover the ten years. This rule has the effect of allowing a point of order to be raised against any spending increase or tax cut that does not contain a sunset provision ending it after five or ten years. Overcoming a point of order requires cloture, and thus a three-fifths majority of 60 in the Senate. In short, a net effect of the Byrd Rule is to require that any spending increase or tax cut be approved by a majority of 60 if it does not contain a sunset provision assuring no increase in the deficit after the budget resolution period.

If this would mean that any health care reform bill passed by reconciliation would need to have a five-year (or ten-year??) expiration date, and since many of the provisions of Obamacare don’t kick in for quite a few years, would it not appear that the entire system would disintegrate five years from passage unless passed again?

These arcane Senate rules are certainly not something I’m familiar with, to say the least. But if true, I wonder why we’ve heard virtually no discussion of the sunset problem. Obviously, reconciliation was never meant to be a way of passing sweeping transformative legislation of this sort. But this rule might afford a built-in way to undo this law, if initially passed; just let it expire.

Of course, by then our entire private health insurance system may have died. And to those proposing this travesty of a bill, that’s probably a feature, not a bug.

[NOTE: Jay Cost has more on the reconciliation process—much more. But he doesn’t mention the sunset provisions. The gist of his piece is that since reconciliation has never been used to make such hugh changes before, no one can predict how it would—or wouldn’t—work.]

Health care reform: how are the votes shaping up?

The New Neo Posted on by

Sounds like Pelosi doesn’t have enough votes to pass Obamacare in the House. Yet.

She wasn’t making any promises Tuesday, saying the White House proposals are “getting a good reception,” but “we have more work to do.”

As for the Senate:

Democratic leaders estimate that seven or eight members of the Democratic caucus are either opposed to completing the bill using reconciliation or are unsure of their support for it, a senior Democratic aide said. That would leave the Democrats with barely enough backing.

If previous experience is any guide, these waverers may respond to some combination of vigorous arm-twisting and extravagant gifts, and cave in the end. But it’s still not clear if it would matter, because it is not at all certain what sorts of provisions would be allowed to pass using the reconciliation process, which ordinarily applies only to budgets. The Senate parliamentarian will have something to say about all this, no doubt.

[NOTE: Here’s an excellent article by Michael Gerson listing the ways in which continuing to push for health care reform will hurt the Democrats. He includes one I’ve rarely seen discussed, but which has occurred to me: once Democrats lose control of Congress themselves, it will be payback time, and create “decades of bitterness.” Of course, maybe that’s already happened.]

[ADDENDUM: Now is not the time to mince words.]

Davis and White: ice dancing, with an accent on the “dancing”

The New Neo Posted on by

Ice dancing is a funny sport. Even more than other types of ice skating, it accentuates the showbiz aspects and plays down the athleticism—although just try it yourself for a moment and you’ll see how much of the latter is involved.

Much of it is too showbiz and over-the-top for me. But I watched the ice dancing competition at last night’s Olympics, and one couple stood out among the rest: the eventual winners of the silver medal, Americans Meryl Davis and Charlie White. The duo has an unusual balance of flair and strength, with some real artistry thrown in. Their synchrony, flow, speed, power, and the emotion they conveyed were glorious things to watch.

The Byronic White is especially mesmerizing. With most ice dance couples it’s the woman who draws the eye. But I can’t take mine off White. Perhaps it’s his hair (shades of the 60s) waving in the breeze. But I don’t think so. He conveys the intensity of a Nureyev along with something Nureyev never had—the ability to present his partner and complement her perfectly, and to act as though he really is in love with her (to me, Nureyev always made it seem as though he was mostly in love with himself).

Here’s a clip of an earlier rendition of the same performance that so impressed me. Notice especially the fast part that begins at 3:50 and last for about a minute. I think this is the closest humans can come to flying under their own power:

All ice dancing couples have be musical, but White and Davis seem especially so. Compliments to the choreographer as well. Ice skaters usually need to chop up the music in their programs in order to have the requisite variety of slow and fast, and this program is no exception. But so often the music seems an afterthought, a sort of spliced-in accompaniment for the steps. White and Davis use their music fully, and express it so masterfully that (even though I’m not a “Phantom” fan) I was taken in by the sheer romance and lyricism of it all.

White and Davis have been skating together since the ages of 8 and 9. He also has been an ice hockey player, who played on some championship teams. I think that may be where he gets his sweep and power, the feeling of absolute freedom and ease. And here’s a video that shows how good they were even as little tykes:

That health care “summit” on Thursday should be interesting

The New Neo Posted on by

Let’s see: I want to compromise with a group of people, get their ideas on solving a joint problem. I call a meeting with them, and ask others to witness it (I even get cameras to film us and broadcast the proceedings).

But first, I announce that I’ve got a plan, and I say what it is. The plan contains everything I want and nothing they want. And I say that if they don’t accept it, tough. I’ll put it into play anyway, even if I have to break the rules (or invent some new ones to do it).

The other people would be forgiven if they don’t think I’m making a good faith effort to actually get their input and maybe even adopt some of it. The other people would be forgiven if they thought the meeting and the broadcasting of it was just for show.

The WSJ has a chilling summary of what we can now officially refer to as Obamacare, since these proposals come straight from the President’s mouth. The WSJ has this to say about his accomplishment:

…[It] manages to take the worst of both the House and Senate bills and combine them into something more destructive. It includes more taxes, more subsidies and even less cost control than the Senate bill. And it purports to fix the special-interest favors in the Senate bill not by eliminating them””but by expanding them to everyone. The bill’s one new inspiration is a powerful federal board that would regulate premiums in the individual insurance market….

The coercive flavor that animates this exercise is best captured in the section that purports to accept the Senate’s “grandfather clause” allowing people who like their current health plan to keep it. Except that “The President’s Proposal adds certain consumer protections to these ‘grandfathered’ plans. Within months of legislation being enacted, it requires plans . . . prohibits . . . mandates . . . requires . . . the President’s Proposal adds new protections that prohibit . . . ban . . . and prohibit . . . The President’s Proposal requires . . .” After all of these dictates, no “grandfathered” plan will exist.

Got that, everybody? The Democrats love to label the Republicans as the party of “no,” but how could anyone who understands the provisions of this bill (and is not already a “progressive”) ever say “yes” to it?

[NOTE: I don’t usually listen to the radio, but yesterday I was in my car and happened to tune into Newt Gingrich speaking to Hannity. When I heard Gingrich’s suggestions, it occurred to me that if the Republicans followed them, they might have at least a tiny chance of making the Democrats look like “the party of ‘no.'”

How? (1) come to the meeting and immediately say to Obama that if it were to be truly bipartisan, the Republicans should get half the time to speak and present their plan. If Obama says “no,” point out the hypocrisy of his bipartisanship and walk out. (2) if he says “yes,” present their own plan point by point. Reiterate that they have been suggesting these things over and over and they have not been incorporated. Explain how they have been frozen out of previous meetings. (3) point out the actual ramifications of Obamacare; quote the WSJ and other reliable sources. Be sure to include the fact that it will destroy the private insurance business and violate Obama’s oft-repeated promise.

Will this help? I’m not at all sure, but it’s better than just sitting there and having Obama and the Democrats set the whole agenda.]

What’s the difference between a Republican and a Democrat?

The New Neo Posted on by

No, that’s not the lead-in to a joke.

It’s the question that was asked of Senator Everett Dirkson in this 1967 video. He gives a pretty good (and still relevant) answer, I think, although many Republicans erred by violating his first principle during the administration of George Bush:

[Hat tip: Ann Althouse.]

Creative euphemisms for “Obama is a liar”

The New Neo Posted on by

Few people had any difficulty leveling charges of “liar” at George Bush during his administration. We’ll skip the arguments on the merits right now, since it’s all been discussed before ad nauseam; suffice to say the accusations came trippingly off the tongue.

Obama—now, that’s another story. Joe Wilson couldn’t help blurting out “You lie!” during Obama’s September 2009 address on health care, when the president asserted that Congress’s health care bill du jour would not provide free coverage for illegal immigrants. But it was primarily Wilson who got excoriated for it, not Obama.

So people became more creative in their accusations. Last month, during Obama’s SOTU address, Justice Alito merely shook his head and voicelessly mouthed “not true” when former-law-instructor Obama misstated and blasted the majority SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United. This left open the possibility that he was accusing Obama of simply making an error rather than lying. But that didn’t save Alito from the usual criticism.

Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, a member of Obama’s own party, was more delicate and convoluted in his syntax in mid-February of this year, but the message was the same. After pointing out disparities in Obama’s promises on coal, Rockefeller added, “he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

Beginning? Anyone paying attention—and not hopelessly partisan—would have noticed Obama’s disingenuousness way back in June of 2008, when he broke his campaign financing pledge. Or how about Obama claims during the campaign about having sat in Reverend Wright’s church and listened—or rather, not sat and not listened—to all those hateful sermons over the course of twenty years?

For Rockefeller to now claim that he’s just beginning to “not believe” Obama seems (how shall I put it?) unlikely to be the truth. Perhaps what Rockefeller really meant was that, until now, he believed that Obama would not lie to him.

The latest manifestation of clever and circumspect circumlocutions around the “lie”-word is the following, by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, which shows a light touch: he called Obama “very insincere” for first praising Ryan’s budget proposals as serious and then almost simultaneously attacking them.

It should not be news that Obama is a con artist. And no matter what you call it, that’s the single most important factor for the decline in his public support.

Finally: Obamacare unveiled

The New Neo Posted on by

And it looks pretty much like the Senate version, with a few minor tweaks.

See this and this for some interesting analysis.

In related news, the White House says that if Republicans try to filibuster health care reform, reconciliation is the way to go. Truth? Dare? Bluff? You be the judge.

It’s all so very bipartisan of Obama. What’s that Thursday meeting all about, again? Showtime!

[ADDENDUM: And about those outcome studies…]

[ADDENDUM II: Summary version of the plan: balloon mortgage (hat tip: American Digest). ]