The Obama Administration’s Unforced Errors

The Obama Administration’s Unforced Errors – They have been avoidable. Will they define President Obama’s presidency?

-Christopher Carroll

 

Unforced errors are the bane of a tennis player’s existence – they seem to be the bane of President Obama’s existence too.

The catastrophic opening of the Affordable Care Act health exchanges and the emergent reality that many Americans will be kicked off their current healthcare plans, despite Presidential assurances to the contrary, have given democrats and the White House headaches. These unforced errors probably could have been avoided. Instead, they could cost the President the ability to realize the remainder of his second term agenda and may cost democrats on Capitol Hill their jobs.

Rather than celebrate a debt limit victory over Republicans, President Obama and the rest of the party are ducking for cover, as Republicans and the public fume over what is seen as government ineptitude with HealthCare.gov and Americans losing their coverage. While democrats in Congress were willing to swallow a difficult pill when passing the A.C.A in 2010, they may be less willing to stand by the law now. Already, democrats are introducing new legislation to amend or delay Obamacare. Soon, the Obama administration will not only have given back all the ground gained after the government shutdown, they will be trying to lead a party unwilling to follow them.

If the problems aren’t fixed soon, congressional democrats will likely distance themselves from the President in attempts to protect themselves in the 2014 and 2016 election cycles, a possibility that White House officials fear could derail President’s remaining agenda.

****

President Obama and his staff clearly recognize how precarious their situation is. Tuesday, the President apologized to those people who are losing their coverage, a rare moment in American presidential history. While that clearly is just the beginning of the administration’s response, the most prudent way forward is not widely agreed upon.

Some democrats are angry, fearing that the White House response has been too subdued, not reflecting the dire situation that the failures have placed them in. Others, fear that by directing all their attention to the A.C.A, the White House will lose sight of its other priorities, including immigration and gun reform.

****

Regardless of how much energy and priority is devoted to the A.C.A disaster, the past weeks will remain Republican ammunition to be used against vulnerable democrats in Congressional races. While the issues must be fixed as soon as possible, the other agenda priorities must not be forgotten or else risk letting the faulty roll-out rule the public discussion long into the foreseeable future. The faster the administration can put this time behind it the better for President Obama, his priorities and for democrats running for re-election in 2014.

The administration must find a quick administrative fix, similar to that reported by the Huffington Post on Friday, to address those people who are losing their current coverage. The President cannot afford to look like a liar or misinformed. The administration must then begin pushing their agenda. President Obama must focus on immigration reform, gun reform, women’s rights, voter enfranchisement and job creation. He must help provide congressional democrats with ammunition of their own, lightening the weight that the A.C.A will undoubtedly prove to be during the election cycle.

Unforced errors happen to everyone. While they define average athletes, people and politicians, great athletes and leaders are made in response to them. Which will President Obama be?

Could a Phone Call Lead to Progress in U.S-Iranian Relations?

The Power of a Phone Call: Could it lead to Progress in U.S-Iranian Relations?

-Christopher Carroll

Though the country has grown accustomed to political conflict, strife and anger, conversation between foes is still possible; just not between domestic politicians.

It has been a tough time in Washington D.C. The government shutdown is entering it’s second week. The debt limit is expected to be reached October 17. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is widely known, has opened it’s insurance exchanges with a limp. Lost in the beavy of bad news in Washington, has been the progress seen in one of the most important international issues of the past decade. For the first time since the Carter administration, the Presidents of the United States of America and Iran spoke to each other.

The September 27th conversation took place by phone, President Obama from the Oval Office and President Hassan Rouhani from his car on the way to the airport following the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. It marked the first time since the 444 day Tehran Hostage crises three decades ago that leaders of the two countries had spoken to one another.

The conversation, which lasted fifteen minutes, included discussion of the most contentious divisions in Iranian-U.S relations. The two leaders, writes Peter Baker of the New York Times, agreed to accelerate talks “aimed at defusing the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.”  Presidents Obama and Rouhani also expressed their hope that a rapprochement between the two nations would transform the Middle East.

President Obama, in a statement to reporters after the call with President Rouhani, expressed cautious optimism, hoping that resolution of the nuclear issue, “obviously, could also serve as a major step forward in a new relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, one based on mutual respect.”

The call came after a meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif proved constructive. While President Obama had expressed a willingness to meet the Iranian President at a General Assembly luncheon, the Rouhani skipped the event, preferring to interact by phone to avoid political backlash at home. The fear that Islamic hardliners in Iran would provide political trouble in Iran seemed to fulfilled yesterday, when Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expressed his disapproval of the conversation.

Here in America, the news has had a mixed reception. Advocates for closer relations are excited, believing, as Joseph Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund explains, that “it helped fundamentally change the course of Iranian – U.S relations.” Others are less optimistic, believing that rather than a shift in U.S – Iranian relations, it is rather a result of the economic sanctions placed on Iran. “The economic pain now is sufficient to oblige a telephone call, though not a face-to-face meeting,” explained Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, to the Times

What cannot be denied, however, is that this news is a welcome change in America.

****

While the talks between the two leaders certainly worries Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the willingness two converse is a good, and obviously important, step towards addressing serious concerns in relations between Iran and the U.S. The President who rode into the White House preaching the importance of conversation and compromise with allies and enemies alike, is exhibiting the foreign policy he called for. While his strategies have largely failed in the realm of domestic politics, it will hopefully lead to real progress in international politics. By being willing to engage in conversation with the international community, the President might yet again show a surprising deftness of hand in foreign policy; one he seems to lack in domestically.

The President should be cautious about the way he moves forward from here. He must not be willing to sell the farm too early and give too much in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program. Doing so would not only allow a volatile country to arm itself with catastrophic weaponry, but would also undermine relations with Israel, still one of our most important allies, and could compromise moderate Iranian politicians in the Middle East, crippling any potential progress in negotiations. However, pursuing genuine conversation with Iran will send a message to the entire world that America is no longer going force it’s will on the world in back rooms, with the lights off and night vision goggles on. America is going to talk to it’s enemies and it’s allies, it’s neighbors, friends, and competitors, and work to not only ameliorate threats to American interests, but resolve the issues that face the worldwide community.

Americans that have grown used to political competition and conflict should take heart in the President’s actions and American politicians would do well to look toward the President’s example. Conversation between foes can become a conversation between colleagues.

Shut it Down – Obama Can Save the Country from Default

Shut it Down – Obama Can Save the Country from Default

– Christopher Carroll

President Obama and Senator Harry Reid can win the federal budget and debt limit debates. They can do it by letting Republicans walk into their own trap. By allowing the federal government to shut-down, they can save the country and economy from the much worse disaster of debt default.

After the Senate passed, in an expedited procedure,  a bill that would have temporarily funded the government and avoided an impending shutdown while preserving Obamacare, House Republicans again refused to comply with the President and Senate democrat’s refusal to involve Obamacare.

Saturday brought more drama to the political stage. Following a rare Saturday meeting, House Republicans passed a Continuing Resolution that will temporarily fund the government while delaying Obamacare for one year.

House Speaker Boehner had indicated a desire to direct House Republicans to pass the Senate’s version of the continuing resolution, thereby rallying strength for the approaching debt limit battle. He was, however, unable to muster support from within his party for his strategy. The unruly caucus proved too much for Boehner to handle, bucked his leadership and insisted on delaying the A.C.A in any agreement.

The House GOP, by not following Speaker Boehner’s advice, has given the Obama administration and Senate Democrats a get out of jail free card. Even after democrats vociferously and publicly refused to defund, delay or compromise the A.C.A in all budget or debt limit negotiations, the Republican’s stubborn insistence that they do just that will allow President Obama and Senator Reid to justify allowing the government to shut down. While a shutdown would be disruptive, a default would be catastrophic.

****

President Obama and Harry Reid should let the government shutdown. It would give them political power in negotiations over the debt limit, due to be reached by October 15.

At this point, avoidance of a federal shutdown will likely only take place if Republicans concede to Democratic firmness and public disapproval. If this were to happen, Republican lawmakers would likely return to the debt limit debate with a vengeance, insisting that in return for raising the debt limit they receive any number of their priorities. Given Democratic unity on the federal budget, it is unlikely that they would succumb to Republican coercion and the country and economy would be thrown into turmoil.  This must not happen.

Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Instead, President Obama and Congressional Democrats should allow the Republicans to fall victim of a trap of their own making. By allowing the government to shut down, they would be allowing national distress on a relatively minor scale; the economy would falter due to uncertainty, federal employees would be furloughed and unprotected federal programs would be suspended. A debt default, on the other hand, would be catastrophic. The economy would stagger, the world markets would shiver and the countries credit rating would be slashed. The economic recovery will not sustain blows of that magnitude.

By allowing a federal shutdown, Obama may be able to avoid economic disaster by teaching the country, and Republicans, through the lens of experience. The country and economy will be forced to watch the effects of a government shutdown and not only hold them responsible, but fear the vastly more painful debt default.

Republicans have been rewarded for their recent spates over the federal budget and debt limit. It is becoming commonplace for the nation to watch budgetary conflicts every year in Washington D.C. The Republican party, who recently have had relatively little political leverage, are finding themselves able to control debates and manufacture influence through budgetary and debt negotiations. Only if the President and Democrats refuse to be coerced and blackmailed through CRs and debt limit increases will a seemingly perpetual cycle break.

If Obama doesn’t give in to discussions, he may be able to save the country the pain of default. By allowing Republicans to buck their own leadership, President Obama will allow the G.O.P to step into a trap that they themselves have set.

High Stakes Chicken

High Stakes Chicken – Republicans and Democrats are locked in a game of budgetary chicken whileAmericans and the economy can do nothing but watch

-Christopher Carroll

While Republicans are busy fighting an ideological grudge match against Obamacare, Americans and the economy are caught in the crossfire.

Friday marked a busy day for the House in Washington D.C. After passing a bill that could temporarily fund the Federal Government through December 15, Eric Cantor and House republicans held a closed door meeting to decide on strategy for negotiations over the impending debt limit. That vote has been scheduled for next week.

The Republican strategy is clear; they are linking their desire to defund the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, to both the major fiscal deadlines that rapidly approach. Even with the President and congressional Democrats repeatedly asserting their unwillingness to allow these fiscal deadlines to become bargaining chips, Republicans are pushing an ideological battle as far as it will go. In doing so, they are pushing the country to the brink of economic disaster.

The bill to fund the government through mid-December, comes in the form of a Continuing Resolution, or CR, which keeps the government funded while buying time for legislators to agree to new appropriations bills. Within the CR now on it’s way to the Senate for debate, House Speaker Boehner and Republican leadership included the defunding of Obamacare, long a priority of a faction of the Republican caucus. Meanwhile, Republican strategy to raise the debt limit “links a yearlong postponement of the health law’s implementation to a yearlong extension of the government’s borrowing authority.” Regardless of its passage through the Supreme Court, Republicans intend to follow through on passed rhetoric and attempt to gut the A.C.A.

The bill now before the Senate has no chance of passing and will, without a doubt, be amended. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D. – NV), has already said that a CR that defunds Obamacare is “dead” on arrival. Even if it were to find a way to the President’s desk, Obama has already promised to veto a budget bill that defunds the ACA.

While Democrats are painting the House CR and debt limit strategies as simply attempts to further ideological differences at the expense of the nation, Republicans believe they can get Democrats up for re-election in republican leaning districts and states to vote with them. Freshman senator Ted Cruz (R. – TX), the leader of republican efforts to scrap the A.C.A, has said he will use any means necessary, including filibuster, to stall Senate passage of a different funding bill.

****

The Republican strategic calculus is incredibly flawed.

As explained by Republican strategist and policy advisor Karl Rove, the Republican’s defunding strategy represents political kryptonite, not the ace in the hole that many politicians seem to think. While it is true that polls show that Obamacare is unpopular, risking government shutdown is even more so. Less than one American in four supports efforts to repeal or defund the law and risking the shutdown so as to attack a political grudge is politically fool-hearty way to alienate voters and risk the loss of seats in the Senate and House.

Additionally, the stubbornness shown by the GOP, even after repeated warnings that the President and Senate Democrats would allow the defunding of Obamacare,

Official portrait of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

has already done damage to the American economy. A shutdown or failure to raise the limit would do even more. We have already seen the repercussions of the Republican strategy. Just this past Wednesday, Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, announced that the Fed would not scale back the current economic stimulus, surprising many on Wall Street and across the country. The move indicated that the Fed does not think that the economy will continue the current pace of improvement and that unemployment will remain high for the foreseeable future. But it is naïve to think that Ben Bernanke was not also accounting for the uncertainty that surrounds the debt limit and government shutdown. Clearly, Mr. Bernanke feels that the likelihood, and the resultant repercussions, of a shutdown are too big to ignore. Instability and uncertainty are anchors on any economy and ours is already weighed down by a stimulus that robs it of economic momentum.

The only positive thing that can be said of the Republican strategy is that it has distracted the country from addressing the implementation of the A.C.A. While posturing, pontificating and politicking about shutting down the government and defunding the A.C.A., Americans have seemingly not realized that the A.C.A exchanges open October 1st. If the GOP strategy is merely one of diversion, it has succeeded, though at the cost of increasing voter fatigue over their strategy.

****

The damage that would be inflicted upon the U.S economy by either a government shutdown or failure to raise the limit would be vast. It would be crippling for an economy trying to recover with the sequester already tied around it’s neck. While President Obama and congressional Democrats will not be blameless, default and shutdown are particularly dangerous for the G.O.P. Rather than standing up for what American want and need, they will appear willing to grind the economy and federal services to a halt, choosing instead to fight an ideological grudge match rather than govern the nation. As is so often the case in United States politics, the American people are the collateral damage.

The Path not Recently Traveled

The Path not Recently Traveled – Under President Obama’s leadership, American foreign policy is rejecting recent habits

-Christopher Carroll

As we delve deeper into President Obama’s second term, his vision for American military involvement abroad becomes more distinct. Following Saturday’s developments in the Syrian chemical weapons negotiations, it is clear the President Obama is leading America toward more restrained military involvement in American foreign policy.

Though it has been a back and forth month for Obama, it has been one consistently restrained in style. Just weeks ago, the President called on Congress to vote to approve military action against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons caché, a move that threw past presidential practice to the wind. Just days later, after it seemed clear that Congress would not approve such action, Russia and Syria suggested the possibility of putting the weapons under international control. These negotiations prompted Obama to ask Congress to delay the vote, fearful that Congressional refusal of military action would permanently cripple Secretary of State John Kerry in talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. On Saturday, Kerry and Lavrov came to an agreement that could bring Syrian chemical weapons under control and even begin destroying them in 2014. The diplomatic solution trumped the threat of military intervention.

If all goes according to plan, this is a victory for President Obama. Not only will Syrian weapons be accounted for and destroyed, but the Obama administration finds itself able to save face while not getting too close to the conflict. However, cancelling the Congressional vote on military action came at a cost; allowing members of Congress to avoid ownership of their opinions and making it nearly impossible to change course and use military force. The latter was a cost the President seems more than willing to pay. The former, is a shame.

****

Delaying the vote on Syrian action effectively made it impossible for President Obama to deploy American force if the deal is not adhered too.  Without a doubt, delaying the vote prevented the damage that would have been done if Congress rejected military action, however it did not preserve the President’s ability to deploy military personnel, a power he effectively abdicated to Congress. To do so, he would have to withstand seriously damaging himself domestically and the benefits the President gained by turning to Congress last week have now been entirely undercut before reaching their full potential.

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 -Christopher Carroll

A new age is dawning in American foreign policy. As Congress’ summer recess comes to a close, groundbreaking decisions can’t be made in Washington. President Obama’s decision to involve Congress in any military operations in Syria, is one with profound implications for Syria and one that will reverberate for generations in American policy.

****

A year after Obama’s famous “red-line” comments, the administration is now citing evidence that the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, has used chemical weapons on their own people.

The announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry was immediately followed by wide speculation about the nature of U.S involvement in the conflict. Conjecture on the scope of military involvement ran rampant, especially given the United State’s shady intervention record recently in Iraq and Afghanistan and the David Cameron’s announcement that the parliament of the United Kingdom had voted down the possibility of U.K military involvement in Syria. Would Obama commit the United States’ military to difficult operations in an excruciatingly complex revolution without concrete goals and clear cut, comprehensive results? 

Obama, in an atypically shrewd act of political navigation, has relieved himself of enforcing his naive “red-line” comments. He has given Congress exactly what they are always clamoring for, more power and the final say in military efforts while simultaneously finding himself able to argue that he isn’t backing down. The President has saved himself from the attacks that surely were to follow his decision regardless of what is decided while providing Congress with what they have traditionally claimed they deserve.

President Obama has already received the support for military action. House Speaker Boehner (R. – OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R. – Va), and the Senate Foreign relations committee have all approved of combat operations. This does not mean that it’s passage in the House is a sure thing. Members of Congress will have to publicly state their positions on the Syrian conflict, something that many politicians have been hesitant to do. Some congressmen, fearful of war-weary public repercussions, are likely to buck their party leadership. Others, more fearful of how history will judge them if they don’t take action in Syria, are more likely to approve the limited U.S military engagement. President Obama, meanwhile, is sitting back in political safety, letting the chips fall where they may.

Obama’s decision to turn to congress has major consequences in the international arena both inside and outside Syria. French President Francois Hollande, who, in France, does not need parliamentary approval to use the military and who has already expressed his willingness to follow the U.S into military action, may find that he has few options following the U.K and U.S precedents, forcing him to allow French parliamentary involvement (a major decision given the poor support military intervention has among the French public) in decisions regarding French military engagement. Additionally, Israel and Iran are closely watching this new congressional trend in American military action. While Iran watches to see if a new American military paradigm has been born, Israel looks upon President Obama’s action with apprehension, fearing that this new trend may negatively influence American willingness to help them in potential conflicts over Iran’s nuclear power program. A potentially new trend in American military use will certainly change the playing field between these two countries as both wonder whether or not Americans will continue to readily expend blood and treasure on foreign soil.

****

The President’s decision has immense long term repercussions on the future of American foreign policy.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was meant to check the President’s ability to commit American military forces to armed conflict. Presidents are granted 60 days of military engagement plus 30 days of withdrawal from any action without Congressional approval. Unauthorized use of military personnel is technically against the law. However, that law has frequently been circumvented and even entirely ignored by presidents, making it now an accepted part of the “imperial presidency” that some feel endangers American structural integrity.

President Obama’s rejection of such action is shocking, all the more so given the lack of worldwide support for the Syrian opposition and worldwide pressure to act. Does this mean that there will never again be a Vietnam conflict or Iraq War disaster? Probably not. Does this mean the Iran/Contra affairs of the future will never again come to fruition? Hopefully. Will America, by deferring all military action to Congress, cease acting unilaterally in international crises? Doubtful. But rather than being remembered for budget and debt debates, Summer 2013 may be remembered for a shifting of government structure in Washington D.C.

Time will tell if we are indeed nearing the end of an era marked by American presidential military action. If this trend holds true, it will without a doubt be the legacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. Having entered office a constitutional lawyer and professor, the President has followed long, winding road through Nobel laurels and Wilsonian ideals. But, as he nears the close of his presidency, he seems to be becoming a Jeffersonian. The country and the world would best take note. American foreign policy is entering a new era.

Lights Are Out and Nobody’s Home

Lights Are Out and Nobody’s Home

-Christopher Carroll

Dark days are coming. The lights may be turned off in Washington. Easy to forget in the recent Syria conflict turmoil is that America is once again hurtling toward fiscal disaster. For most Americans, it’s the same old story; more Washington ineptitude, more partisan bickering, more selfish nonsense and more political puffery.

Congress, due to return to Washington D.C shortly, is facing two major fiscal debates, reaching the debt limit and an impending government shutdown. The velocity with which these deadlines approach is going to put a great deal of pressure on Congress to act quickly, something they have not been known to do frequently.

Last week, the Obama administration announced that the Department of the Treasury will run out of money sooner than expected. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said that the Department expects to exhaust methods to postpone arriving at the limit in mid-October, putting it on schedule to immediately follow the other major fiscal fight, the funding of the federal government. Both of these fights are expected to be bloody, but having them back-to-back could make them fatal.

The fiscal debate will be a major battle. The Obama administration has said that the President will not entertain negotiation over the debt limit, insisting instead that the debt limit be raised to prevent default on previously accrued debts. “Such a scenario could undermine financial markets,” explained Lew, and could “result in significant disruptions to our economy.” Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner (R. – OH), expects a “whale of a fight” over the debt limit, hoping to leverage raising the borrowing limit so as to attain further budget cuts beyond what is known as the sequester.

Even before the debt limit is reached, September 30th will bring the end of the current government’s funding. Unless a budget or continuing resolution is reached before the September 30th deadline, the government will no longer have the authority to remain operational.

Similarly to their stance on the debt limit, House Republicans believe that the threat of a government shutdown provides political ammunition. Many plan to insist upon further budget cuts, to accompany those already in place by sequestration, or the gutting of the Affordable Care Act, in any budgetary deal. Many democrats want to replace sequestration in a new budget agreement, but Speaker Boehner and his caucus don’t seem to be remotely interested.

****

It is difficult to envision a way in which the Obama administration and House GOP come to an agreement on either of these issues. The administration insists that it will not negotiate with Congress on the debt limit while Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor plan on reaping concessions on taxes and healthcare. Meanwhile, it is just as hard to see the two sides agreeing on a comprehensive budget while Democrats want to replace the sequester, thereby easing the noose strangling the economy, while Republicans push for keeping the sequester and repeal of the ACA. Dark days seem to be fast approaching.

****

The dual fiscal threat facing Washington and the country presents danger for all parties concerned; Republicans, Democrats and Americans alike. Republicans must be careful not to overplay their hand. The 1995 government shutdown was far more damaging to Newt Gingrich than it was to President Clinton, and if Speaker Boehner and the GOP want to win a Senate majority in midterm elections, they cannot afford to disenchant swing voters. President Obama, meanwhile, cannot afford to be so stubborn during budget discussions that he risks tainting negotiation over the debt limit, a debate that presents more danger to the national economy than does a government shutdown.

However, the dual threat, while potentially a deadly cocktail, may actually make negotiations easier for Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. The issues presented in both debates will provide more flexibility for lawmakers to trade, compromise and accommodate each other. With more assets on the negotiating table, it may be easier for Congress to resolve and avoid both fiscal disasters.

Sadly, the dual cocktail that could provide benefits to lawmakers will likely prove poisonous for the public. If the government shuts down, the country risks default on payments and damage to our international credit rating. If Obama plays the budget negotiations on the conservatively safe side, preserving Obamacare while simultaneously getting the debt limit raised, the economy will not only continue to struggle against the sequester but will be forced to burden additional tax-breaks and budget cuts. If the opposite takes place and the Obama administration is able to reach a budget plan but in doing so gives into Republican demands on taxes and Obamacare, or angers Republicans enough to prevent a debt limit increase, the nation will once again experience the economic turmoil of two years ago. None of this is even to speak of the possibility that no agreement, on either debate, is reached.

While many people chalk the latest economic distress and debate to Republican obstructionism, Democratic spending and Congressional puffery, deeming the recent trend a new phenomena is blatantly untrue.  Not since George Washington was able to hold the young nation together by himself have we seen an American nation not plagued by partisan posturing and perilous rhetoric.  Most recently, the Hastart Rule and gerrymandering have made it worse. It is now up to Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Minority Leader Pelosi and President Obama to manage their caucus. Otherwise, the American people will be left in the dark.

Eric Holder Takes Up Arms

Eric Holder Take Up Arms

-Christopher Carroll

Attorney General Eric Holder is bent on addressing inequality in America. In a year that has proven difficult for the DOJ, Eric Holder is seemingly looking to make up for lost time.

Holder announced that the DOJ will file a lawsuit against the State of Texas over SB14, a “the strict voter identification law,” arguing that it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Texas’ SB14, signed by Governor Rick Perry on May 27, requires voters to present valid photo identification at all polling places. Following the Supreme Court’s early summer decision to strike down Section Four of the Voting Rights Act, this type of legislation has proven to be extremely contentious. While proponents argue that bills like SB14 prevent voter fraud, adversaries charge that it unfairly discriminates against minorities, the elderly and the young.

Though Republican legislators in Texas, Governor Rick Perry included, complain that Holder’s decision is just the latest example of the “administration’s blatant disregard for the 10th Amendment,” many others allege that these laws are politically motivated. Many contend that the law, and others like it, are “adopted with the purpose, and will have the result, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.”

Holder’s latest attack on inequality comes in the form of voter enfranchisement as states legislatures look to preserve political control and power. The new lawsuit follows Holder’s attack on mandatory minimums, long seen as overly harsh tools that disproportionately discriminate against minority offenders in the U.S. The United States of America is a country with incredible wealth and prosperity but with correspondingly cavernous gaps in inequality. These gaps will continue to widen as long as minorities, the needy, the young and the old are taken advantage of.

****

Eric Holder seems to be trying to leave his mark on the office of Attorney General. Rather than being remembered as the A.G who signed off on phone tapping, Mr. Holder seems to be actively addressing racial inequality that has for too long gone ignored.

The attention is a welcome relief. Inequality of all types is rampant in America. Social, economic, racial, educational and vocational inequality is a cancer on our communities and economies. By suing Texas, Holder is reemphasizing the need to address voter disenfranchisement in American politics, an issue that is both a cause and symptom of unequal treatment. American governments and politicians should be emphasizing voter participation, not discouraging it, and we seem to, at this moment at least, have an Attorney General who wants to hold American leaders up to true American standards.

ESSAY: The Congressional ACA Deal: Not An Exemption, Just More of the Same

Essay: The Congressional ACA Deal: Not An Exemption, Just More of the Same

-Christopher Carroll

Congress isn’t giving itself an ObamaCare exemption, but the deal recently reached with the White House isn’t doing the Affordable Care Act any favors.

Congress and their staffers, after a small measure of hysteria, do not need to worry that they will lose the health insurance coverage provided them by the federal government: the Obama administration has seen to that. With the deal came a collective sigh of relief from congressional offices across the country. It also came with a sense of resentment from many voters.

The issue arose when it was realized that Democrats had agreed to a provision written into the Affordable Care Act by Senator Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) requiring Congress and their staffers to be covered by health insurance offered through the ACA exchanges. What at the time was perceived to be rather minor legislation has now seemingly overly burdensome for the Congressmen who wrote the law.

 

The difference between the old and new systems is by no means inconsequential. Right now, prior to implementation of the ACA on January 1st, members of Congress and their aides are covered through the Federal Employee Benefits Program, a program that covers 75% of premiums. Grassley’s statute, however, means that about 11,000 Congressmen, aides and staff would lose that coverage. Additionally, Congressmen and some staffers wouldn’t be able to qualify for other benefits provided by the ACA. “The Members – annual salary: $174,000 – and their better-paid aides also wouldn’t qualify for ObamaCare subsidies,” explains the Wall Street Journal. “That means they could be exposed to thousands of dollars a year in out of pocket expenses.”

The deal has expectedly been met with scathing remarks and scorn. Republicans on the Hill, including Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.), have not wasted time to make political hay, calling Obamacare “a train-wreck, even for Congress.” Many voters are angry as well, interpreting the deal as more back room dealings by untrustworthy Congressmen placing the burdens of unwanted laws on the people while exempting themselves.

Others, meanwhile, do not see the deal as an exception for Congress at all. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Ca.) believes that the deal resolves legislation that was meant simply to embarrass Democrats, “and the collateral damage was to staff.” Ezra Klein, the popular writer at Wonkblog, has pointed out that the deal is not an exemption at all and calling it one is misguided. Instead, the deal is meant to fix a problem created by the Grassley amendment.

Français : (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The issue at hand isn’t about the cost the deal may or may not force on individuals. Instead, it is an issue of law, logistics and timing. As explained by Mr. Klein, “Grassley’s amendment means that the largest employer in the country is required to put some of its employees — the ones working for Congress — on the exchanges. But the exchanges don’t have any procedures for handling premium contributions for large employers” until 2017. In other words, because large employers aren’t allowed on the health exchanges, Congressional staffers and aides will not be afforded the same opportunities that most Americans will be offered under the Affordable Care Act. They will, in effect, be penalized for working for the government.

****

Americans angry at Congress are misdirecting their frustration; the public’s enmity should instead be directed towards Obama administration and the administration that should be embarrassed.

The President’s crowning achievement, the Affordable Care Act, was conceived with exemplary intentions. Free healthcare for all has long been an idea dearly held by many liberal lions throughout the decades and this bill was meant to get America closer to that ideal. However, the bill is crumbling around itself.

Earlier this year, the administration postponed the employer mandate of the ACA, weakening the law so as to buy time for businesses to implement the new requirements. Now, Americans hear of more band-aid fixes and backroom deals, necessary to rectify further failures to anticipate the needs of government workers.

The deal itself, is good. It is not an attempt by Congressmen to get out of a poorly constructed bill. It is simply an attempt to treat congressional aides fairly, giving them the opportunity to receive employer benefit options, similar to ones that are going to be offered to people not affiliated with Congress. However, Congressmen and aides should bare in mind that this fight has come at a political cost for Obama and the ACA in general. On the surface, the deal appears to be an attempt by Congress to avert being subjected to laws already imposed upon the people. The political ramifications of those feelings are dangerous during good economic times, even more so when felt during times of economic instability and high unemployment.  Congressmen would be smart to take time to explain this to their constituencies. The ACA is already an immensely complicated bill. Most people are misinformed about what it does and how it could help them and this deal is more bad press for a bill that has received precious little.

 

It is a shame that a bill that was viewed as progress towards universal healthcare, a passion for generations of Democrats from FDR to Teddy Kennedy, has have been so badly botched. Could ObamaCare do more harm than good on the road towards universal healthcare in America? With each passing failure, the answer becomes a more emphatic, yes.

Washington’s Best Kept Secret – A New Era for Newspapers?

Washington’s Best Kept Secret –  A New Era for Newspapers?

-Christopher Carroll

So much for a city unable to keep secrets. On Monday, the Washington Post Co. announced that it had sold it’s newspaper, the Washington Post to Amazon.com founder and CEO Jeff Bezos. The sale of what has historically been one of the most important newspapers has shocked journalists and audiences alike. After being owned for four generations by the Graham family, the newspaper that broke the Watergate scandal and more recently the IRS scandals is now a private entity, hopefully speeding towards a new era.

Image via CrunchBase

The Post, which will become a private company following Bezos’ purchase, was by no means impervious to the financial constraints felt by many news organizations. “They looked to the future and saw that they’d have to keep cutting,” wrote Ezra Klein, the popular Washington Post columnist and editor of the Post’s Wonkblog. The hope is that with Bezos’ incredible net worth, he will be able to refrain from cutting the newspaper’s budget or lower the level of quality journalism the paper’s audiences have grown to expect and appreciate.

The news has been met with excitement and uncertainty. Nobody knows for sure what will become of the influential newspaper. Carl Bernstein, one of the reporters made famous for his reporting on the Watergate scandal, said in an interview with POLITICO that sale comes after “recognition that a new kind of entrepreneurship and leadership, fashioned in the age of the new technology, is needed to lead not just the Post but perhaps the news business itself, in combining the best of enduring journalistic values with all the potential of the digital era.”

The Washington Post’s chairman and chief executive, Donald Graham, in an interview with the Washington Post, shared Bernstein’s hopes for the future, describing the move as not desperate but necessary for the strength of the newspaper. “The Post,” he said, “could have survived under the company’s ownership and been profitable for the foreseeable future. But we wanted to do more than survive. I’m not saying this guarantees success, but it gives us a much greater chance of success.”

Others, however, are less sure. Fears that Bezos’ ties with Amazon.com, one of the largest and most influential businesses in the world could influence the management of the Post are well taken. Some readers fear the Amazon’s political interests could dictate the journalistic priorities of the newspaper, skewing the journalism one direction or another. Though Bezos has said that the values of the Post do not need changing and that the “paper’s duty will remain to its readers and not to the private interests of its owners,”  who can say for certain what will happen five, ten, fifteen years down the road. As people grow accustomed to Bezos’ ownership, will the newspaper slant viewpoints, able to get away with framing issues once there is less public scrutiny?

 

****

        The Bezos purchase is exactly what the Washington Post and the entire industry needs. Though by no means the only recent purchase by an individual of a large and important news organization, his purchase and proclaimed appreciation for the Post’s values and standards is heartening and exciting.

Throughout history, the press has seen technological innovation. The penny press turned what was once an expensive endeavor operated by postal workers and rich politicians into a cheap mass messaging and educational tool, imperative to the strength of democratic governance. Digital technology have similarly transformed the newspaper’s place in America. As digital innovation has progressed from the radio, to television and the internet, the newspaper, the bulwark of democracy, has failed to keep up with increasingly cheaper and faster options. Newspapers as we have known them are dying. If anyone can open a new gate to a new role and life for these immensely important institutions, someone like Bezos can.

 

Taking Bezos’s professed intention to keep Amazon and the newspaper separate at face value, his investment in the organization will likely help keep this important “fourth estate” watchdog strong. Bezos, whose business, Amazon, was and still is an extraordinary example of market and technological innovation, will help bring an obsolete news machine into the new digital era. Perhaps he will find ways to keep newspapers not only priceless aspects of democracy, but also economically viable institutions. Until someone does, newspapers will remain in financial limbo, weakening their ability to provide services necessary to the health of our democracy.

With luck, this will mark a new age of philanthropy for organizations vital to the fabric of our communities and nation. Hopefully, Bezos’ purchase will mark a return to habits of old, when independently wealthy business owners across the country put money into organizations that they believe in. Hopefully newspapers and journalism will experience a rebirth similar to those seen in the past.

A Government Shutdown is Bad Politics and Bad for the Country – Will the Lights Be Turned Off in D.C.?

A Government Shutdown is Bad Politics and Bad for the Country – Will the Lights Be Turned Off in D.C.?

-Christopher Carroll

It is that time of year. We are once again wondering if the debt ceiling will be raised and if a budget for the 2014 fiscal year (starting in October 2013) will be passed. Once again, we wonder if the government will be shut down. The question this time is, if it happens who will have turned out the lights?

It seems like every summer, Congress and the White House begin posturing and flexing their muscle, staring down one another in an attempt to intimidate the other into fiscal submission. This year, House Republicans seem especially eager to engage in the yearly schoolyard fight over the budget and debt ceiling. Meanwhile, President Obama and the White House seem eager to avoid a Washington brawl, yet are ready to strike back if the House throws the first punch.

As many readers will know, the debt ceiling debate is a misnomer. Having nothing to do with the amount of debt that Congress can accrue in the future, the ceiling simply gives the Treasury Department the ability to pay the debts already incurred. Yet prominent Republicans, including potential 2016 presidential candidates Sen. Marco Rubio (R – Fl.) Sen. Ted Cruz (R – Tx.), and Sen. Rand Paul (R – Ky.), want to link raising the debt ceiling to defunding Obamacare, a proposal that has drawn the ire of Democrats and even some Republicans. This perennial threat is frequently the strongest tool in the Republican fiscal tool-belt, providing them with the most leverage of any common threat to lower taxes and decrease government expenditure.

A full-fledged government shutdown is a less common and much more extreme threat. The damage that a shutdown would do to the economy would be drastic.  By failing to come to an agreement on a new budget or even a Continuing Resolution, the federal government would be forced to shut down on October 1st, something that has not happened since the Clinton-Gingrich standoff in 1995.

****

Republicans seem to feel that because they control a majority in Congress, they can hold President Obama, the White House, and the Senate hostage in all fiscal matters. While this is partially true (Congress constitutionally has the power of the purse), the strategy is dangerous.

Much to the displeasure of GOP leadership and Republican strategists, most Republican Representatives are not following their lead and are willing to push hardline fiscal policies in an attempt to prevent primary challenges in their home districts from the right. These Representatives are using the debt ceiling and the government budget to prove their disdain for Obamacare and boost their fiscal conservative credentials. As was discussed in a July 20th post, this strategy joins those of many recent House Republican policies that may be good for individual Representatives but bad for the Grand Old Party and for the entire country.

House Republicans must realize that the risks aren’t worth the rewards. A government shutdown and fight over the debt ceiling would add uncertainty to both the economy and to the election year. As it stands now, very few Republican seats in the House are at risk from democratic challengers and the chances that the GOP loses the House are zero. Maintaining that majority must be of the utmost priority for the GOP. However, letting the country default on debt or letting the Government fully or even partially shut down, would add a variable to the upcoming mid-term elections that could lead to disaster for Republicans. The only way Republicans will lose the House,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R – Ok.), former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, “is to shut down the government or default on the debt.”

Democrats and the Obama Administration would surely be able to use such political battle against the Republicans in the public, showing that their obstructionism and failure to come to a workable agreement on the budget is hurting the economy and country. The President will not allow Congress to use the Affordable Care Act, the hallmark of his presidency, as a trading chip for a budget or ceiling agreement. It will be too easy for Democrats to say that Republicans shut down the government because they wanted to take health care coverage away from millions of Americans.

****

In the end, a shut-down is bad politics for everyone. The economy would suffer. Republicans would risk their large majority in the House. Democrats would benefit the most from a shutdown, but it would be at the expense of devoting time and energy to pressing debates over immigration, the farm bill and Obamacare’s implementation.

Worst of all, it would give the public even more reason to distrust their leaders. In a perfect world where cooler heads prevail, this discussion wouldn’t be an issue. Of course the debt limit would be raised, we must pay our bills or risk defaulting. Of course a budget or continuing resolution will be reached, the government must serve the country. But alas, this world is not perfect. Cooler heads don’t prevail. The lights could be turned off and the public and economy could be left to suffer. Republicans should be more afraid of the dark then they are letting on.

Obama’s Economic Pivot – Could it Save the Immigration Debate?

Obama’s Economic Pivot – Could it Save the Immigration Debate?

– Christopher Carroll

Obama’s pivot to towards the economy and away from addressing immigration reform is well timed. It may be the only way to shepherd the difficult bill through the ultra-polarized election season.

An inconsistent and leaderless Republican caucus and increasingly partisan rhetoric will doom immigration reform in the House. While hardly out of the ordinary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D – Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R – Ohio) are speaking past each other.  But this time of year, it is worse than ever.

As is to be expected, the approaching election season has brought polarizing political rhetoric and inconsistent leadership to Washington. Speaker Boehner repeatedly states that the Senate immigration bill will not be brought to the floor and Leader Reid repeatedly calls for comprehensive reform. Yesterday, Senator Reid termed the House immigration strategy “bite-sized” while going on to explain that if the Senate bill were brought to the House floor, it would pass “overwhelmingly.” Meanwhile, Boehner’s claim that “nobody has spent more time” on immigration reform than him has been scoffed at by White House Press Secretary Carney, further escalating tensions.

English: Jay Carney giving a press briefing. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pressure on Speaker Boehner is coming from within the House as well. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has called on the Speaker to encourage the Republican caucus to pass a comprehensive bill rather than pieces of legislation.

Pelosi, in a letter to Speaker Boehner, writes that “priorities for immigration reform are the principles laid out by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, with commitments to secure our borders, protect our workers, unite our families, and provide an earned pathway to citizenship.” These priorities, she claims, receive bipartisan support. “We are ready to act in a bipartisan fashion,” continues Pelosi, so as “to afford all immigrants a fair shot at the American Dream, and to make comprehensive immigration reform the law of the land.”

Democrats are seemingly united in their call for an earned pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country. Republicans, meanwhile, agree that children of illegal immigrants should be allowed an opportunity to become citizens. But this variation on the DREAM act rings false for many, as it could further split families apart, forcing children to choose between separation from their family and risking deportation.

DREAM act (Photo credit: quinn.anya)

As these leaders become increasingly vocal about their disagreements, those who hope for any sort of immigration reform are left to shrug their shoulders and brace for inevitable disappointment.

****

The DREAMact disagreement and the disagreement in overall structure the legislation will take  is a result of divergent leadership styles and increased electoral season pressure. Reid has recently been very aggressive in his advocacy for President Obama’s agenda and his vision for the Senate. Speaker Boehner, meanwhile, employs a more hands-off approach, preferring to facilitate discussion while ensuring a Republican majority on all bills through the Hastert Rule.

However, in yesterday’s economic speech at Knox College, President Obama folded the immigration debate into discussion about the overall economy. This may save it.

By putting both Obamacare and immigration reform into a larger context that everyone in the country can identify with, the President not only removed pressure on those components themselves, but also provided the debate time to marinate within the minds of the public. He has linked the steady but stubbornly slow progress seen in the economy with the stubbornly contentious immigration issue.

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This will help the public identify with the issue. Everyone has, to varying degrees, been affected by the recession. Progress has been steady. The economy is consistently adding jobs. The housing, industrial and energy markets are strengthening. However, there is still much to be done. More progress is needed. While the economy is creating jobs, most of them are low-paying jobs rather than the higher-paying jobs that were lost. Detroit has gone bankrupt. Families are still struggling.

 But, by linking the economic progress that has been seen and that must still be done with the progress that must be done on immigration, President Obama might have saved the bill, or at least productive discussion of it. By linking immigration to public understanding of the overall economic recovery, President Obama may successfully shepherd the issue through the polarized combative mid-term elections. If he does, he will have breathed life in an important issue currently gasping for breath.

Liz Cheney – Great News for the GOP; Great News for the Nation

Liz Cheney – Great News for the GOP; Great News for the Nation

-Christopher Carroll
The Cheney family has been intricately involved in much of America’s recent political history. It seems that the country has more to look forward to.

On Tuesday, republican Liz Cheney, the daughter of former House Minority Whip, former Secretary of Defense under President George H. W. Bush and former Vice-President of the United States Dick Cheney, is running for United States Senate from Wyoming. The catch? She is running to unseat long-standing republican Senator Mike Enzi.

This type of inter-party cannibalism has become surprisingly commonplace. The tea-party fervor of the past six years has resulted in incumbent republican losses from challengers on their right. This trend has been crippling in Washington D.C. Politicians, fearful of interparty challenges, have moved further to the right while republican freshman have been vociferous in their aversion to compromise. The result has been a hyper-polarization of the two parties, bringing governance in D.C to a screeching halt and making Congress one of the most hated institutions in the country.

Liz Cheney’s announcement may mark an end to these dark days. Many prominent Republicans are looking at her announcement with distaste. Former RNC chair Michael Steele fears that her campaign will open a fissure in the GOP. His disillusionment is joined by that of Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), who chairs the Senate Republicans 2014 Campaign, and many other prevent political actors. The republican establishment seems to be resenting and actively fighting recent republican culture.

All of this comes after Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Az.), came to an agreement with Senate democrats to avert a filibuster showdown, agreeing to confirm controversial Obama nominations in a deal that was received with much displeasure from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Suddenly, this doesn’t seem like the disciplined Republican Party of old. The unified GOP many have grown accustomed to is now fractured.
Liz Cheney’s announcement is great news for the Republican party and the nation in general. It’s not wonderful because she will bring change and progress to governance, but because the response to it has been unusually negative. As more Republicans denounce Cheney, who has said that the country doesn’t need people who compromise but those who are willing to oppose democrats “every step of the way”, and politicians of her ilk, the party will be purging itself of the dangerous extremism that has plagued it in recent memory.

Hopefully the GOP is changing. Hopefully the response to Liz Cheney’s announcement marks a new conservative trend. If the GOP does begin to reject extreme characters like Cheney, the party will regain some of it’s old credibility and strength. If the GOP does begin to reject extreme characters like Cheney, the nation will be better off.

Essay: Harry Reid’s Nuclear Option – Good for the Nominees but Bad for the Senate

Essay: Harry Reid’s Nuclear Option – Good for the Nominees, but Bad for the Senate

The Senate is tossing and turning. Members are forced to weather the rough, churning waters left in the wake of the newfound battle between Majority Leader Harry Reid (D. – Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. – Ky.). The Senate’s inability to pass legislation and refusal to confirm qualified candidates nominated to important government positions and judicial seats has resulted in a public battle between politicians who until recently have always shown respect and deference toward each other. While making interesting reading and watching, it only serves as a distraction. The turmoil only muddies the waters on an important question: Should the Senate change filibuster rules?

Official portrait of United States Senator (R-KY) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The relationship between the two has steadily crumbled during recent months. Reid’s recent threat of a “nuclear option” has led to McConnell’s mistrust of his counterpart, believing that he is not going to honor the agreements the two came to in 2011 and 2012 to protect the traditional role of the filibuster. This feeling has recently been exasperated by the Minority Leader’s perception that Reid, and his Super PAC, are trying to influence his re-election in Kentucky. Reid has said he knows nothing about his Super PACS actions nor should he. But the claims, if true, would constitute a breach of the traditional behavior between opposing Senate leaders.

Sen. Reid, meanwhile, is clearly fed up with McConnell’s and the GOP’s refusal to hold confirmation votes on nominees resulting in Ried’s “nuclear” threats and anger at what he sees as McConnell’s refusal to honor a filibuster agreement the two reached early this year. His “vows” to limit the filibuster have boiled over into public combat recently, following McConnell’s warning that Reid would be remembered as the “worst” Senate leader “ever” if filibuster rules were changed by a majority vote.

****

Drowning Out What Matters

Between fighting about confirmations and the filibuster, a lack of trust between the two leaders, and anger over public remarks and re-election involvement, it is little wonder that real discussion about the pros and cons of changing the filibuster have been drowned out.

The filibuster has long been an effective and important tool to protect the minority in government. It can be used to delay legislation and ensure that the views of a small group of senators are heard. Throughout American history, politicians have used it to great effect, and today, the traditional filibuster (as opposed to the silent variety), is an extremely effective way to voice opposition, especially passionate moralistic opposition, to a proposed bill of act.

The filibuster can be an effective tool, able to draw national attention to an issue, boost the recognition of a politician to the national stage, or simply delay an inevitable vote long enough to force additional debate in the public and on the Hill.

Most recently Sen Bernie Sanders (I – Vt.) drew national attention from media and sympathy from voters with his 8 hr. and 37 minutes filibuster of a proposed agreement between a tax cut deal between the President and Republican leadership. Similarly, Senator Rand Paul’s extraordinary 13 hour filibuster, calling attention to the American Government’s use of drones over American soil, brought him strong public support on social media and a resulting bump in national popularity.

But, conversely, the filibuster can cripple Senate action and grind even ordinary measures to a halt. Washington has been inculcated by this type of problem, with “silent holds” acting as filibusters in the absence of cloture. Famously, judicial seats are left unfilled (as of April, the NY Times was reporting that 10% of federal district and circuit court seats were empty) and no bill, no matter how seemingly uncontentious, can pass without a supermajority.

But what is the right thing to do? Should Sen. Harry Reid force through a change in the rules, or should the Senate try to amend the use of the filibuster without going so far as to kill it all together with a simple majority vote? The repercussions of such a “nuclear option” are vast, subtle and difficult.

****

The Nuclear Option: Danger, Danger Will Robinson!

Harry Reid’s “nuclear option” is dangerously extreme. As explained by Jonathan Weissman and Jeremy Peters of the NYTimes, “the majority leader, through a simple majority vote, would put new limits on the minority party’s ability to filibuster presidential nominees. Ordinarily changes to the rules of the Senate require a two-thirds majority; Democrats hold 54 seats.”

This option cannot be taken lightly as it may destroy many of the differences between the House and Senate, could undermine protection of the minority (regardless of party) and throw an important, oft-used traditional political tool into the trash heap.

It certainly is true that the Senate needs to vote on appointees to the various seats and positions that have for so long gone unfilled. It certainly is true that the filibuster has been misused over the last three presidential terms. But the misbehavior has not been saved for one party, faction or group of politicians. Democrats and Republicans alike have used the filibuster to their benefit, stalling and in some cases stopping bills disliked by the minority.

Aside from removing the ability of many lesser known or less powerful Senators a chance to voice exactly why they will not allow a nomination, scrapping the current filibuster system risks compromising the Senate on a fundamental level. Trashing this old tradition would obfuscate some of the uniqueness that makes the Senate the body we know today. Removing this system, especially in a “nuclear option” Harry Reid led manner, risks removing the trust and compromising nature of the Senate, making it simply another version of the House of Representatives. Senator Harry Reid cannot let that happen.

Washington, by all accounts, is broken. Legislation, regardless of how popular is rarely passed. Laws, regardless of how needed, are rarely written. Confirmations, regardless of how qualified the candidate, rarely take place. But, the Senate still manages to occasionally do it’s job, find compromise and attempt to govern the nation. By pushing through his nuclear option, Reid risks alienating both traditionalists, politicos and the Minority party, risking the very culture that makes the Senate more effective than the House.

****

Majority Leader Reid is right to be unhappy, annoyed and furious with the GOP and Minority Leader McConnell. Their actions recently, especially regarding confirmations, have been obstructionist to say the least. But by pushing through a “nuclear option” Sen. Reid will likely gain the 7 confirmations he is angling for at the expense of  the Senate’s culture, future credibility and the likelihood of future legislating. The Senate, in today’s Washington climate, has been a truly unique body, able to fail to find compromise most of the time, not all the time.

Harry Reid would do well to remember that the long term future of the Senate is more important than the short term prospects of Obama’s nominations. Rather than resorting to such a drastic rules change, Leader Reid should look to find a way to amend the current system. Maybe there is a way to make the “silent hold” practice truly impossible. In 2012, Democratic Senators signed a petition to agree to stop silent holds and filibusters, but it is time for this to be truly impossible. This would force Senators to publicly acknowledge their actions. Maybe there is a way to, with a simple majority, allow a confirmation process to start, but allow filibusters to take place during that process. This would allow the public to hear why a particular Senator doesn’t want an individual to gain a particular position, rather than hide behind the leadership and prevent the process from beginning at all.

If Senator Reid he uses a “nuclear option,” he will risk selling the farm to save his corn. The Senate would likely confirm important nominees, but would be crippled, robbed of a traditional process and a unique culture of compromise.

Gerrymandering, the GOP and Immigration Reform – Doomed to Fail

Gerrymandering, the GOP and Immigration Reform – Doomed to Fail – gerrymandering and GOP shortsightedness will kill reform and could kill the Republican Party.

-Christopher Carroll

 

 

The chances that the Senate immigration bill passes the House are zero. The chances that the House passes even a piece-meal immigration bill, while not zero, are pretty close.  Gerrymandering and poor foresight are to blame. Both Democrats and Republicans should be upset.

The chances of passage have never been very good. Though it passed with a solid majority in the Senate, Marco Rubio, the Republican champion from Florida and a likely 2016 presidential candidate was only able to convince 13 republicans to vote for the bill, even with the immense border security spending.

There seems to be growing sentiment among House republicans that, in the words of Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), any type of immigration legislation, even piecemeal legislation, could become a “Trojan Horse in a conference committee,” where a “package that puts legalization first and enforcement second” is written. The border security priority held so dearly by many Republicans is pointing immigration reform right into the ground.

Some seem to believe that immigration reform will not help Republicans regardless of whether or not they vote for the bill. “It would hurt Republicans,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a particularly anti-immigration bill member of Congress, explained. “I don’t think you can make an argument otherwise,” continued King. “Two out of every three of the new citizens would be Democrats.”

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 11, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Republicans nationwide should fundamentally reject King’s stance. While recent history and Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign would seem to support King’s claim, hispanic immigrants have historically shared many conservative values. Additionally, the fact that Mitt Romney lost the hispanic vote by over 40% in 2012 should be perfect reason to go ahead and implement new laws, not reject a part of our national community altogether.

Many G.O.P leaders, Republican think-tanks and political analysts agree that it is in the best interests of the party to embrace minorities and immigrants. The Census Bureau predicts that by 2060, non-hispanic whites will account for only 43% of the national population. The GOP can’t afford to ignore changing demographics and expect not to go extinct as a major political party.

The in-roads President George W. Bush made in the hispanic community were seen in his re-election splits. According to the Roper Center, John Kerry won the vote 53% – 44%, by far the closest split of any recent election. Additionally, it can be argued that the traditional family, religious and economic values held by much of the hispanic community closely mirror those of many conservative voters and politicians.

****

We are witnessing the hostage-taking of the entire Republican party by their own gerrymandering. Republicans, afraid of being challenged from the right, won’t go near any legislation that may help President Obama (one reason he has been so silent recently on immigration reform) or Democrats in the slightest. They won’t go near compromise, for fear of seeming soft or otherwise insufficiently conservative.

This environment has brought Washington to a screeching halt and risks bringing the Party to its knees. The short-term fears that gerrymandering has put into Republican congressmen is causing them to ignore the long-term interests of the Party. This will cripple it for years.

Unless Republican leadership is able to convince their membership that they can and should pass legislation, immigration reform will fizzle-out and die. If it does fail, the GOP will be spurning an ever expanding, prevalent and important part of our community that will, in turn, reject the GOP. Republican politicians, for fear of their own jobs due to their own gerrymandering practices, will be protecting themselves in the short run while simultaneously creating a second class of people.

If Republicans can learn anything from the Marriage Equality movement, it should be that creation of a second class is politically dangerous and morally unacceptable and that the times will always catch up to you.