Can Democrats Govern?
The next two weeks in Congress may provide an answer to the metaphysical question "Can Democrats govern?" If the answer turns out to be "no," then a large part of the electorate is going to decide that it is pointless to bother electing large majorities of Democrats to Congress, because they simply can't get anything done when they get there. If the answer turns out to be "yes" (or even "kind of"), then Democrats may have a chance to make the case this fall that electing lots of Democrats is the way for the voters to go.
In the next two weeks, two major pieces of legislation will be in the news. The first, of course, is health reform. The second was just introduced today by Senator Chris Dodd, and it deals with Wall Street reform, and consumer protection. Dodd's bill has a long way to go, but it'll start the process in his committee soon.
President Obama faced an enormous challenge when he took office, because our financial system appeared to be on the brink of outright collapse. For the past year, this danger has faded and the economy is beginning to show signs of bouncing back -- a stunning achievement in such a short period of time, but one for which Obama doesn't get a lot of credit at times. But the problem is that Wall Street is still playing by the same rules that led to the near-collapse. The regulatory structure has not been changed yet to prevent the exact same thing from happening at any future point. Congress has not acted yet. Well, to be precise, the House has acted (and passed a fairly strong bill), and the Senate has not. Which is why Dodd's draft of a bill is big news, because the Senate is finally making a little progress on the issue.
On health reform, Democrats are approaching the finish line (finally!) after spending much of the last year on the subject. But success is not guaranteed, even at this point. White House officials and Democratic leadership sound confident so far that they've got the process under control and the necessary votes under their belt, but this is not the same thing as a guarantee that within two weeks both health reform bills will be on Obama's desk awaiting his signature. No matter what happens in the end, it's going to be a lively few weeks in Washington, that's for sure.
But, on both these issues, the core question boils down to: Can Democrats govern? Can they actually do what is necessary, once they get power in Washington? Can they follow through on the campaign promises that got them there? Can they behave like adults and fix our nation's problems to avoid future financial disaster, or are Democrats just incapable of actually taking necessary action -- even when they've got large majorities?
If Democrats can manage to pass the two health reform bills (without somehow tripping over their own metaphorical feet while attempting to do so), then the American public will take notice. Whether one loves or hates the plan Democrats are trying to pass, its passage will be a political fact. Voters will agree on the basic fact: "Well, they got it done." Whether that motivates voters to support Democrats who managed to pass such landmark legislation, or whether it motivates voters to "throw the bums out" remains to be seen, but at least such elections will hinge on the fact that Democrats passed something, and not "Well, we tried our best, maybe next time."
Now, I'm not trying to predict how individual voters will act, come November. All I'm saying is that on the question of basic competence in governing, Democrats are going to have a lot easier time explaining their position if they can point to tangible legislation which they managed to pass. Otherwise, they'll just have excuses for why they wasted a year without having anything to show for the effort. And that's not a very cheerful thing to try to run a campaign on.
Regulating Wall Street falls into the same category -- basic competence. We have a set of rules for Wall Street to operate under. The rules failed to prevent a near-disaster. We barely survived this near-disaster. So, to prevent future repeats of this performance, any sane individual would agree that the rules need to be changed -- and beefed up. In specific, rules which cover the causes which led to the problems. It's been about a year and a half after the near-disaster struck. And yet the rules remain the same.
This one's even easier than health reform, because Democrats can so easily position themselves as on the side of the consumer of financial products (mortgages, in particular), and their opponents on the side of The Big Banks, or just Wall Street. Republicans aren't going to go along with Democratic ideas (that's pretty much a given, especially since Dodd bent over backwards trying to get Republicans on board, but finally wrote his own bill in frustration with the endless delays and obstructionism). Meaning Republicans will have to explain out on the campaign trail why they're for letting Wall Street operate exactly the same way as led to the near-disaster.
Once again, to any sane individual, crafting some new Wall Street regulations is a no-brainer. Doing so means whoever is in charge is capable of governing. Not doing so means incompetence.
Which is why I'll be following both pieces of legislation closely in the next few weeks. Democratic chances in the upcoming congressional elections may hinge mostly on where the unemployment rate is around October, I realize. But although the economy in general will likely be the major factor in the elections this year, Democrats also need to prove that they are capable of governing when the voters give them the chance. This means being able to pass legislation Democratic politicians have been promising their voters for years, and it also means being able to react to a crisis by passing legislation to avoid the same problem in the future. It means, in short, being able to govern.
Because if Democrats are seen as the party that tries real hard (but never manages to get anything actually accomplished), then it's hard to fathom why voters would get enthusiastic about the party. "Close" only counts in horseshoes, as they say. If this is truly the case, then ironically the Democrats actually become the "party of no" -- because the only reason left to elect them is to prevent Republicans from passing their agenda. And the slogan "Elect a lot of Democrats so that we can stop the Republican agenda, and waste a lot of time fooling around with things we can't pass" just isn't going to cut the mustard.
Either Democrats can govern -- and can make this case to the public during the campaign -- or they cannot. The next few weeks will be critical in answering this fundamental question.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
Well, on the upside Sen Dodd gave up on the bipartisan delusion and is bringing the bill up on his own. Downside is he seems to want the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be under the thumb of the Fed rather than to be an independent agency that can really act without looking over its shoulder. Strengthening the rules is a good thing, but you also need to give the refs more than striped shirts and tin whistles. They need handcuffs and paddy wagons and the authority to use them.
I think the question, "Can Democrats govern" has already been answered.
The only question remaining is how desperate will Democrats become to prop up the illusion that the Democrats want the American public to believe..
Considering the desperation we are seeing right now (reconciliation, the Slaughter option, etc etc) the answer to that seems to be...
"Pretty desperate.."
Michale.....
It's rather ironic...
Usually it takes months or years for the hypocrisy of politicians to become evident and obvious.
Last week, Democrats were all about "an up or down vote" when it came to reconciliation.
This week, with the Slaughter Option, Democrats don't even want to THINK about "an up or down vote".
Dems better be careful.
Such blatant 180 degree turnarounds can't be good for the spine...
Michale....
Another reason why CrapCare should not pass...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVn9wrhB-3SF-Svo9kZyXd4bHRLAD9EG84VO0
Insurance premiums will actually go UP, not down as the Obama Administration claims.
Michale.....
I am simply gabberflasted (no, really. I am..) at the lack of response from here regarding this Slaughter solution.
And a slaughter of our Constitution it is, no 2 ways about it.
Postulate a scenario where the GOP under President Bush, proposed legislation that made it perfectly legal to torture terrorists. The GOP leadership, knowing that they couldn't pass the legislation with a REAL vote, simply "deem" the legislation to have passed and then send it on to President Bush to be signed into law.
Can you imagine the complete and utter hysterical outcry from ya'all specifically and the Left in general!?? Ya'all would simply go ballistic if the GOP tried such blatant trickery.
And yet, it is eerily silent around here with regards to Democrats total stomping on the US Constitution.
Michale.....
Obama doesn't get credit for the bounceback because the only thing he can take credit for is continuing the bailouts, something that Bush never even got credit for in the first place.
The stimulus has done zero to help the situation, and plenty to make it worse. You've been highlighting that chart that shows the slowing down of job losses under Obama, yet you've made no mention of the fact that the median length of unemployment is now twice what it was pre-stimulus.
Pre-stimulus 50% of people were back to work within 10 weeks. Post-stimulus it grew to nearly 19 weeks. It's all good and well job losses flattening out to zero, but that does nothing for the people who are already unemployed and who, post-stimulus, face twice as long a wait to get new work.
Where I do agree with you, however, is that passing healthcare reform and Wall Street reform, whether I actually agree with how the Democrats are going about either (I don't) is still better than doing nothing. Passing nothing makes Democratic annihilation in November a certainty, passing something gives them a faint ray of hope.
Democrats are somewhat damned if they do and damned if they don't; I think their fate in November is all but sealed. They may as well pass as much of their agenda as they can while they still can.
I also agree with you that any regulation of Wall Street has to look at the causes of the crisis. For me it was down to over-leverage so it's key that any reform deals with tightening up cash reserves.
Molly:
I think Dodd is right to put the CFPB under the control of the Fed. In the UK we tried to go down the route of an independent body and it failed.
Whereas the Bank of England (our central bank) seemed to predict the crisis before it happened, but were powerless to stop it, the FSA, who had the power, were oblivious.
It's pretty much universally accepted on this side of the pond that taking away the supervisory role of the BoE was the reason our banks were hit harder than yours. If Americans think their bank bailout was bad, they should see the size of ours.
More regulation does not always equal more oversight. All it means is more paperwork for the banks to fill out. Regulators simply look to see if "Form X" is signed and bankers find more and more inventive ways to structure their products so they fall outside rules.
Instead, central bankers should have copies of the balance sheets of every major bank. Should they feel a bank has over-leveraged or taken too many risks, they should have a broad range of powers to act, with wide discretion. Beef up the Fed's powers.
But whatever you do, do not separate the central bank and the supervisory authority. We did, and it was a huge mistake, as it actually only serves to weaken both of them.
Michale:
I think you misunderstand the Slaughter solution. It would essentially deem the bill as having passed so as to enable to the Senate to act of the sidecar without the House actually having to vote on the Senate bill. I believe what would then happen is that when the House votes to pass the sidecar, after the Senate has passed it, they will also vote on the Senate bill. Only if both votes are won will either act actually become law.
Moderate,
. Only if both votes are won will either act actually become law.
It's my understanding that the Senate CAN'T address a side-car/reconciliation bill on legislation. The Senate can only address a reconciliation bill on a law..
According to the US Constitution, a bill can ONLY be signed by the President into law if the identical legislation has been passed by both the House and the Senate by a AYE or NAY vote..
The President can't sign a bill that has been Demon Passed by either entity. To do so would violate the US Constitution..
Michale.....