Jumping On The Cromnibus
Yes, apparently that's a new word now: "cromnibus." Now, some, editorially-speaking, have been insisting on "CRomnibus" or "Cromnibus," but for the time being here, we've decided that it doesn't qualify for proper-name status in any way.
[I should interrupt this perhaps-less-than-fascinating pedantry for a quick message for those of you who were expecting something a little more Thanksgiving-ey today. While I have in years past occasionally devoted the Wednesday-Before-Turkey-Day to such holiday-appropriate columns, it's never been a hard and fast rule here. But I don't want to disappoint, so for traditionalists, here is the funniest Thanksgiving column of all time, from Art Buchwald. If that isn't enough, for dessert you could read the lyrics to "Alice's Restaurant," the best Thanksgiving song ever written, by the incomparable Arlo Guthrie. That's enough Thanksgiving for all, so let's get back to splitting editorial hairs, shall we?]
Where was I? Oh, right, riding the cromnibus. For those of you who have been doing other things today, such as travelling homewards, there's a new term in Washington. It is a mashup of "continuing resolution" (often referred to by wonky Washingtonians as a "c.r.") and "omnibus." Put them together, and you get a cromnibus. We have to interrupt this etymological discussion about the term once again, though, to explain why it was created at this particular moment in time.
Ever since their triumphant midterm election, Republicans have kept fairly quiet. They are huddling up behind the scenes and out of the public eye in order to figure out what their next steps as a party should be. President Obama did not go into the expected fetal crouch after the election, and his newfound boldness has knocked Republicans off their game quite a bit.
Part of this is the ongoing civil war between the Tea Partiers and the Establishment Republicans. An interesting battlefront just opened up in this conflict, with Mike Enzi challenging Jeff Sessions for the chairmanship of the Senate Budget Committee. Enzi is preferred by the Establishment wing because he's seen as less of a bomb-thrower than Sessions. Enzi has more seniority than Sessions because (you can't make this stuff up) his name was drawn from a hat first, a while back.
Meanwhile, President Obama is not only feeling pretty good, he's cracking jokes about his recent executive action on immigration (while pardoning the turkeys, Obama quipped the pardons would be the "most talked about executive action this month."). He's also issued a strong veto threat for a tax bill, getting out in front of the issue by defending the working class.
Republicans are struggling to figure out how to react to Obama's recent moves. The Tea Party wants a big budget showdown, and they'd prefer it happen sooner rather than later. The Establishment wants a budget extension (an omnibus bill) that would fund the federal government through the end of September, and then to have budget discussions throughout all of next year, without the threat of a government shutdown hanging over everyone's heads like a Sword of Damocles.
This all has to be resolved in some fashion by the 11th of December, when the current funding runs out. Republicans can't figure out how to express their anger at Obama's new immigration policy without also appearing to be unable to govern at all. That last part worries the leadership more than the Tea Party, of course.
There were originally three options the Republicans were considering. The first would be to just let the Tea Party tail wag the Republican Party dog, and shut down the government in the middle of the Christmas shopping season. Have the big fight now, rather than putting it off. The second option would be to pass a continuing resolution and punt the budget problem to the next Congress. Pass an extension of three or four months, and let the new guys have the fight, because they earned it by getting elected. The third option was to pass a full omnibus bill that funded the government through the end of the federal fiscal year, and then fight all next year over the next year's budget, which wouldn't be due until the first of October.
The third option -- the full omnibus bill -- is favored by the Establishment Republicans and the leadership. But it wasn't seen as good enough by the Tea Partiers, so they've been attempting to tweak it until it is acceptable. The first suggested tweak was "rescission" (which I discussed last week), and now the second tweak being floated is to combine the two competing ideas -- have a omnibus bill which covers everything except the funds needed to implement Obama's new immigration policy, and then stick that part in a continuing resolution which only funds it for a few months. This way, Republicans could claim they're "not shutting down the whole government," and still get to have a big fight on immigration early next year.
Thus was born the "cromnibus" plan.
Now, there are good points and bad points about such a course of action for the Republicans. The Establishment Republicans would score a clear victory in "being the adults in the room" by fully funding of most of the government through the end of the fiscal year. The Tea Party would get their big fight, but it wouldn't go beyond one issue and threaten everything else. But on the down side, the agency which handles immigration paperwork is actually self-funded (through fees immigrants pay), and is not normally even a part of the appropriations process. This wouldn't legally stop House Republicans from yanking its funding. But it would be much more visible, and it wouldn't make much sense to the average American since the program already pays for itself -- Congress would look pretty petulant, in other words, to the average American. Immigrants from all over the world, however, would be incensed. How, after all, does it make any sense whatsoever to protest undocumented immigrants by shutting down the process for legal immigrants to get documents? Legal immigrants would be affected by shuttering the office's doors, because they would not be able to hand in their paperwork. So Republicans would be enraging not just those affected by Obama's new plan, but also every legal immigrant in the country who has an appointment at the immigration office. It doesn't really make a lot of sense, unless your ultimate goal is to destroy your party's chances to get the support of any naturalized citizen, ever again.
But, again, we'll have that fight early next year, if enough Republicans jump on the cromnibus (so to speak) before it leaves the depot. It'll still have to make it through the Senate, so the cromnibus may break down before it ever gets onto Obama's desk. And he could always veto it -- he certainly seems to be looking for some juicy veto-bait these days. But again, those are fights for the future.
In a nod to Arlo Guthrie's New England storytelling style, we're going to end where we began, by completing that rambling story that you've forgotten I had even started, as we made our way through the haze of the cromnibus exhaust clouds wafting our direction from Capitol Hill. That's right, we're going to resolve the "CRomnibus/Cromnibus/cromnibus" debate, once and for all. A cromnibus, by definition, is a type of a bill. Just like an omnibus, and just like a continuing resolution. It is not "the Cromnibus" it is merely "a cromnibus," even if it is the first of its kind. Even its proponents would have to admit that, if successful, a cromnibus might be the vehicle of choice in the future -- there could easily be other cromnibuses (cromnibusses?) rumbling down the Hill for enthusiasts to jump aboard, perhaps as early as next year. While the phrase "continuing resolution" is commonly shortened to "CR" in Washington-speak, the capitals are simply not justified, as it is not a proper noun at all, it is a general description of a certain kind of bill. All acronyms are not capitalized (although some begin life that way), and some become words in their own right (such as: radar, laser, taser, scuba, and snafu). For all of these reasons and more, our editorial board has determined that "cromnibus" is the correct usage of this Washington neologism. You can either get on board the cromnibus, or you can get thrown under it, your choice.
And, of course, if all of that (or too much turkey) hasn't already put you to sleep...
Have a Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
How, after all, does it make any sense whatsoever to protest undocumented immigrants by shutting down the process for legal immigrants to get documents?
Let me turn that question around..
How does it make sense for legal immigrants to get and return documents when all one needs to do is make it to the United States as an illegal immigrant and then Obama and the Democrats will give them a free ride??
Hmmmmmmmmm???? :D
Happy Turkey Day... :D
Michale
Happy Turkey Day... :D
From the biggest turkey here!!! :D
From the biggest turkey here!!! :D
I wouldn't say that, Michale.
In fact, whenever anyone says that you're not fit to eat with the pigs, I always stand up for you and say that you are!
:-)
Happy Thanksgiving, my pal!!!
That last part worries the leadership more than the Tea Party, of course.
I guess that means the Tea Party doesn't worry them all that much. ;)
Immigrants from all over the world, however, would be <double-italics>incensed.</double-italics>
Politics doesn't care what the non-voters think. It cares what the people think who are at this very moment plying their extended families with political hogwash, and getting geared up to donate and volunteer in the 2016 primary season that began earlier this month.
I wouldn't say that, Michale.
In fact, whenever anyone says that you're not fit to eat with the pigs, I always stand up for you and say that you are!
:-)
Happy Thanksgiving, my pal!!!
THAT brought a smile to my face.. :D
Thank you, my friend...
Michale
But it would be much more visible, and it wouldn't make much sense to the average American since the program already pays for itself -- Congress would look pretty petulant, in other words, to the average American.
Which "average American" are you referring to??
The "average American" who, just quite recently, told Obama and the Democrats to KNOCK IT OFF!!! in unequivocal and no uncertain terms??
Is that the "average American" you are referring to??
Obama himself said that "Elections have consequences"...
Apparently, he only believes that when HE wins the elections... :^/
I'm just sayin'....
Michale
I've been mulling this column for days now. It's pretty depressing.
All actors seem to have happily painted themselves into a safe corner. There is no political price to pay for bad behavior, quite the opposite. All politics is local, and local politics in the House o' Reps is gerrymandered. Obama seems quite happy in his role as lame duck. The Senate is functioning as designed: it's a political sea anchor that's perpetually deployed. Supremes are supreme for life/non-egregious behavior.
US National Politics is now pretty close to 100% divorced from the process of actual governance. It's 99% perpetual campaigning = perpetual fund raising. Oh, and things are really not any better at the state or local level.
A few more cycles of this, and it won't be just rural crackpots talking secession. If the populous states ever wake up to the economics of gridlock...
M-(6) Right back at you: What average American are YOU referring to? You think the election was settled by the average American? By the average voter? It doesn't work that way. Not even close. The only thing that's clear is that most Americans didn't vote.
Right back at you: What average American are YOU referring to? You think the election was settled by the average American? By the average voter? It doesn't work that way. Not even close. The only thing that's clear is that most Americans didn't vote.
"Failure to make a decision is a decision in itself."
-Captain James T Kirk
The people who did not vote in essence DID make their preference known by NOT voting..
By commission or omission, the American people HAVE spoken...
And they overwhelming spoke to Democrats to cut the shit...
This is simply inarguable and undeniable...
Michale
By commission or omission, the American people HAVE spoken...
And, if the election had been identical but favored Democrats ya'all would be saying the EXACT same thing I am saying now...
Michale
And, if the election had been identical but favored Democrats ya'all would be saying the EXACT same thing I am saying now...
That usually ends the debate...
But, before ya go, I would be very interested in your thoughts on the last part of #6...
To whit:
Obama himself said that "Elections have consequences"...
Apparently, he only believes that when HE wins the elections... :^/
I'm just sayin'....
Michale
M -
So by your compelling logic, not voting is just another form of voting. Voting by omission rather than commission......it's basically the same, which should raise the esteem of the merely lazy and the disenfranchised alike.
On the other hand, This equivalency means that voter fraud is far worse than anybody has realized. Whole cemeteries are filled with unregistered dead who fraudulently vote by omission each and every election! There are stories of the dead voting to tip an election, but the number of unregistered non voting dead must number in the hundreds of millions, and growing! This vast non voting constituency neatly accounts for the low level of congressional activity we see among our representatives and the general creepiness of politicians and their handlers.
To secure public trust, Stringent voting I'D is must. To vote, show ID. To vote by not voting, also show ID. Photo License or photo toe tag.
Dems may be getting a boost from the Latino demographic, but take heart GOP, your older whiter core need never go away with an effective post mortum registration effort!
Rock the non vote!
So by your compelling logic, not voting is just another form of voting. Voting by omission rather than commission......it's basically the same, which should raise the esteem of the merely lazy and the disenfranchised alike.
I wouldn't put it in those terms exactly, but yes.. That's the case..
A non-vote for Candidate A is a de-facto vote for Candidate B...
I noticed how you won't condemn Obama for being a hypocrite..
Color me surprised.. NOT! ! :D
Michale
M-
Political hypocrisy is a lot like sunsets - totally predictable and only worthy of comment if the particular occurrence is spectacular. But, in this case, you've simply made the glorious sunset up! When did Obama say this election cycle had no consequence? Of course the election had consequences.
Barak Obama, Nov 5 from WAPO:
"Obviously, Republicans had a good night. And they deserve credit for running good campaigns. Beyond that, I’ll leave it to all of you and the professional pundits to pick through yesterday’s results.
What stands out to me, though, is that the American people sent a message, one that they’ve sent for several elections now."
Consequences of the election duly noted. A message was sent. Spectacular quote not provided, but where is it written that failure to rend his garments and cover himself in ashes is hypocrisy? Your "shock" is rhetorical over cooked baloney. Circular reasoning. Begging the question.
Getting back to the notion of the "average voter" and the Senate flip. Roughly 1/3 of the seats were up for grabs, in roughly 1/3 of the states. Roughly 2/3 of the potential voting population had no vote on the matter. That's our constitutional mechanism. The senate is not decided by anything close to one person, one vote. Regarding the election as a mandate by the "average American" is common enough, but incorrect. Voting is different than polling. Polling is opinion, voting is opinion + power. Roughly 2/3 of the potential electorate had no power to influence the makeup of the senate.
As usual, the vote was approximately evenly split between the parties, with Republicans getting the bigger share I would suspect. So, roughly speaking, 1/6 of the potential voters decided the senate. That's our 200 + year old system, and practical purposes, we're stuck with it, or stuck with something at or close to civil war in order to change it. We could argue about precise percentages, but the basic is point is clear. In any given year, the senate "mandate" is decided by a minority, not by some mythical average Joe or Jane.
Political hypocrisy is a lot like sunsets - totally predictable and only worthy of comment if the particular occurrence is spectacular. But, in this case, you've simply made the glorious sunset up! When did Obama say this election cycle had no consequence? Of course the election had consequences.
He's not ACTING like this election had any consequences for him..
"DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO"
THAT is blatant hypocrisy..
And yes, "politician" and "hypocrisy" is really redundant...
But my beef is ya'all only call Republicans on it and give the Democrats a pass...
That's my point...
As to the rest, you can spin it any way you want..
But when all the chaff is pulled and the wheat is laid bare, the simple fact is, the Democrat Party got it's ass....
(get it?? Democrat?? Ass?? Get it?? Tough room.. :D)
... handed to it..
The people, by omission or commission have spoken.
And, just like in 2010, the Dem Party is ignoring it..
Which basically sets the stage for a BIGGER Nuclear Shellacking, an APOCALYPTIC SHELLACKING in 2016...
That assumes that the GOP can actually govern.. Which is, by NO means, a certainty...
The Democrat Party lost and lost big.. While I applaud you for trying to find the silver lining (I am a cup is half full kinda guy myself) the simple fact is Democrats are Mudd...
Michale
Political hypocrisy is a lot like sunsets - totally predictable and only worthy of comment if the particular occurrence is spectacular. But, in this case, you've simply made the glorious sunset up! When did Obama say this election cycle had no consequence? Of course the election had consequences.
He's not ACTING like this election had any consequences for him..
"DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO"
THAT is blatant hypocrisy..
And yes, "politician" and "hypocrisy" is really redundant...
But my beef is ya'all only call Republicans on it and give the Democrats a pass...
That's my point...
As to the rest, you can spin it any way you want..
But when all the chaff is pulled and the wheat is laid bare, the simple fact is, the Democrat Party got it's ass....
(get it?? Democrat?? Ass?? Get it?? Tough room.. :D)
... handed to it..
The people, by omission or commission have spoken.
And, just like in 2010, the Dem Party is ignoring it..
Which basically sets the stage for a BIGGER Nuclear Shellacking, an APOCALYPTIC SHELLACKING in 2016...
That assumes that the GOP can actually govern.. Which is, by NO means, a certainty...
The Democrat Party lost and lost big.. While I applaud you for trying to find the silver lining (I am a cup is half full kinda guy myself) the simple fact is Democrats are Mudd...
Michale
054
We could argue about precise percentages, but the basic is point is clear. In any given year, the senate "mandate" is decided by a minority, not by some mythical average Joe or Jane.
EXCEPT, of course, if that mandate-deciding minority is Republican... :D
Michale
055
A non-vote for Candidate A is a de-facto vote for Candidate B...
No it's literally a vote for nobody. A non-vote is a genuinely equivalent to a vote only if a majority of non votes means the office is filled by candidate nobody until some candidate gets a majority in the next election, or arguably, until a candidate crosses a predetermined plurality threshold. In systems without runoffs, there is not equivalency, although it's obvious that failure to vote, or casting a blank vote, has consequences. It can even make some long term strategic sense as a political threat.
As my English teacher used to say, satire is a Swift kick in the butt.
No it's literally a vote for nobody. A non-vote is a genuinely equivalent to a vote only if a majority of non votes means the office is filled by candidate nobody until some candidate gets a majority in the next election, or arguably, until a candidate crosses a predetermined plurality threshold. In systems without runoffs, there is not equivalency, although it's obvious that failure to vote, or casting a blank vote, has consequences. It can even make some long term strategic sense as a political threat.
Again, you may spin it how you wish...
But the statement is still logical..
A Democrat will vote Democrat.. So a Democrat who chooses to stay home and not to vote for Joe Democrat is a de-facto vote for for Jane Republican..
Put another way...
If you have a Dem candidate with 10 votes and a GOP candidate with 11 votes and a Democrat voter stays home, that gives the election to the GOP candidate.. By staying home, the Dem voter, in essence has chosen the Republican...
Michale
056
Ya wanna talk about the Louisiana run-off that's on?? :D
Michale
057
“To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you too.”
-President Barack Obama
Even the POTUS believes that those who didn't vote still sent a message...
Or is Obama just listening to himself blather???
Michale
058
AND, I am constrained to point out, Obama and Democrats are STILL putting their own agenda before the priorities of the American people..
Almost half the electorate (45%) claim that the economy sucks and they are worried to VERY worried about it..
Only 14% care about immigration..
So, what does Obama and the Democrats do???
They ignore the American people, give amnesty to 5 million new workers that is going to exacerbate the very problems that almost half the Americans are worried about...
And Democrats expect the American people to vote them in in 2016!???
If there was ever a sign that DC has legalized pot, the utter fantastical delusions of the Dem Party would leave no doubt...
Michale
059