US politics circa 2011

So the House is now under Republican control with the stated goals of slashing the budget and repealing the Health Care bill. So far no road map of what they plan on slashing at. Should be interesting to see what happens if they go after social security and medicaid (which really are the 800lb gorillas both in terms of budgets and political risk).

Democrats still control the Senate and are keeping it in session while they negotiate changes to the filibuster rules (which apparently can be changed the first day of the new Congress by a simple majority). Senate - as in 1994 - has the ability to stop stuff coming out of the House. Will they?

Tea Party now has folks they supported in both the House and Senate. Will they govern differently than what they campaigned on? It is a lot easier to get elected than to govern.

This may not be a productive Congress, it may even be a disaster, but it should be fun to watch.

So the House is now under Republican control with the stated goals of slashing the budget and repealing the Health Care bill. So far no road map of what they plan on slashing at. Should be interesting to see what happens if they go after social security and medicaid (which really are the 800lb gorillas both in terms of budgets and political risk).

Democrats still control the Senate and are keeping it in session while they negotiate changes to the filibuster rules (which apparently can be changed the first day of the new Congress by a simple majority). Senate - as in 1994 - has the ability to stop stuff coming out of the House. Will they?

Tea Party now has folks they supported in both the House and Senate. Will they govern differently than what they campaigned on? It is a lot easier to get elected than to govern.

This may not be a productive Congress, it may even be a disaster, but it should be fun to watch. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Agree it is easier to get elected than govern. I think Community Organizer Obama found that out as well. Will be worth watching to see how he plays things and if he moves to the center a la Clinton in '95.

It is a lot easier to get elected than to govern.

This may not be a productive Congress, it may even be a disaster, but it should be fun to watch.

But it will be far better than what we have had for the last 2 years.....

Will be worth watching to see how he plays things and if he moves to the center a la Clinton in '95.

But will Obama be the traitor that Clinton and Gore was / are?

So the House is now under Republican control with the stated goals of slashing the budget and repealing the Health Care bill. So far no road map of what they plan on slashing at. Should be interesting to see what happens if they go after social security and medicaid (which really are the 800lb gorillas both in terms of budgets and political risk).

Democrats still control the Senate and are keeping it in session while they negotiate changes to the filibuster rules (which apparently can be changed the first day of the new Congress by a simple majority). Senate - as in 1994 - has the ability to stop stuff coming out of the House. Will they?

Tea Party now has folks they supported in both the House and Senate. Will they govern differently than what they campaigned on? It is a lot easier to get elected than to govern.

This may not be a productive Congress, it may even be a disaster, but it should be fun to watch. Originally Posted by discreetgent

I agree. It should be fun.

I do think the TPers are going to be taught some hard lessons. They come to Congress with an ax, and are going to be shredded by rapiers.

But it will be far better than what we have had for the last 2 years..... Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Just to understand, MA, is it your position that Republicans are always right and Democrats are always wrong?

Democrats still control the Senate and are keeping it in session while they negotiate changes to the filibuster rules (which apparently can be changed the first day of the new Congress by a simple majority). Senate - as in 1994 - has the ability to stop stuff coming out of the House. Will they? Originally Posted by discreetgent

This strikes me as particularly dumb. The Dems are the ones that wants to stop things coming out of the House. If they change the rules and the Reps can peel off a few blue dog Senators (i.e., anyone worried about getting reelected in 2012) they can blow stuff through the Senate and make Obama veto it. If Congress keeps passing stuff the public likes and he vetoes, he is going to be toast in 2012.

the time to do this was 2008 when they controlled the House. Thank God they weren't that smart.

I also think that there will not be the votes to water down the rules too much. The Senate has a long history of changing slowly and people in the majority being in the minority.

This may not be a productive Congress, it may even be a disaster, but it should be fun to watch.

It will be quite entertaining.

Just to understand, MA, is it your position that Republicans are always right and Democrats are always wrong?

You can't possibly be serious.

So the House is now under Republican control with the stated goals of slashing the budget and repealing the Health Care bill. So far no road map of what they plan on slashing at. Should be interesting to see what happens if they go after social security and medicaid (which really are the 800lb gorillas both in terms of budgets and political risk). Originally Posted by discreetgent

That recent spike in spending did not come from SS & Medicare, although I admit they are both big problems that need addressing.

That recent spike in spending did not come from SS & Medicare, although I admit they are both big problems that need addressing. Originally Posted by pjorourke

After us non-rich folk are dead of course.

You can't possibly be serious. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Chuck never is. He just doesn't always realize it.

This strikes me as particularly dumb. The Dems are the ones that wants to stop things coming out of the House. If they change the rules and the Reps can peel off a few blue dog Senators (i.e., anyone worried about getting reelected in 2012) they can blow stuff through the Senate and make Obama veto it. If Congress keeps passing stuff the public likes and he vetoes, he is going to be toast in 2012.

the time to do this was 2008 when they controlled the House. Thank God they weren't that smart.

I also think that there will not be the votes to water down the rules too much. The Senate has a long history of changing slowly and people in the majority being in the minority. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well filibuster is a rule that has been changed a number of times. In the last 100 years it was first 67 votes, then changed in 1975 to 60 votes. One of the changes in 1975 was the ability to filibuster without needing to stay on the floor and speak. One of the changes currently proposed is that Senators need to stay on the floor and speak; another is doing away with secret holds where one Senator can stop or hinder legislation (which some have done because they wanted something for their state not because of any objection to a bill); and one is to lower the threshold to 55 or 56 votes. I suspect something will get changed, only question is how much. And yes it cuts both ways, some day the Democrats will be in the minority in the Senate.

From NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us...ef=todayspaper

Excerpt from today's paper, along with the education question. Are you in favor of reducing support for education?

WASHINGTON — The incoming Republican majority in the House is moving to make good on its promise to cut $100 billion from domestic spending this year, a goal eagerly backed by conservatives but one carrying substantial political and economic risks.
Representative Paul D. Ryan will gain new powers over domestic spending as the chairman of the House Budget Committee.

House Republican leaders are so far not specifying which programs would bear the brunt of budget cutting, only what would escape it: spending for the military, domestic security and veterans.
...
But if Republicans vote for the size and range of required cuts in education, law enforcement, medical and scientific research, transportation and much more, it would give Democrats political ammunition to use against them in swing districts.
Such reductions are sure to draw protests from governors and local officials, including Republicans, who are counting on federal money to help balance their budgets. Many business and farm groups likewise would oppose cuts in their subsidies. And many economists would argue that immediate federal spending cuts of this size, especially on top of cuts and layoffs in the cities and states, would threaten the economy’s recovery and offset any stimulus from the tax cut deal Republicans and Mr. Obama reached just weeks ago.
...
Such across-the-board cuts “would have very damaging implications for the long-term growth of the economy and the long-term future of our work force,” said Jacob J. Lew, Mr. Obama’s budget director. He is preparing the administration’s budget for the 2012 fiscal year, which would continue a three-year freeze of the same domestic spending at 2010 levels.
“If you look in areas like education, if it was applied across the board it would mean eight million students would have their Pell grants reduced by an average of $700,” Mr. Lew said. “You obviously could make policy not to do that, but then you’d have to save a lot of money somewhere else.”
A 20-percent cut also would mean 40,000 fewer teachers and school aides, he said, and big reductions in basic research, law enforcement and small business programs, among many others.

This may not be a productive Congress, it may even be a disaster, but it should be fun to watch. Originally Posted by discreetgent

+1

Agree it is easier to get elected than govern. I think Community Organizer Obama found that out as well. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

+1

This strikes me as particularly dumb. The time to do this was 2008 when they controlled the House. Thank God they weren't that smart. Originally Posted by pjorourke

+1

I also think that there will not be the votes to water down the rules too much. The Senate has a long history of changing slowly and people in the majority being in the minority. Originally Posted by pjorourke

That is what the Founding Fathers intended. As originally conceived, the senate’s job was to inhibit whimsical, sudden change and allow time for proper consideration. The 17th Amendment, while well intentioned, has had unintended consequences. It should now be repealed to reestablish true federalism.

another is doing away with secret holds where one Senator can stop or hinder legislation Originally Posted by discreetgent

doing away with "anonymous holds" and "revolving holds" and similar tactics that are constantly abused by some senators to push their (often very private and personal) interests would be too good to be true.

what is proposed is just to reduce secret holds. (which is IMO still better than status quo, but the best would be IMO to completely stop this "anonymous holds" and "revolving holds" abuse circus.)

This may not be a productive Congress, it may even be a disaster, but it should be fun to watch. Originally Posted by discreetgent

hehe, agreed! there's also quite a lot of friction within the Dems and likewise within GOP, thus IMO it's too early to give a useful prediction which way things go but def. interesting to watch.