Meet Obama's Loyal Opposition
"I do not work for Barack Obama." Mitch McConnell, Senate minority leader? No. Ben Bernanke, Fed chief? No, again.
Try Harry Reid, huffing at the idea anyone calls the shots on Capitol Hill other than him. What was that about "change"?
The president-elect used that word on the campaign trail in the context of bipartisanship. To that extent, he's doing a fabulous job. Some of the gushiest quotes about him are emanating from Republicans, giddy at his outreach.
But the "change" Mr. Obama really needs is to avoid the fate of the last two Democratic presidents, both sabotaged by their own majorities. So far, not good. Mr. Obama has yet to assume office, and already his own party is beating his priorities like a conga drum.
When the incoming Democratic president asked the outgoing GOP president to request the second $350 billion in rescue money, Mr. Bush graciously complied. At which point the Democratic majority informed the Democratic president that he'd see not a dime until they decided how to spend it. After all, giving Mr. Obama control over his own Treasury funds would rob them of a pot that they could earmark for Detroit, or bankruptcy judges, or local institutions.
When incoming Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag proved reluctant to commit Mr. Obama to specific uses of the money, Florida's Sen. Bill Nelson accused him of spouting "mumbo jumbo." North Dakota's Sen. Kent Conrad, fresh off dictating the shape of Mr. Obama's stimulus tax cuts, had to intervene. In a last-ditch effort to rally Democratic support, Mr. Obama was forced to agree in writing to commit up to $100 billion to homeowners. Even so, nine of his own senators yesterday voted to deny him the funds.
Speaking of the stimulus, the Obama team, trying to shelter the party from accusations of profligate spending, initially capped the package at (a whopping) $775 billion. At which point Mr. Reid explained, publicly, that at least 20 of Mr. Obama's own economists felt it should in fact be at least, $800 billion -- maybe even $1.3 trillion! Five impoverished Democratic governors chimed in that anything less than $1 trillion really wasn't worth it. At last count, Mr. Obama had been talked up to $825 billion (and rising).
As to the makeup of the stimulus bill, Mr. Obama directed at least $300 billion go to tax cuts. This was partly to fulfill a campaign pledge, partly to sweeten the deal for Republicans, partly because his economic team might actually believe it a good idea -- especially business provisions.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein pronounced herself "concerned" (uh-oh) that so much might go to Americans, over appropriators. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi informed the incoming president that, duh, he should be raising taxes. Rep. Charlie Rangel, who heads Ways and Means, and knows it, decreed $300 billion a maximum, not a minimum. At last count, that number was $275 billion (and falling).
"I love earmarks," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn, as he griped that the president-elect had banned them in the stimulus. Mr. Obama wants no whiff of pork that might further sour a wary public. Mr. Clyburn is nonetheless leading a House rebellion against the edict. After all, it's only fair Democrats get to buy votes with stimulus dollars.
"There will be no earmarks in the stimulus. Nada. Zero. Zilch," said a Reid spokesman. The majority leader might have made the comment himself, had he not been busy reassuring Nevadans that he'd just go around the ban by leaning on Obama agencies to deliver dollars to his state's projects. Meanwhile, Mr. Reid is making as his first present to the president a pork-riddled public-lands bill that includes $3.5 million for a city's birthday party, $5 million for botanical gardens, and $3 million for a "road to nowhere" in (where else?) Alaska.
Some of this is ego. Thrilled as Democrats were to take back the White House, John Conyers, David Obey, Mr. Rangel and Pete Stark alone can boast of (and do) cumulatively 146 years more in Washington than the Illinois rookie. They've also been waiting a long time to run things their way.
Some of this is pique. Democrats invested so heavily in the myth of Mr. Bush as hyperpartisan they now believe it. They don't feel Republicans deserve accommodation.
Some of it is politics. Don't forget, 95 House Democrats initially voted against rescue funds, worried about "bailout" sentiments back home. Until the Obama team offers leadership on the economy, they'll take the safe route over standing blindly with an untested president.
Whatever the cause, it is a dangerous beginning. Mr. Obama can currently afford to do some accommodating. But if he gets a reputation for getting rolled by the unruly mob, his agenda is kaput. Congressional Democrats, with their 9% approval rating, are meanwhile picking a fight with a guy who, if backed into a fight, may win. Though neither side will "win."
All this is taking place on the honeymoon. Yet to come are difficult issues -- the budget, health care, climate change. At that point, we'll find out who works for whom.
AND, from the 1/18/09 WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123229863849393891.html
Pelosi Appears to Differ With Obama Over Taxes, Bush Probes
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears to differ from Barack Obama on at least two issues -- tax increases and investigating the Bush administration.
The Democratic House speaker wants Congress to consider repealing President George W. Bush's tax cuts well before they expire in 2010, in contrast to what Obama is proposing.
Ms. Pelosi said Democrats have promised to end the Bush tax cuts for those who make more than $250,000.
"We had campaigned in saying what the Republican Congressional Budget Office told us: Nothing contributed more to the budget deficit than the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America," Ms. Pelosi said in an interview broadcast Sunday.
The California Democrat is pushing the president-elect to make good on a campaign promise that attracted some of the harshest criticism during the election -- that Mr. Obama is a typical tax-and-spend Democrat who would raise taxes once in office.
Mr. Obama has fought that label, emphasizing that any tax increase would be directed at those making more than $250,000. However, since the election, Mr. Obama has been reluctant even to raise taxes on people making that much.
Lawrence Summers, Mr. Obama's choice for director of the National Economic Council, signaled again Sunday that repealing the Bush tax cuts would not be a priority.
"Our overall focus is going to be on increasing spending," Mr. Summers said in a broadcast interview. "Beyond that, there's going to be a substantial tax cut for the American people."
Mr. Obama's aides worked with House Democrats to craft their version of an economic stimulus package. The package, unveiled last week, includes $550 billion in government spending and $275 billion in tax cuts. It would leave the Bush tax cuts in place.
Ms. Pelosi said she won't use the stimulus bill to address tax cuts. But she also said: "I don't want them to wait two years to expire. Because they have to prove their worth to me as to how they grow the economy, how they create jobs."
Also Sunday, Ms. Pelosi said she wants an investigation into whether the Bush administration broke the law when it fired a group of federal prosecutors.
"I think that we have to learn from the past, and we cannot let the politicizing of, for example, the Justice Department, go unreviewed," she said. "Past is prologue."
House Democrats last week recommended a criminal investigation to determine whether administration officials broke the law in the name of national security. Along with the fired prosecutors, the report cited interrogation of foreign detainees, warrantless wiretaps, retribution against critics and manipulation of intelligence.
The president-elect has been more cautious, saying he wants to look to the future, not to the past.
"I don't believe that anybody is above the law," Mr. Obama said in a recent television interview. "On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward, as opposed to looking backwards."
Ms. Pelosi appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Mr. Summers was interviewed on CBS's "Face the Nation."
(he'd probably be forced to, eventually-- war+obama = too expensive) and that he'd probably close guantanamo.
