Tag Archives: Congress

Meanwhile … a budget deal comes forth

budget

While the Republican presidential horde was cackling Tuesday night in Las Vegas about how much better they could govern the country than the man who’s been doing it for nearly eight years, GOP and Democratic congressional leaders were hard at work.

They produced a budget to fund the government well into 2016.

Republicans got a lot of what they wanted; Democrats got some of what they wanted. Republicans control Congress, so that’s to be expected.

I believe that’s what we call “legislating.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., announced a tentative deal that spends $1.1 trillion through most of the upcoming election year.

It’s not a perfect deal. Then again, when you have two parties grappling for their preferences, one cannot expect perfection. One gets what one can get. You seek to make the best of it and then you line up and support a deal that does what it’s designed to do: run the massive federal government that is supposed to serve the people who pay for it — that you be you and me.

One of the more intriguing elements of the deal is that it ends the nation’s ban on exporting oil. Fascinating, yes? We’re now the world’s No. 1 producer of petroleum, so we have a surplus of what we could call “Texas Tea” to share with our trading partners and allies.

We’re not out of the woods just yet. The government is scheduled to shut down tonight. Leaders from the both parties have to engineer yet another stop-gap measure that would keep the government functioning through Dec. 22.

In the meantime, they all can work out the details of getting this bigger deal done. They need to wrap it up before they all head out of town for Christmas.

Get busy. Go home. Spend some time with your loved ones.

Then get back to work. We pay you folks to govern.

 

‘Tis the season … of the polls

Polls%20and%20Surveys%20pic

Donald Trump loves polls, especially when they show him leading the still-large pack of Republican presidential candidates.

Barack Obama isn’t so much in love with them.

However, the great underreported story has to be Congress’s continued miserable standing among American voters, according to those pesky polls.

I follow RealClearPolitics summary of polls. I like tracking the president’s poll standing, not to mention the candidates seeking to succeed him a year from January.

But look at how poorly Congress is faring.

The RCP polls are a compilation of leading public opinion surveys. The last one, which I have attached to this blog post, puts Congress’s rating at 12 percent.

Twelve percent!

Nearly nine out of 10 Americans surveyed think Congress is doing a crappy job of governing.

President Obama’s latest poll standing, while not great, is at around 43 percent. There’s an 8-point difference between those who approve of the job he’s doing and those who disapprove. The congressional approval/disapproval spread? How about 63.8 percent?

I’m not usually one to rely too heavily on polls. I understand their nature, that they serve merely as snapshots that capture a political moment. Polls go up and down like Yo-Yos.

However, while Obama’s critics keep lambasting his lackluster poll numbers, they don’t seem to take into account that Congress’s poll standing is far worse — and it, too, hasn’t moved much at all for, oh, about the past three years.

Obama is a member of one party; Congress is controlled by the other party.

The president’s polling isn’t great. Congress’s standing is downright miserable.

 

Obama fails to channel LBJ

claire

Claire McCaskill calls herself a “friend and supporter” of Barack Obama.

But the Democratic U.S. senator from Missouri has issued a candid assessment of the job her fellow Democrat has done as president of the United States.

The president’s major failing, according to McCaskill? He did not learn how to work with Congress.

The Hill reports on McCaskill’s remarks about Obama: “But one of the president’s shortcomings is that sometimes he sees the world through his eyes and doesn’t do, I think, enough work on being empathetic about how other people view things.”

McCaskill blisters president

In truth, McCaskill might be a bit behind the curve when critiquing the job the president has done.

I don’t think he’d mind my saying this, but a now-retired college administrator told me much the same thing during the president’s first term in office.

Former Amarillo College President Paul Matney and I were having lunch one day when Matney lamented the president’s testy relationship with congressional leaders. Matney wished that the president would employ the skill that the late President Lyndon Johnson used to great effect.

Johnson, of course, rose from the Senate to the executive branch of government, as Obama has done. LBJ served as vice president from 1961 until Nov. 22, 1963. Then he became president in the wake of tragedy.

When LBJ moved into the Oval Office, he harnessed all his legislative skill to shepherd landmark legislation through Congress. He was a master of working not just with fellow Democrats, but with Republicans.

Matney bemoaned that President Obama had not developed that kind of bipartisan rapport and it cost him dearly.

McCaskill now — near the end of Barack Obama’s presidency — echoes much of what Paul Matney said years ago. LBJ’s legacy, which was tainted for many years after he left office in 1969 by the Vietnam War, is beginning to look better all the time.

He understood that he needed the legislative branch to make government work, that he couldn’t do it all alone.

As Sen. McCaskill has noted, Barack Obama hasn’t seemed to have learned that lesson.

 

President restates anti-terror policy, and then …

barack

President Obama has asked something of Congress that the legislative branch of government isn’t likely to do.

He wants Congress to authorize the commander in chief to keep up the fight against the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations abroad.

The president’s speech from the Oval Office tonight didn’t break much new ground. He restated what he’s already done in the effort to destroy ISIL.

The bombing campaign will continue; we’ll deploy special forces to work with local ground forces in Iraq and Syria; we’ll keep hunting down terrorist leaders; we will work with allies such as France, the U.K. and Germany to pound terrorist targets; and we will seek to negotiate a ceasefire in Syria so that our allies and “other countries, such as Russia” can concentrate on eliminating international terrorists.

Then came the challenge to the other branch of government that needs to buy into this struggle.

Congress must vote to authorize continued action. The British Parliament enacted a similar authorization this past week and within minutes of the vote, British jets took off to hit ISIL targets in Syria.

The president has asked Congress, in effect, to issue a declaration of war against ISIL. Will it happen? I’m not holding my breath.

Republicans who control both legislative chambers seem to believe we need to commit ground troops to this fight. They want to return American service personnel to the battlefield. Air strikes aren’t enough, they say. So, let’s put “boots on the ground.”

The president won’t do that. He reiterated that view again tonight.

However, he has tendered a reasonable challenge to Congress. Let’s put forward a united front to our enemies, authorize the president to continue the fight and demonstrate that the United States is fully committed to winning this war.

My own view is that we’re at war with the Islamic State, then the president needs to ask Congress to issue the declaration of war … and that Congress needs to act.

What we have now on the table is the next-best thing.

Members of Congress, give the president the authorization he seeks to fight this war.

 

One more, and final time, for State of Union speech

obamaSOTU2015

Barack H. Obama is going to get one more chance as president of the United States to lay out his vision of the state of our Union.

On Jan. 12, he’ll take the podium in front of a joint session of Congress and tell us how he thinks we’re doing, where we’ve been, where we’re headed and likely will propose a laundry list of legislative solutions to the nagging problems that never seem to get cured.

This is it, Mr. President. My advice to you, though, is this: Don’t expect to change any minds or sway anyone’s view of the job you’ve done.

Republicans will continue to say the president has all but destroyed American greatness — single-handedly. Democrats will hail the achievements and the rescuing of the nation from a financial collapse.

I happen to belong to the latter category of Americans. Yeah, it’s a shock, I know.

This final State of the Union speech by President Obama will produce the usual applause dominated by the Democrats in the chamber. Republicans will sit on their hands … for the most part while their Democratic “friends” cheer and holler.

While there’s no denying that the world is in difficult straits right now in this fight against international terrorism, there also can be no denying that the American ship of state has corrected its course in the seven years since Barack Obama took the presidential oath of office.

The economy is in far better shape than before. Our annual budget deficit has shrunk by two-thirds. Energy production is up; energy imports are down. Housing has rebounded. Banks are lending money. More people are working today than they were in 2009. Millions of Americans have health insurance now who didn’t have it before.

And oh yes, we’ve been kept safe from terrorists. There’s that, too.

That’s not the view of those who oppose the president.

But what the heck? It goes with the territory.

House Speaker Paul Ryan was correct in his letter inviting the president to speak. They have a duty to find solutions together, he said. Yes, Mr. Speaker, you do.

It’s time to get busy.

Meanwhile, the president will get one more shot at telling the country he leads what many of us out here already know.

The state of our Union truly is strong. We’ve got work to do, but our footing is a lot firmer than it was when the president took office.

 

Is this how you govern?

logo-teaparty

What on God’s Earth is happening to the Republican leaders who are supposed to run the legislative branch of the U.S. government?

  • House Speaker John Boehner quits his congressional seat.
  • House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy emerges as the presumed next speaker of the House.
  • McCarthy then drops out of the race for speaker after stating an amazing gaffe about the Benghazi committee’s intention to derail Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid.
  • TEA Party Republicans are now fighting among themselves over which of them should declare for the speakership.

And now the threat of a government shutdown and the possibility that Congress won’t increase the nation’s debt ceiling are threatening to derail the U.S. economy.

The election for a new speaker has been postponed. Boehner wants out. Why? He’s sick of the fighting among the GOP members. He’s likely stuck in the job he no longer wants until … oh, heck, until further notice.

Didn’t these Republicans actually promise to govern when they took control of the House in 2011? Didn’t they vow to change things, shake it up, make government work better?

Good grief! They’re now threatening to shut the whole damn thing down!

This is governance at its worst.

Boehner may become lobbyist … who knew?

lobbying1

Twenty-five years on Capitol Hill bought John Boehner a lot of friendships.

OK, perhaps “bought” isn’t entirely appropriate, but he did acquire a lot of contacts.

So, the question of the day is this: Will the soon-to-be former House speaker join the corps of high-dollar lobbyists?

Gee. Do you think?

Boehner may move to K Street

Boehner announced this week he’s resigning from Congress. He’s giving up his power House speakership because, word has it, he was tired of fighting with the TEA Party wing of his Republican Party.

The House of Representatives requires a one-year cooling off period before former members can actually lobby. But let’s face it: Boehner’s connections will enable him to line up any opportunity he chooses to pursue once the year is up.

Observers note that Boehner is a savvy politician who has made many friends in and out of government.

USA Today reports: “He’ll get seven figures on the street,” said Tom Davis, a fellow Republican and former Virginia congressman who now lobbies for the financial-consulting giant Deloitte. “He’s got a lot of friends and allies in Congress. But it’s not necessarily his Rolodex that’s valuable. It’s just that he knows Congress inside and out.”

I guess it’s safe to say that Boehner will console his loss of political power with an abundance of cash he’ll earn once he signs on to represent well-heeled interests looking for any advantage they can get on Capitol Hill.

John Boehner is a cinch to find it for them.

 

Should pols care about polls?

iran_nuclear_451650529

Politicians say all the time — sometimes boastfully — that they don’t care about public opinion polls.

My answer? They should care. Why? Because they represent the people being questioned by pollsters. Politicians aren’t supposed to operate in a vacuum. They’re supposed to understand what their constituents are thinking about critical issues of the day.

Let’s take the Iran nuclear deal … as an example.

A new poll shows Americans favor the deal worked out with other great powers that would prohibit Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. The University of Maryland survey says 55 percent of Americans favor the deal and want Congress to approve it.

Do politicians ignore the poll? Well, I guess one would have to examine the poll closely to see if it was done without bias and scientifically. Pollsters shouldn’t ask loaded questions aimed at generating desired responses.

All congressional Republicans appear to oppose the deal. Most Democrats appear to support it. Are they defying the poll results of constituents whose interests they represent?

According to The Hill: “The poll was conducted online, and the participants went through an in-depth process of listening to arguments from both sides. People were subjected to a detailed list of critiques of the agreement, followed by rebuttals to those arguments with reasons to get behind the deal.

“The most convincing criticisms focused on the lack of ‘anytime/anywhere’ inspections of Iranian facilities, the fact that limits on Iran’s nuclear development ‘will go away’ in 15 years and Iran’s ability to use the money that it receives under the deal to threaten regional security. A majority of Democrats said those arguments were either ‘somewhat’ or ‘very convincing.’

“’There is a lot of concern about key terms of the deal, especially the limits on inspections and the release of frozen funds to Iran,’ Steven Kull, director of the university’s Program for Public Consultation, said in a statement.”

It doesn’t appear, therefore, that this survey was designed to elicit the results it produced.

Do members of Congress accept and act on those poll results or do they proceed as if they know better than their bosses?

 

CECIL Act? Come on, senator

U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez’s staff must have worked into the wee hours to come up with an appropriate acronym to identify some legislation that reacts to the death of a beloved lion in Zimbabwe.

It’s called — get ready for this, as it’s a mouthful — the Conserving Ecosystems by Ceasing the Importation of Large Animal Trophies Act.

The legislation is named in memory of Cecil the Lion, the beast that was killed by American dentist Walter Palmer, who paid 50 grand to hunt the lion that had become a favorite of tourists to the national park in Zimbabwe where he lived.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bob-menendez-cecil-lion-act-legislation-curb-hunting-africa-species-120857.html

Palmer’s deed has caused significant outrage around the world. Cecil was a beloved animal. What’s worse, though, is that Palmer’s outfitters lured the animal out of the park — where hunting is prohibited — and into a free-fire zone, where Palmer shot Cecil with a crossbow. It gets even more grim. Cecil didn’t die right away. Palmer and his guides looked for hours to find him; then they shot him with a gun, skinned him and beheaded him.

By my definition of the word, this looks like poaching to me.

Back to the New Jersey Democrat’s legislation. It’s a ridiculous use of Congress’s time.

Menendez is upset about Cecil’s death. I am, too. However, I almost always am leery of legislation enacted in a fit of rage over a single act by an irresponsible hunter.

Palmer faces possible extradition to Zimbabwe, where he could be prosecuted for poaching.

The real bad guys in this episode, though, are the guides who went to great lengths to lure the great cat from the national park to a location where he could be shot to death.

If they are as experienced as we’ve all been led to believe they were, they knew what they were doing and they knew where they were. They knew Cecil was protected as long as he remained inside the national park boundary.

Congress need not get involved here. It has many other issues with which it should concern itself.

Have a good time on vacation, Congress?

This brief rant from Democratic Party loyalist Bill Press is too good not to share.

So, I’ll do so today, and will let Press speak for himself.

***

Don’t you wish you were a member of Congress? We pay them $175,000 a year to work for us. And what do we get for it?

Well, consider this. Yesterday, John Boehner announced that the House would recess this afternoon, two days early, for its August recess – and they won’t be back in town until after Labor Day. But, of course, they’ll still get paid.

And what about that Highway bill? Oh, no. That’ll have to wait until September.

What about that Iran nuclear deal? Sorry, no time now. They’ll get around to that sometime after Labor Day.

Well, what about climate change, immigration reform, minimum wage, criminal justice reform, gun safety, or all those other pressing issues we’ve been waiting for them to do something about?

Sorry, no time for them now, either. According to Boehner, members of Congress have more important things to do. Like going to the beach. Or going on taxpayer-subsidized Codels.

Yes, don’t you wish you were a member of Congress? We pay them $175,000 a year to work for us. And what do we get for it? Nothing.

***

I will add only this: Democrats did the same thing when they ran the place, too.