A Simple Strategy for the Next Two Years
Now that the Democrats have taken over both the House and Senate, the conversation is naturally turning to what the Democrats' legislative strategy should be for the next two years. Well, here's my very simple contribution to that conversation.
I think the Democrats should try to crank out every single piece of popular legislation they can think of over the next two years. Raising the minimum wage is a good way to start, but there should be something similar every week. I want President Bush to be faced at least once every single week between now and the 2008 election with the prospect of either signing something he doesn't want to sign or vetoing a popular bill.
That kind of relentless legislative pressure would not only make the Democratic congress look prolific, efficient, and responsive, but it would almost surely force the President to amass a mile-long list of unpopular vetoes. He'll look like the Obstructionist in Chief.
The biggest knock on Congress is that it is inefficient and unresponsive, that it does nothing. The key to overcoming that image is to constantly churn out legislation, even if some of it is relatively trivial. The Democrats in Congress need to make it their goal to always have something on the President's desk; there should always be some bill awaiting either his signature or a veto.
The key is to replace the image of the 'do nothing' Congress with an image of a workaholic Congress. If the Democrats can manage to do that, they'll be able to control the news cycle on most weeks and they will force the White House to play constant defense.
I know it sounds simple, but I really think it would work.
UPDATE: Charles, in the comments, writes:
I tend to agree, but I think these can be complimentary strategies. By relentlessly pushing through new legislation, the Democrats can provide themselves the cover they need to do rigorous oversight. They can immunize themselves to a large degree from the inevitable Republican charge that, by doing oversight, they are somehow focusing too much on the past and not doing the people's business.
I think the Democrats should try to crank out every single piece of popular legislation they can think of over the next two years. Raising the minimum wage is a good way to start, but there should be something similar every week. I want President Bush to be faced at least once every single week between now and the 2008 election with the prospect of either signing something he doesn't want to sign or vetoing a popular bill.
That kind of relentless legislative pressure would not only make the Democratic congress look prolific, efficient, and responsive, but it would almost surely force the President to amass a mile-long list of unpopular vetoes. He'll look like the Obstructionist in Chief.
The biggest knock on Congress is that it is inefficient and unresponsive, that it does nothing. The key to overcoming that image is to constantly churn out legislation, even if some of it is relatively trivial. The Democrats in Congress need to make it their goal to always have something on the President's desk; there should always be some bill awaiting either his signature or a veto.
The key is to replace the image of the 'do nothing' Congress with an image of a workaholic Congress. If the Democrats can manage to do that, they'll be able to control the news cycle on most weeks and they will force the White House to play constant defense.
I know it sounds simple, but I really think it would work.
UPDATE: Charles, in the comments, writes:
I disagree, AL. I think the next two years should be dominated by committee hearings in the grand sense, carefully coordinated to occur sequentially, with the intelligence committee finishing, just before the next election, with a final review of the failures of pre-2003 intelligence on WMD in Iraq. That should start soon, but be periodic rather than continual. Give people time in between to digest and discuss the findings.
I tend to agree, but I think these can be complimentary strategies. By relentlessly pushing through new legislation, the Democrats can provide themselves the cover they need to do rigorous oversight. They can immunize themselves to a large degree from the inevitable Republican charge that, by doing oversight, they are somehow focusing too much on the past and not doing the people's business.
posted by A.L. at 11:29 AM
21 Comments:
I disagree, AL. I think the next two years should be dominated by committee hearings in the grand sense, carefully coordinated to occur sequentially, with the intelligence committee finishing, just before the next election, with a final review of the failures of pre-2003 intelligence on WMD in Iraq.
That should start soon, but be periodic rather than continual. Give people time in between to digest and discuss the findings.
Meanwhile, they should be repealing or amending every stupid law that was passed under Bush, so that, after two years, there is nothing left of his tenure but a stain -- which I'm afraid will take decades to fade.
Starting with the easy stuff, such as passing a law to allow Medicare to negotiate prices for drugs.
Follow with a jab at the Bush tax cuts, terminating them early "to bring the debt under control."
Shortly thereafter it should be time to "strategically re-deploy" the forces stuck in Iraq. By act of Congress, if it hasn't been taken care of by Baker. Otherwise, just hold hearings on how it is to be done, how to best help Iraq stabilize, and what reparations to pay.
Oh, the minimum wage is an easy target as well -- not that it will really do much in the current economic climate.
We agree on one thing: keep the pressure on, never let him have a news cycle to himself.
Charles,
I agree with you about oversight and hearings, but I think the Dems can walk and chew gum at the same time. By passing a steady stream of legislation, they'll be giving themselves cover to do extensive oversight; they'll be immunizing themselves from the charge that they are hung up on the past and not looking forward and doing the people's business.
I like the idea of a workaholic Congress, spanning both legislation (AL) and oversight hearings (Charles).
One part of "workaholic" would in my ideal world include working Monday to Friday, not Tuesday afternoon to Thursday morning. I'm not sure how that fits in with the realities of constituent politics, though. Perhaps they could do hearings Monday+Friday (which doesn't require everyone to be there) and legislation Tuesday-Thursday. Perhaps they could work Monday to Friday for the first 100 days at least to really hit the ground running and get something done.
Simple? How so, when the GOP will have filibuster power in the Senate?
If GOP filibusters popular legislation they look bad too. For popular issues like minimum wage (ideally indexed to inflation), allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices for Part D, etc., etc. there are three possibilities:
1. Legislation passed.
2. The Republicans filibuster in the Senate.
3. The President vetoes.
All outcomes are good outcomes in a way. The best is #1 really, but #2 and #3 are at least equally good for blasting Republicans ("the minority denied the American people an up or down vote on the minimum wage").
I 100% agree with Crust. Plus, if the Democrats are at all strategic in the legislation they choose, they should be able to tailor it in a way that will pick up at least a few Republican votes (or at least make a filibuster unlikely).
They can work on more controversial legislation too, but they should pass a steady stream of bills that are likely to have some level of bipartisan support (but will still anger some major faction in the GOP).
The big win this week was that the GOP can no longer unilaterally control the agenda. It used to be that if Rove wanted to have Terror Week, Congress just went along.
Now, there will/can at least be two sets of talking points out there, so when the GOP hacks think gay marriage is the issue of the week, the Dems can arrange a vote on something of actual consequence.
Doesn't mean the media will go for it, but at least there can be a choice, and when folks go back to campaign, they will have something to point to, even if people haven't heard about it on the news.
I like both as complimentary strategies...that is Exactly the best approach. They should NOT ignore the past corruption and illegal contracts and wasted dollars on Katrina, in Iraq etc.
Plus, once this information sees the light of day, it also undercuts the GOP strategy to keep defending GOP/Bush competent governance and bad policies as we head into 2008.
This is the best of all worlds. But it will bea dog-fight to the death for the Presidency because they DO NOT want the opposition to ever get their hands on the secret documents and files and find our about the programs that have been going on behind the scenes.
BTW Raw Story is reporting that: Rummy will be tried as War Criminal - (can Bush be far behind when he's out of office?)
New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
At the top of a Democratic legislative agenda should be restoring the Fairness Doctrine and Internet Neutrality. The FCC rules on media ownership need to be scrutinized as well. It is time for the MSM to see a little corrective action.
A.L., I think you're right-on here. And different committees can focus on different issues as well while the floor focuses on passing whatever comes out of them.
I was thinking about this last night, and I have a strategy that will complement the relentless pressure thing you're talking about.
The Democrats should pass small bills. Short bills that do one popular thing and nothing else.
No omnibi (omnibusses?) trying to solve minimum wage, taxes, and health care at the same time. No pork thrown in except where absolutely unavoidable. Don't give them anything to complain about in the bill except the popular stuff we want them to complain about. And splitting it up into multiple bills feeds your strategy perfectly because it means the Democrats won't run out of things to do.
We are talking about the Bush administration here and KKKarl Rove. These people are power addicts.
The tactics they employed during the election spoke volumes as to how dirty they will play.
To assume that Democrats will control the House and Senate next year just because they won the election, means you have forgotten the core beliefs of the republican party.
CNN is 'promoting' some *alleged* Al Qaeda tape from Al Qaeda in Iraq, even though the tape has not been authenticated.
Bush's (Rove's) main agenda has been the Unitary Executive.
It would not surprise me to see Bush manipulate fear mongering via the MSM between now and January, and claim his unconstitutional Unitary Executive power in order to maintain control. What better time to exercise it, than when he has just lost much control which was enabled via the lack of congressional checks and balances.
To assume a smooth transition before it occurs, is to deny this administration's main agenda.
You have no mandate for earned legalization or an increased guestworker program. Democrats didn't mention that at all, and far more often ran on border security.
pjgoober:
Funny, y'know, but I don't recall Bush campaigning on tax cuts in 2000. I do remember something about restoring honor and morality to the White House and being a uniter rather than a divieder. Irony can be such a bitch.
Mandates are what you make of them.
BTW, it's 'complementary' (see disenchanted dave above), not 'complimentary', which means "free, with our compliments".
Fascinating coincidence, over on DKos , we had a thread in which someone proposed complete and total destruction of "Earmarks" Which I heartily 2nd'd.
Someone made the point of "You idiots the system doesnt work like that"
My response:"I dont give a *god*damned* how the system works, lets put *CHANGE* on the table and see who bites...the public probably will, and if reps and senators are smart...theyll play along unless they want to be out of a job in 2008"
I agree with this sentiment, lets put out as many bold moves as possible as QUICK as possible, show the american people we aint gonna be RIBs (republicans-in-blue).
pigboofer - you have a pretty strange handle - think you should find something better before you come here and tell us what democrats should or shouldn't do.
After all, pig boofin' is pretty offensive to most folks, unless your a pig.
Why don't our branches of government just work together to solve our numerous problems, rather than trying to figure out how to screw the other party? That's what I voted for
opine6 - how do you collaborate with the crew that has been dismanteling the US Constitution? How can you collaborate with our "great decider", especially after he has proven himself to be a "divider" and not a "uniter."
The repugs did nothing but stomp on the dems for 6 year and when clinton was in office - they fought and investigated EVERYTHING!
Not possible to work with that gang - they have proven themselves to be more of a criminal enterprise than a political party.
My suggested piece of legislation is an increase in the gas tax. Andrew Sullivan has been promoting this for a long time to (a) pay for the war, and (b) decrease US dependency on mideast oil.
The recent election showed that people understand the mess the country is in, and that they want a change in direction. The opportunity for a gas tax was squandered after 9/11. Why not propose it now as tough medecine for the problem? It may not be "popular" legislation, but it would be forceful and effective, and be seen as a needed step in the right direction.
It may get vetoed. It may upset some people. But I reckon that before the next round of elections people will see it as one of the many necessary reforms to the Iraq strategy, and in how the US fights terror worldwide.
OK, Anonymous. Let's just stay bitter, divided, and grid-locked. Al Queda is watching and if they can keep us divided, it makes their job easier. Bought your prayer rug or burqua yet?
Lieberman has the answer--country first. Listen to him.
"Funny, y'know, but I don't recall Bush campaigning on tax cuts in 2000. I do remember something about restoring honor and morality to the White House and being a uniter rather than a divieder. Irony can be such a bitch.
Mandates are what you make of them."
No, Bush campaigned openly for tax cuts in 2000. Republicans campaigning on tax cuts are a pretty ubiquitous feature of American politics, and this was no exception. Try to think of another example. Google: 2000 political campaign "tax cuts", or just read:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_43.htm
"George W. Bush took office as president in 2001 with a commitment to reducing federal taxes. Five months into his term, Congress adopted the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA), which incorporated most of Bush’s original 2000 campaign proposal. Major income tax[1] provisions included"...
Democrats didn't campaign on comprehensive reform because if they had, they would have lost. In Arizona the republicans lost ground, but look what initiatives passed there: making English Arizona’s official language (74%), denying bail to illegal aliens (78%), barring illegal aliens from winning punitive damages (74%), and denying in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants (72%). You seem to think that gradual legalization of illegals and increased legal immigration are something you can just sneak by americans. But the landslide percentages I tallied show that the Democrats will be punished for it. Even hispanics often vote for such initiatives at a hair under 50% rate. If a democratic congress passes this with Bush's lack of veto, your only hope will be that the punishment is once again misdirected to the very Republicans who tried to defeat it, due to voters being confused by Bush's prominent shilling for amnesty and guestworker programs and the fact that many Democrats heavily campaigned against illegal immigration and amnesty(to varying degrees of truth, I guess the true test shall come). That, and iraq + foley/hastert, was all that won the democrats congress. Are the Dems really strong enough to be the party of Amnesty + massive immigration increase? I doubt it.
no fortunate son said:
"BTW, it's 'complementary' (see disenchanted dave above), not 'complimentary', which means "free, with our compliments"."
Be a uniter, and not a "divieder" as you called Bush.
Anonymous, stop acting like a child.
you should ban anonymous for calling me a pig boofer.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home