Showing posts with label House of Representatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House of Representatives. Show all posts

Friday, July 31, 2009

Cash For Clunkers Wildly Successful!

The Cash for Clunkers program has proven to be so successful that the money is already gone, in just a week. Ooops! And yet - voila! - Congress is already appropriating more. Funny how that was ready to go. Funny how, even though the House was about to go in recess, they managed to squeeze that in.

I like how the Democrats played this. Apparently Republicans didn't like the original amount, $4 billion, so it was reduced to $1 billion. But that money disappeared in the blink of an eye! Guess what!?!? It's a government program that has worked extremely well. Who woulda thunk it?

One great thing about this program is that no one has mentioned what it really is: welfare for white people. This is the government finding an excuse to shovel money to middle class people, the ones who are buying the cars, and people in the auto industry, from the manufacturers to the dealers. Many of those folks, particularly the ones making the cars, are middle-aged white guys. How many Latina lesbians do you think work on the line at Chevy? Not a whole lot, I'm guessing.

This is important because a subtext of much of our political debate is white resentment towards the government, based on a feeling that Democrats have been using government to redistribute wealth away from white people, particularly older white men, and towards undeserving minorities. This is one reason the "birther" movement is so bizarrely popular - people think Obama is not one of them, and that he is going to use his power as president to take things away from them, and give it to people who look like him - African Americans. That's why there is resistance to health care reform - same thing. When conservatives hear the word "government," they hear "someone who is going to take away my money, and give it to people who don't deserve it."

So this Cash for Clunkers program is a great idea as part of the battle against that idea. When someone gets a check from the government for a new car, it's a little harder for them to argue that the government isn't doing anything for them. The fact that it's wildly popular, and that Congress had to add more money, is icing on the cake, politically - it generates more publicity, and shows Congress actually doing something for the middle class in a very direct way.

One other unmentioned side benefit of this program is that it will be good for health care costs in this country. Newer cars are both more energy efficient and safer. Just about any new car has airbags all over the place, as well as better steering, handling, and braking. Someone in a crash is far more likely to survive with minimal injuries, or even to just survive, in a new car than in a car made 10 or 15 years ago. I have no idea how to calculate the benefits from fewer injuries, but, again, it's icing on the cake - a benefit that we get from this program on top of the benefits we are already getting.

And it's a great example of bipartisanship! According to the NY Times, "Over all, 239 Democrats and 77 Republicans voted in favor, while 14 Democrats and 95 Republicans voted against the measure."

All these great benefits! And only $1 billion! Of course, as Everett Dirksen may or may not have said, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." I would amend to add, a successful government program here, a successful government program there, and pretty soon you're talking about making the government work for the American people!

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

That 90% tax on bonuses

The House passed a bill that would tax some of the Wall Street bonuses at 90%. That's a very high tax rate. It's almost as bad as the "There’s one for you, nineteen for me," in the Beatles' "Tax Man." Supposedly the Beatles actually faced a 95% tax rate.

I doubt the 90% tax rate is going to survive. Obama seems a little hesitant. It's definitely punitive, and I don't like legislation that comes out of anger. I think this will be seriously modified in the Senate.

What I am hoping will happen is that raising the top marginal tax rate will suddenly look a very moderate and modest move. You don't like 90% for your bonus? How about 39% on your total income? Much better, no?

And thus, hopefully, we will come a little closer to eliminating the deficit.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Stimulus package passes House

The economic stimulus package has passed the House. The vote was 244-188, with no Republicans voting for it, despite President Obama's attempts to reach out to them. It still has to pass the Senate before we get to spend money on things long overdue, like infrastructure.

No Republicans. Well, I guess that's a demonstration of party unity. I remember Clinton passing his budget in 1993 and getting no Republican support. I guess Republicans think that worked out well for them, which it did, in a sense - they took back the House in '94, much to the Democrats' surprise. Of course they lost to Clinton in '96, but Bob Dole was the candidate, and he was a terrible candidate to run against Clinton.

But this isn't 1993, although Republicans apparently are not aware of that. Obama is not the polarizing figure that Clinton was. Clinton beat George H. W. Bush, but barely, and no one hated Bush Senior. Republicans were not in total disarray, their ideology in tatters.

What the American people are picking up is that Obama apparently means it when he talks about being bipartisan. The man is a good listener, and he makes an honest effort to reach out to people who disagree with him. That's just so insanely refreshing. Maybe Republicans don't remember Reagan's dictum about how to relate to the other party. He used to say that, after 6:00, we're all friends. Apparently he really got along with Tip O'Neill, another Irishman.

Hilzoy puts it well in a good post at the Washington Monthly:

If you try hard, and publicly, to attract Republican support, but fail, then Republicans look like intransigent ideologues who would rather try to score political points than actually deal with the serious problems the country faces. You, by contrast, look reasonable: you tried to reach out, but your efforts were rejected.
Obama took the high road, made some minor compromises, got the bill through, and came out looking great. He didn't have to twist any arms or waste any political capital. He didn't hesitate or even come across as remotely frustrated. Obama just is not afraid of his political opponents. It's going to drive them crazy.

Now, of course, the bill has to get through the Senate and to Obama's desk. Then it has to work. It has to actually make a difference. Roads and bridges have to be repaired. People have to be hired.

But we are in such dire straits that the stimulus will work almost regardless of what happens. This much money has to do some kind of good. In a normal economy, or even in a normal recession, it might not be that easy to tell what kind of a difference a bill like this would make. But this is not a normal economy or a normal recession. My guess is that it will be very clear to a large number of people exactly where the benefits are. And many people will be grateful.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Becerra as Trade Rep? Just say no, Xavier

I just got wind of a rumor that Xavier Becerra has been offered the job of U.S. Trade Representative. I have a personal interest in this: Becerra is my Representative in Congress.

I don't think he should take it. He's a very good Representative, and he's a rising star in Congress. I agree with this Democrat strategist, quoted in Roll Call:

“He has 16 years of seniority and is still a relatively young man just elected to leadership. He could be Majority Leader or chairman of the Ways and Means Committee someday.”
He was previously Assistant to the Speaker (a position which was supposedly created just for him), and he was just elected Vice Chair of the Democratic caucus, the fifth-ranking Democrat. He strikes as a consummate professional. I would seriously miss him as my Representative in Congress. I've actually thot about what would happen if I moved out of this district - if I couldn't vote for him, I would probably make a campaign donation, because I would like to see him stay in Congress.

One reason I like him is that his Website is great. It's one of the best in Congress. Seriously. He actually won an award for having one of the best Websites in Congress.

I'm sure he would be great as Trade Rep, but I also think he would be great in the House for the next 20 or 30 years. He has an excellent shot at being the first Hispanic Speaker. Trade Rep is a Cabinet-level post, but being Speaker of the House is a historic position.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Dems feeling special about elections

Democrats have won three special elections in the last couple of months, in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Illinois. All three had been held by Republicans who left, for various reasons. So all three were open seats, but in strongly Republican districts. The GOP should have held on to all three, but instead lost all three. And one of those seats was the seat formerly held by Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo explains the impact of these three special elections:



One thing Josh doesn't mention (because it isn't his topic today) is that all these retirements and special elections have implications for the future. All of the retiring Republicans have at least some seniority. All of the new Democrats, both the three that won these elections, and however many win in the fall, will be brand new. That means that the Republicans lose a fair amount of expertise and power, while Democrats gain fresh blood. The Democrats, being in the majority, are also in a position to protect the new members. In midterm elections, the President's party generally loses seats, but this time around, in 2010, there's almost no chance that Democrats will lose the House, or the Senate, so expect more Republicans to resign. We're looking at a Democratic majority for a long time to come.

It's interesting to look back on 1994, when Republicans took back the House after 40 years of being in the majority. The reason they won can mostly be attributed to one man: Newt Gingrich. He plotted and schemed for years, and finally got enough people to believe in him that he accomplished a minor miracle, and the Republicans took back the House. One reason he was able to do it was that the Democrats never saw him as a serious threat. They had become complacent, since they had been in the majority for so long. But once they lost it, they started trying to get it back, and eventually did. It will be a long time before Democrats are complacent again.

Of course, Democrats also have to have their act together and get things done. I'm more confident about that now than I have been in a while. I think the Democratic party is attracting some very good people these days.