off piste
January 6th, 2007, 08:18 PM
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/8E8E70F4F266EAC78625725B001FDEF4?OpenDocument
http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/images/stllogo_popup.gif http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/images/spacer.gif
http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/images/spacer.gif
PRINTER FRIENDLY
[Print] (javascript:window.print()) [Close] (javascript:window.close())
Happy Democrats face harsh reality
By Deirdre Shesgreen (dshesgreen@post-dispatch.com)
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
Saturday, Jan. 06 2007
WASHINGTON — Sen. Dick Durbin had a new bounce in his step last week as he
navigated the Senate corridors, going from one Democratic swearing-in
celebration to another.
Across the Capitol, Rep. William Lacy Clay Jr., grinned as he contemplated his
newfound clout.
"I'm looking forward … to swinging the gavel," Clay said, anticipating a
subcommittee chairmanship that would give him that opportunity.
Both have pined for this moment, when Democrats would wield a majority in
Congress. But even as they were savoring their victory, Democrats began to face
the reality of governing.
They made big promises before the November election, vowing to clean up
Washington, restore civility and chart a new course on everything from
pocketbook issues to the war in Iraq. How much they can actually deliver
remains to be seen.
As newly elected Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., put it: "The euphoria of winning
will wear off quickly and the frustration of getting something done will be
front and center."
House Democrats started out of the gate last week with a bang, passing an
ethics reform bill that bars lawmakers from accepting meals and gifts from
lobbyists, prohibits the use of corporate jets, and requires better disclosure
of pet projects put into spending bills.
This week, they will turn to a full plate of meaty items, including a minimum
wage hike, enacting recommendations from the Sept. 11 commission, and expanding
federal funding for stem cell research — all part of the House Democrats'
promise for an initial 100-hour legislative blitz.
But it's unclear how many of those bills will actually become law.
"Expectations are high, and the reality of the politics is not so good," said
Julian Zelizer, a historian at Boston University.
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Town and Country, noted that no matter how much lawmakers
truly want to cooperate, they inevitably will be pulled in different directions
by their own party constituencies.
"People in general want to work together and be cooperative," Akin said. "But
the country as a whole is quite separated."
Roadblocks ahead
Then there are the more concrete obstacles of a system designed to provide
checks and balances.
"Governing is very difficult. The Democrats are going to find that out," said
Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, who has known only a Republican majority
during his 10 years in the House.
Although the Democrats' sizable House majority and ironclad rules will allow
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to produce a rapid-fire procession of bills,
they're likely to get gummed up in the Senate, where the Democrats have a
one-seat margin and the objections of one senator can put the brakes on a bill.
At the end of the line is a veto pen wielded by President George W. Bush.
Thomas Mann, a congressional expert at the liberal Brookings Institution, said
there's at least one initial positive development from the new Congress:
Pledges for a five-day workweek.
Under Republican rule, especially in the House, the first votes were typically
held after 6 p.m. on Tuesday and the last votes came Thursday afternoon.
"Members were spending less and less time in Washington," Mann said at a panel
discussion last week on the new Congress. There was little deliberation and
instead GOP leaders were "deciding in advance what to do and then ramming it
through."
Mann said he hopes the new Democratic leadership will at least lead to more
thorough debate.
Getting together
Boston University's Zelizer predicted there would be "selective bipartisanship"
on a few nettlesome issues that both parties want to take off the table before
the next election.
On the minimum wage, for example, Democrats want an accomplishment and
Republicans won't want to obstruct one. The same goes for ethics reform, he
said, which voters cited as a major concern when they went to the polls in
November.
But even on ethics, there could be a tussle. Bush has called on lawmakers to
cut the number of earmarks in half, a proposal likely to be met with stiff
resistance from members who relish their ability to steer federal dollars back
home.
One is Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., who noted his success in using
earmarks to win many spending projects for Missouri.
"I'm proud of what I do and what I've been able to get for Missouri … If they
want to talk about things that save money, they ought to look at tax bills," he
said.
Several other items may be destined for the legislative dustbin. For starters,
Bush vetoed a bill expanding stem cell research last year, and there's no
indication he won't do it again. The repeal of oil and gas subsidies might
easily be stymied by pressure on Republicans and Democrats alike from major
financial supporters in those industries.
War, spending clashes
Some issues will be a minefield even if both parties want to achieve success,
such as the Democrats' promise to reinstate budget rules that require tax cuts
or increased spending to be paid for by other offsets.
"That puts Democrats in a serious box," said Alice Rivlin, who served as budget
director in the Clinton administration. "They are going to have to figure out
how to pay for things" at a time when domestic and war spending has spiraled.
Perhaps no issue will test the willingness of Congress to cooperate more than
the war in Iraq.
"That's the 800-pound gorilla in the room," said Bruce Riedel, a Brookings
scholar who also spoke at last week's panel. "We can see a major clash coming"
between the president and Congress over the war, said Riedel, who has served
in Democratic and Republican administrations.
The president is set to outline a new strategy for Iraq this week, and
lawmakers already are girding for battle, particularly if Bush calls for a
surge of U.S. troops.
Such a move "could poison efforts across the board," said Mann, the Brookings
expert.
Several area Democrats signaled they would strongly oppose sending more troops
to Iraq.
"I just don't believe 20,000 more American soldiers will turn the tide," Durbin
said.
Clay was even more emphatic, saying he would vote against funding for any
additional troops. "I am in total opposition to that," Clay said. "The American
people said 'no more.'"
GOP critics
Several Republicans, including Bond, also are unhappy with the prospect of
sending more troops to Iraq.
Many want to distance themselves from the war before the next election, Zelizer
said, so there might be more possibility for compromise on Iraq — at least
within Congress — than on other issues.
"They realize that if Iraq is where it is today in 2008, they're in trouble,"
he said. "They have much more of an incentive than the White House to do
something dramatic," such as setting a timetable for withdrawal.
Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, agreed.
"One of the reasons we got into this is because the Bush administration had a
Republican Congress that just rubber-stamped" his agenda, including Iraq, said
Carnahan, who sits on the International Relations Committee. "We can get
better, smarter policy by having an administration and a balanced Congress
coming together."
As for compromise on a broader agenda, Carnahan acknowledged that it would be
difficult.
"There's a big unknown out there," Carnahan said as last week as he waited to
cast his first legislative vote in the majority. "This is a new Democratic
majority. And this is an administration that for six years has not really had
to sit down and negotiate."
Bill Lambrecht of the Post-Dispatch
contributed to this report.
dshesgreen@post-dispatch.com | 202-298-6880
__________________________________________________ ___________________
If you enjoy reading about interesting news, you might like the 3 O'Clock Stir from
STLtoday.com. Sign up and you'll receive an email with unique stories of the day,
every Monday-Friday, at no charge.
Sign up at http://newsletters.stltoday.com (http://newsletters.stltoday.com/)
__________________________________________________ ___________________
http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/images/spacer.gif
http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/images/stllogo_popup.gif http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/images/spacer.gif
http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/images/spacer.gif
PRINTER FRIENDLY
[Print] (javascript:window.print()) [Close] (javascript:window.close())
Happy Democrats face harsh reality
By Deirdre Shesgreen (dshesgreen@post-dispatch.com)
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
Saturday, Jan. 06 2007
WASHINGTON — Sen. Dick Durbin had a new bounce in his step last week as he
navigated the Senate corridors, going from one Democratic swearing-in
celebration to another.
Across the Capitol, Rep. William Lacy Clay Jr., grinned as he contemplated his
newfound clout.
"I'm looking forward … to swinging the gavel," Clay said, anticipating a
subcommittee chairmanship that would give him that opportunity.
Both have pined for this moment, when Democrats would wield a majority in
Congress. But even as they were savoring their victory, Democrats began to face
the reality of governing.
They made big promises before the November election, vowing to clean up
Washington, restore civility and chart a new course on everything from
pocketbook issues to the war in Iraq. How much they can actually deliver
remains to be seen.
As newly elected Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., put it: "The euphoria of winning
will wear off quickly and the frustration of getting something done will be
front and center."
House Democrats started out of the gate last week with a bang, passing an
ethics reform bill that bars lawmakers from accepting meals and gifts from
lobbyists, prohibits the use of corporate jets, and requires better disclosure
of pet projects put into spending bills.
This week, they will turn to a full plate of meaty items, including a minimum
wage hike, enacting recommendations from the Sept. 11 commission, and expanding
federal funding for stem cell research — all part of the House Democrats'
promise for an initial 100-hour legislative blitz.
But it's unclear how many of those bills will actually become law.
"Expectations are high, and the reality of the politics is not so good," said
Julian Zelizer, a historian at Boston University.
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Town and Country, noted that no matter how much lawmakers
truly want to cooperate, they inevitably will be pulled in different directions
by their own party constituencies.
"People in general want to work together and be cooperative," Akin said. "But
the country as a whole is quite separated."
Roadblocks ahead
Then there are the more concrete obstacles of a system designed to provide
checks and balances.
"Governing is very difficult. The Democrats are going to find that out," said
Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, who has known only a Republican majority
during his 10 years in the House.
Although the Democrats' sizable House majority and ironclad rules will allow
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to produce a rapid-fire procession of bills,
they're likely to get gummed up in the Senate, where the Democrats have a
one-seat margin and the objections of one senator can put the brakes on a bill.
At the end of the line is a veto pen wielded by President George W. Bush.
Thomas Mann, a congressional expert at the liberal Brookings Institution, said
there's at least one initial positive development from the new Congress:
Pledges for a five-day workweek.
Under Republican rule, especially in the House, the first votes were typically
held after 6 p.m. on Tuesday and the last votes came Thursday afternoon.
"Members were spending less and less time in Washington," Mann said at a panel
discussion last week on the new Congress. There was little deliberation and
instead GOP leaders were "deciding in advance what to do and then ramming it
through."
Mann said he hopes the new Democratic leadership will at least lead to more
thorough debate.
Getting together
Boston University's Zelizer predicted there would be "selective bipartisanship"
on a few nettlesome issues that both parties want to take off the table before
the next election.
On the minimum wage, for example, Democrats want an accomplishment and
Republicans won't want to obstruct one. The same goes for ethics reform, he
said, which voters cited as a major concern when they went to the polls in
November.
But even on ethics, there could be a tussle. Bush has called on lawmakers to
cut the number of earmarks in half, a proposal likely to be met with stiff
resistance from members who relish their ability to steer federal dollars back
home.
One is Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., who noted his success in using
earmarks to win many spending projects for Missouri.
"I'm proud of what I do and what I've been able to get for Missouri … If they
want to talk about things that save money, they ought to look at tax bills," he
said.
Several other items may be destined for the legislative dustbin. For starters,
Bush vetoed a bill expanding stem cell research last year, and there's no
indication he won't do it again. The repeal of oil and gas subsidies might
easily be stymied by pressure on Republicans and Democrats alike from major
financial supporters in those industries.
War, spending clashes
Some issues will be a minefield even if both parties want to achieve success,
such as the Democrats' promise to reinstate budget rules that require tax cuts
or increased spending to be paid for by other offsets.
"That puts Democrats in a serious box," said Alice Rivlin, who served as budget
director in the Clinton administration. "They are going to have to figure out
how to pay for things" at a time when domestic and war spending has spiraled.
Perhaps no issue will test the willingness of Congress to cooperate more than
the war in Iraq.
"That's the 800-pound gorilla in the room," said Bruce Riedel, a Brookings
scholar who also spoke at last week's panel. "We can see a major clash coming"
between the president and Congress over the war, said Riedel, who has served
in Democratic and Republican administrations.
The president is set to outline a new strategy for Iraq this week, and
lawmakers already are girding for battle, particularly if Bush calls for a
surge of U.S. troops.
Such a move "could poison efforts across the board," said Mann, the Brookings
expert.
Several area Democrats signaled they would strongly oppose sending more troops
to Iraq.
"I just don't believe 20,000 more American soldiers will turn the tide," Durbin
said.
Clay was even more emphatic, saying he would vote against funding for any
additional troops. "I am in total opposition to that," Clay said. "The American
people said 'no more.'"
GOP critics
Several Republicans, including Bond, also are unhappy with the prospect of
sending more troops to Iraq.
Many want to distance themselves from the war before the next election, Zelizer
said, so there might be more possibility for compromise on Iraq — at least
within Congress — than on other issues.
"They realize that if Iraq is where it is today in 2008, they're in trouble,"
he said. "They have much more of an incentive than the White House to do
something dramatic," such as setting a timetable for withdrawal.
Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, agreed.
"One of the reasons we got into this is because the Bush administration had a
Republican Congress that just rubber-stamped" his agenda, including Iraq, said
Carnahan, who sits on the International Relations Committee. "We can get
better, smarter policy by having an administration and a balanced Congress
coming together."
As for compromise on a broader agenda, Carnahan acknowledged that it would be
difficult.
"There's a big unknown out there," Carnahan said as last week as he waited to
cast his first legislative vote in the majority. "This is a new Democratic
majority. And this is an administration that for six years has not really had
to sit down and negotiate."
Bill Lambrecht of the Post-Dispatch
contributed to this report.
dshesgreen@post-dispatch.com | 202-298-6880
__________________________________________________ ___________________
If you enjoy reading about interesting news, you might like the 3 O'Clock Stir from
STLtoday.com. Sign up and you'll receive an email with unique stories of the day,
every Monday-Friday, at no charge.
Sign up at http://newsletters.stltoday.com (http://newsletters.stltoday.com/)
__________________________________________________ ___________________
http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/images/spacer.gif