Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
The Republican Party has, up until recently, tried to distance itself from the "Party of No" label which Democrats are fond of using against them. "It's all the Democrats' fault that we can't bask in the sunshine of bipartisanship," they used to say. But since Barack Obama's signature health reform legislation passed, the Republicans seem to actually be embracing the "Party of No" concept.
Examining the politics of the recently-passed healthcare reform legislation is tough, at this point, because the game is in the immediate process of changing. President Obama's team likes the term "game-changer," and it is rare indeed to be able to identify such game-changing while it is still in process. Usually these things are only apparent after the fact, when viewed in retrospect. But, for better or worse, passing healthcare reform has indeed changed the political game for this year's midterm elections.
A post-mortem, in the medical sense, is when you carve up a body to figure out why it died. But the term has migrated into the patois of American business, where (in corporate terms) a post-mortem is a meeting held after the completion of a project, where you review the course of the project from beginning to end. You look at what went right, and what went wrong, and then you try to improve the procedure for future projects, in an effort to avoid making the same mistakes over again. Now that fight for health reform legislation (in one form or another) is just about over, I feel it's time to take a look back, and identify some areas for improvement for the future Democratic legislation.
If nothing else comes of it, you've got to admit that the health reform movement has given a lot of people a very detailed education about the sausage-making process in Washington. Remember when the word "reconciliation" was universally understood to mean "getting back together" instead of "open partisan warfare," for instance? The tortuous process health reform has wound in its progress from where we were a year ago to where we stand today at least provided many "teachable moments" on how things actually happen in Washington. And -- as the term "sausage making" implies -- some of it ain't pretty.
The next two weeks in Congress may provide an answer to the metaphysical question "Can Democrats govern?" If the answer turns out to be "no," then a large part of the electorate is going to decide that it is pointless to bother electing large majorities of Democrats to Congress, because they simply can't get anything done when they get there. If the answer turns out to be "yes" (or even "kind of"), then Democrats may have a chance to make the case this fall that electing lots of Democrats is the way for the voters to go.
However, we must also give a nod to Larry the Cable Guy here, and put it even more forcefully (and less ay-LEET-ist, of course) by phrasing it: "Git 'er done!" Just to give credit where it is due.
Yesterday, House Democrats put an opening bid on the table in the political game of banning earmarks -- all for-profit corporate earmarks would not be allowed in the budget appropriations bills this year (or possibly longer). Today, House Republicans raised the stakes by proposing a ban on all earmarks (although only specifically for "this year"), and not just the ones directed towards for-profit entities.
House Democrats, led by Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Norm Dicks, have just announced that for the upcoming budget, no earmarks will be allowed which are directed to a specific for-profit company. This will ban the practice of steering Pentagon money to singled-out companies in individual districts -- which are essentially no-bid contracts outside the Pentagon's fiscal control.
[Today's column is going to be a rerun of a column I wrote exactly one year ago. This is somewhat of a coincidence, since today I will be taking care of some previous commitments in the non-online world and will be too busy to write a new column. So I went looking for an old column on healthcare reform, just to see where we were a year ago. I read a few columns from last March, and picked one out on not just healthcare reform, but the concept of reconciliation in the Senate. After I had read it and decided to use it, I realized it was posted one year ago to the day, so it serendipitously works as a good reprint article, since it looks pre-planned (even though it isn't).
This sort of "mistakes were made, but not by me" legacy-polishing, it should be noted, is usually done as a politician is leaving the stage. Which is enough of a reason for us to optimistically look into the future, here. So we are going to open the betting for when Rahm Emanuel will exit the White House. Or, to be more accurate, when he will announce his exit. Because we're just going to assume (for the fun of it) that if Rahmbo's already covering his tracks by attempting to cast history over-favorably toward himself, then his exit can't be all that far ahead. To be followed, as is usual, by signing a book contract worth at least seven figures. Rahm was said to be interested it running for mayor of Chicago at one point, but whatever excuse he ultimately uses, we're taking bets on the actual date Rahm announces he is leaving.