If next Tuesday’s elections go as the polls indicate that they will go, the Democrats will control Washington completely, and may even have the ability to overcome Senate filibusters on issues where they remain united. But that will become the key question…can the Democrats remain united? And the answer is ‘no’. On a lot of key legislation we will find that parochial concerns are more important than party affiliation. Nowhere will this be more true than on Energy policy.
The Democrats will have little trouble passing some important legislation and making key policy changes. Some things we will see include:
A stimulus package that includes funding for state governments, extended unemployment insurance, and more food stamps.
Federal funding for Stem Cell research.
Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which will promote union membership.
Expansion of the SCHIP medical program for children.
A cut in subsidies to private health insurance plans.
A ‘tax on the carried interest that hedge funds and other financial firms make in compensation and an effort to close several tax haven loopholes.’
The closing of Guantánamo Bay’s internment camp.
These things will either pass easily or be instituted by executive order. But the biggest issues are going to be health care and energy issues. The Democrats will have the raw numbers to pass legislation, but only if they remain united. And they won’t remain united on big ticket issues that alarm budget hawks or that threaten local business interests (e.g., anti-coal legislation, reimposing a ban on off-shore drilling, etc.)
As for the Republicans, those that remain in Congress will slowly learn to adapt their behavior. To have any legislative impact at all, they will have to help Democrats pass bills on which they are divided. Washington won’t only look completely different, it will work in a completely different manner.
are you so sure Obama will win?
Andrew Sullivan was worried about Obama’s chances – but he is finally relieved –
Dick Morris over at RCP sees Obama is in trouble.
setting the trap to steal this, is he?
Please.
The election will not be stolen. It’s not even close.
from your fingers to the E-voting machines software.
We’ll see how long it takes for the votes to be certified.
In FL and GA blacks are being told their early voting won’t count….”early voting is a scam”
we don’t need Florida or Georgia. That’s all gravy. This election is not close. It’s not remotely close.
Three for us is not a charm.
like my family in GA, us here in VT, and several U.S. citizens voting overseas (who I know) – the ‘That Ones’ are firmly of the view shared here aptly dubbed by Andrew Sprung –
Btw, GOP spokespersons in VT admitting on radio that they expect people will vote GOP for state offices and Obama for President.
The Democrats will own only two-thirds of Washington. That is, unless there are plans afoot to impeach and convict the Bush v. Gore justices for malfeasance and Roberts and Alito for being illegitimately appointed.
Watch out for an activist court taking cases from out-of-power Republican hacks and overturning key parts of Democratic legislation.
Takes one back to 1932, doesn’t it.
Almost thirty years of stacking the federal judiciary will not be undone overnight.
Even those items in your list might be as much at risk as Bill Clinton’s line-item veto power–a key demand of Republicans until a Democrat got it.
the courts are the courts. How do you see them changing?
It’s an old court – average age is somewhere in the upper 60s. Stevens is ancient and will retire soon after the election, most likely. Then you have:
Scalia – 72
Kennedy – 72
Ginsberg – 75
Souter – 69
Breyer – 70
While Thomas is only 60, the sad news is that the life expectancy for African-American males continues to lag behind the decreasing death rates and clocks in at 70 (vs 76 for White males). Just for perspective.
In any event, all of the above will have surpassed the life expectancy averages should they survive a two-term Obama administration. Quite possibly, Obama could appoint 4, and maybe 5, justices over eight years.
That portends a significant change.
Thomas is all set. Sits like a bump on a log, asks no questions, feeling good and most likely will live to 96.
I wouldn’t trade years with him…he’s a chain smoker, genetically predisposed to high-blood pressure, and regularly camps out at WalMarts in his RV.
The crowd at WallyWorld will probably get him before anything else.
“.he’s a chain smoker, genetically predisposed to high-blood pressure,..”
Unless you’ve taken his Hg, I wouldn’t go by that. I know a lot of genetically predisposed to high blood pressure people and people with high-blood pressure – in fact whole populations in their 80s and 90s.
Thomas is an SCJ. He’s well cared for..wants for nothing but oxygen and food, also at his disposal.
and he’ll likely vote McCain.
Chain smokers don’t live long no matter what medical care they get.
I’d guess that Obama will replace Ginsberg and Stevens in the first two years.
I don’t expect any further losses on the court.
It will be purely defense, replacing liberal judges with liberal judges.
I’d agree with those two, and would add Souter. I couldn’t find it quickly, but read recently he wishes to retire. In any event, as you say Boo, playing defense with center-left justices.
On other hand, and not to wish anyone ill, the law of averages is bound to work our way sooner than later with these old geezers.
Rehnquist lived to 81, and all these old conservative assholes seem to live forever.
It’s a disgrace that Clarence Thomas will be on the court for another 25 years.
I could see Breyer or Souter retiring. They might try to last through the first term and retire in 2012 if they think Obama has a chance of losing.
I wish we could pass a Constitutional amendment giving Supreme Court justices a 25-year term limit and a forced retirement age of 90.
My point stands. Democrats will not control it all. The courts will be a problem for a lot of fundamental legislation aimed at undoing the “unitary executive”.
Pretty interesting parallels to the New Deal. The Supremes put roadblock after roadblock in front of FDR – that court was old, also. In fact, FDRs court-packing attempt was geared around age – creating a retirement age of 70 for federal judges, who, if they didn’t retire, would have younger judges assigned as co-judges.
The Roberts court would have a long walk back, though, to stop the legislation that Obama supports. While progressive, none of it is really radical.
Another coming change: where lobbyist $ will be directed. I’m hoping that others have noticed how Obama raised a large amount of funds through many small donations.
I don’t think this will be like 93-94, when Democrats wouldn’t stay united enough to pass health care legislation over overcome Bob Dole-led filibusters. Back then there were still a lot more conservative southern Democrats who felt they didn’t owe anything to anyone. Plus guys like Ben Nighthorse Campbell who flipped to the GOP the first chance they got.
Obama, if he is elected, will have approval ratings in the 60s early next year. If he runs his administration with the efficiency of his campaign, there won’t be the sort of drama and scandal that hit Bill Clinton from day one. He will have major elbow-twisting power amongst those Democrats. He’ll convince them to beat back filibusters even if they don’t want to vote on the final bill.
I mean really, how many Dem Senators out there want to fuck over Obama in his first year? Most of them love the guy. Take a look at who is up for re-election in two years, those are the ones most likely running scared. But there are only a few running in red states in 2010:
Evan Bayh
Tom Vilsack
Ken Salazar
Harry Reid
Byron Dorgan
That’s slim pickings, and let’s not forget that Obama might win Nevada, Indiana, Iowa and Colorado — so the states suddenly won’t be red any longer.
And honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter or Susan Collins switched parties after some back-dealing with Harry Reid.
So while Obama will have to use his consensus-building skills, I don’t see him having as much trouble as Clinton getting his programs through. If necessary he just sends an email to his BarackObama.com list and floods any reluctant Senators with phone calls from their constituents.
OK, very unsubstantiated rumor here in NH has Judd Gregg retiring his seat to take a Federal judiciary appointment. The deal worked out would be a Bush appointment, confirmed by the Senate to make room for a Dem appointment by Gov. Lynch for the remaining two years.
Word is that Lynch might appoint himself to have the power of incumbency in 2010.
Reid still plans to keep Lieberman. I call that a big F.U. to Obama.