President Obama sat down with Univision reporter Claudia Botero and told her that he would begin pushing anew for a comprehensive immigration reform bill as soon as the government shutdown/debt ceiling crisis is resolved. Now, it’s still a bit premature to begin talking about the likely fallout from the shutdown crisis, but one of the arguments I have been making throughout is that the Republicans need to be cleaved in two if we are going to be able to do things like pass a transportation bill, end the sequester, or pass immigration reform.
I can’t say that I am confident that we’ve made a sufficient breakthrough, but we’ve done the preliminary work. Here’s the deal. So long as Speaker Boehner was adhering to the Hastert Rule that says that he can’t bring a bill to the floor that doesn’t have the support of the majority of the Republican Caucus, then most of the president’s agenda was dead on arrival in the House.
That was a very bleak prospect for the president’s second term. There have been a few discrete times when Boehner has been willing to break the Hastert Rule…to avoid the fiscal cliff, for example, and to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. But Boehner had to be very selective with these transgressions, lest he invite an internal revolt. Obviously, he was unwilling to stick his neck out to avoid a government shutdown or keep us from coming up against a debt default.
Yet, the Hastert Rule is an artificial rule. It isn’t part of the Constitution or the official rules of the House. There are several parts of the president’s agenda that actually have the support of the majority of the House, if not the majority of Republicans in the House. There is probably majority support for turning off the sequester and transportation and farm bills. There is almost definitely majority support for comprehensive immigration reform.
To get movement on these issues, the prerequisite is that Republican moderates in the House get comfortable with defying the Tea Party movement and working with the president. That is no easy task, considering the way the Republican base feels about Obama. A second prerequisite is that the Speaker, whether Boehner or some replacement, be willing to bring bills to the floor. That is also a heavy lift.
But, if it is going to happen, the only way it could happen is if there is a major rift in the Republican Party between the sane Republicans and the crazy ones. There is no guarantee that this will be sufficient, but it can’t happen without the rift.
Most of the focus on the administration’s strategy has been on their desire to get rid of the leverage the Republicans have used through hostage-taking. What makes this element so important is that the Congress has to pass a budget eventually, and without the hostages, they have to do it sooner rather than later. And they’ll have to actually make concessions rather than just pocketing the administration’s concessions and governing through sequestration. This will quickly put a final inglorious end to the Norquist Pledge, which is a major achievement.
But the cleavage in the Republican Party is arguably more important because, without it, there is no hope of building a governing majority in the House.
I don’t think this governing majority will emerge smoothly, if at all, from the current crisis, but I expect it to kind of evolve over the next few months as the GOP really begins to digest how badly they are divided. Immigration reform could be the vehicle. A battle over the Speakership could be the vehicle. A battle over the Farm Bill could be the vehicle. The next budget or debt ceiling deadline could be the vehicle. In every one of these debates, the fissures in the GOP will be coming to the fore.
So, this battle is going to have real consequences. The political world as we knew it is gone. Something new and different is going to emerge from this crisis, and I hope that it will be a more functional, if not more pleasant, environment.
Actually, I’ll gladly settle for tea party voters becoming totally demoralized and staying home next year, even if there isn’t an “official” party rupture. I’m old enough to remember when political quietism was the norm on the fundagelical extreme right, and I believe it can happen again.
Didn’t we go through the last year on CR without a budget?
Right.
That’s the point.
The GOP spent the last year refusing to negotiate a budget and forcing us into a sequester. They now have to actually have a budget committee conference. With votes and stuff.
All the wingnuts at my office are suddenly not interested in politics.
Aaaaaah. The silence of the lambs.
As above, that’s EXACTLY the desired outcome. The Dems have to arrange for these people to be sufficiently demoralized that they stay home in Nov. ’14.
Problem is they get all riled up again when they have to press 1 for English.
Yeah, they get riled up at everything ’cause that’s what they do. The bitch of it is, they vote and get involved in the political process, which is considered a good thing to do. If everyone did it, they wouldn’t have the influence they have today.
Yes, engaged citizens are normally a good thing, so I actually feel bad about wanting to discourage them. But this bunch is just too dangerously ignorant and intolerant. A democracy is not required to commit suicide.
I don’t.
I support mandatory voting (such as in Australia) but until then game that system.
I disagree. One advantage that the left has right now is that the GOP has to fight two flanks (Dem’s on the left, and Libertarian/Tea Partiers on the right).
The fight from the right has forced the GOP to abandon any centrist views that they may have and take a hard turn to the right; meanwhile the Democrats just stand-by and watch.
The American People at large recognize that they are growing too extreme and are losing support. Even if the 28% of hardline TP’ers come out in full force, they will likely alienate the 72% of everyone else and lose big.
If the establishment republicans win the conservative battle because the RWNJs forfeit, then they have no incentive to veer right and can be Mitt Romney redux. That can peel off a lot of moderates/independents that would otherwise have gone to Dem’s.
Democrats are slowly winning the demographic battle, but more importantly we’re winning the votes of the moderates and independents that make up a large portion of the electorate. But that’s not to say that the moderates are devotees of the Democrats, we’re simply the best option at this time.
If the GOP cleaves, and a 3rd party of Libertarians emerge, then the establishment Republicans will likely divide between the center-right and hard-right and that will mean the Dem’s pick up a lot of seats.
So Yglesias is wrong, here: “… the upshot here is that Republicans put the country through a lot of drama and suffered a lot of public opprobrium and bad poll numbers in order to extract an extremely minor concession. On the other hand, they did extract a concession.”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/10/16/debt_ceiling_deal_one_huge_problem.html
I mean, now things go to conference, which is almost like a real government, and the Republican conferees ‘betray conservatism,’ which forces the House to take another hostage, inflict serious damage on the country, and extract another extremely minor concession?
I keep reading your stuff, and trying to figure where I disagree. You think that the Republicans will actually learn from this debacle? And you think that the lesson they learn will make it more likely for some of them to work with Democrats?
Well, I think most people always learn something. Will John Boehner or some other speaker be willing to close down the government again in three month? Will they have a compelling argument for not repeating this mistake? Are moderates emboldened to stand up to the Tea Party. Is the Mighty-Right Wing Wurlitzer all rowing in the same Tea Party direction that they were before this showdown began to emerge?
Weigel (I’m all over Slate this morning) says that for the conservative base, this “… will be a story of wimpy party leaders selling out. The shutdown would have been winnable if they hadn’t sold out.”
I think that’s the lesson that most conservatives will learn. I guess you’re saying that that part of the base will be cleaved from a less-deluded part. Maybe.
Are moderates emboldened to stand up to the Tea Party.
Not yet, if ever.
Well, the House GOP moderates will be voting today to reopen the government and lift the debt ceiling in a vote that the TEA Party and their Congressional Caucus believes is THE MOST IMPORTANT VOTE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, and the Speaker will be allowing that vote to take place. I’d claim these things meet the definition of standing up to the TEA Party.
I’m still hoping for a fistfight on the House floor between a GOP moderate and TP’er. I’m thinking King v. Huelskamp.
“Are moderates emboldened to stand up to the Tea Party.”
In my opinion, this is the key to it, and it’s not something the teabaggers will have to learn.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think I’m far wrong, to assume that the baggers, being fanatics, will never learn a damn thing.
But if the moderates learn that they can get stuff done in a bipartisan manner (using the word “bipartisan” in a way I haven’t heard in decades), then the lunatics are no longer in control of the asylum, and it’s not critical whether they learn anything or not.
Baggers are already re-writing History. Will their blood lust be assuaged with Boehner or will they want more?
OK, I take it back. If Ted Fucking Cruz is not going to try to block the senate deal, then he must have learned something. I think they call that kind of learning “operant conditioning”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning
We did that to our cat this week…
Set up a little air-sprayer thing to keep it from running to the door and yowling. Worked after about it a day. I figure if a cat can learn it, so can Cruz.
I’d like to do to Cruz what you should do with your cat before it becomes mature.
He just did that to himself.
Cruz didn’t want to default, he ain’t stupid, he wanted to appear to the mouth breather base of the extreme right primary voters, as fighting the good fight, mostly knowing the system would stop him in time before he destroyed the country’s economy and making 2008 crash look like a prequel to his 2013 crash ……
“mission accomplished” …. if you will ….. with all the baggage that comes with that statement.
He wanted to as famous as “caribou barbie” in the same circles, and now he is. His posterior is being protected with people like David Weigel in his slate article showing how he will try to escape blame because the spineless leadership stabbed him in the back. They did this by not blindly going off the fiscal cliff, a move he never intended to go all the way off in the first place..
He wanted to get millions of emails to fund-raise off and use as a base if he decides to run in 2016, both objectives achieved.
He is the star of the loony extreme right wing, and doesn’t have the foibles of either Bachman or Palin.
2016 seems to be a fight between Cruz, Paul and Rubio for the GOtPer crowd with the corporate interests either picking one of the three, or hoping somebody slightly more sane comes along.
Cruz is trying to out extreme the other two, and at the moment he seems to have achieved that objective ……… but 2016 is still a long way off.
Immigration reform is an excellent choice. You want to cleave the Republicans, just stand back and watch the eruption of racism and xenophobia from the Tea Party when we start talking about the pathway to citizenship again.
Although I kind of think a break with the Tea Party could be pretty quick and permanent. These aren’t the kind of people you can disagree with on just one issue. You’re either with them or against them, so you could possibly see a pretty quick realignment to a majority coalition of Democrats and blue-state Republicans. All you have to do is count up the Republicans who have as much to fear in a general election as in a primary.
Bob’s your uncle!
The problem with the Immigration Reform fight is that you don’t want to give the Centrist Republicans something to brag about to Independents and Moderates; also you don’t want to have Republicans water-down the bill because they suddenly seem to care.
Instead, we need to string along Immigration Reform until 2015; use it as a tool to get minorities to vote in droves in the mid-terms, retake the house with a filibuster-proof Senate, and then pass tranmformative legislation that will cement Democratic futures.
OT, but Bill Moyers is linking to you.
http://billmoyers.com/2013/10/16/morning-reads-bill-ayers-dinner-with-breitbart-and-a-robot-invasion
/
Technical question: does Boehner’s term as Speaker last until the end of the 113th Congress? That is, even if the Tea Party types want to get rid of him, are they stuck with him until January 3, 2015?
That is, even if the Tea Party types want to get rid of him, are they stuck with him until January 3, 2015?
Nope!! Provided 218(I think that’s the number) GOPers would vote for Cantor(or Ted Cruz), they could get rid of the drunken tool today if they wanted to.
Immigration reform would be ideal, but time wise the budget has to come first.
Anyway Weigel doesn’t think they’ve had enough yet:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/10/16/the_final_collapse_of_the_house_republicans.html
I see the chances as almost nil. Either Boehner or the less-crazy Republicans could have aborted all this nonsense before October. They would have saved the Republicans a very costly political loss, at the price of riling up the Tea Party at them personally. They’ve shown it takes an enormous price – a depression, and the likely end of the Republican Party – to make them cross the Tea Party.
Refusing immigration reform is far less apocalyptic than a debt default or even a shutdown. The price is far less than what it takes to make the Republican “moderates” give in, so they’re not going to. Doubly so since there are going to be more budget confrontations in this Congress, and the “moderates” need to retain some Tea Party cred for them.
I think Booman is right that the prospects for immigration reform is now moderately improved.
But even if immigration reform sinks again, placing it front and center is still a triple win. First, it drives a further wedge between the Republican caucuses, hastening the day when there’ll be a forced re-alignment. Second, Obama gets to conspicuously keep a promise, solidifying his base with both Hispanics and liberals. Thirdly, a vociferous battle engages the Hispanic electorate and boosts their turnout in an off-year.
“discrete”
thank you.
The reason that the President needed to cleave the Republican Party is because it has imaged itself as a parliamentary ideological party instead of as the traditional form of American political party. The second reason is that the GOP has allowed members to buy their way into leadership positions through the amount of party campaign funds they raise. This means however that the top leadership positions become problematic because they do not have the traditional levers of power of members that past leadership did.
That makes the House a very brittle institution and subject to frequent seize-up and dysfunction. And eliminates what in previous eras was a spectrum of folks who would compromise across the aisle.
The problem that remains is the large amount of money washing around politics and the ideology of the biggest players. The Koch brothers saw their agents overplay their hand; chalk that up to hiring a nimcompoop like Jim DeMint. A rearrangement of thinktank leadership and that one goes away. But you’ve just watch some very rich people blow a million bucks on one employee.
The idea that the GOP is cleaved is likely a false hope except on some issues. There are no “moderates” in the House. Those generally labeled that are from the old Newt Gingrich revolution and its thinking.
Going to immigration right now is kinda strange. There’s de-weaponizing the debt ceiling and re-establishing an orderly appropriations process to deal with. There’s actually getting Obamacare going and the IT system out of the headlines.
People’s actual experience with Obamacare payments of their healthcare during the period before November 2014 is likely what the election will turn on. I don’t know how blatant the Democrats can be with the “How long are you going to re-elect liars?” theme, but that’s the one that’s out there if they can figure out how to work it.
And the next big move needs to be a quick confirmation of Janet Yellen. And breaking Mitch McConnell’s caucus unity.
There is a HUGE problem with that website. I still haven’t been able to get deep enough to see the plans.
I finally hit the apply button. It made me create a userid. Fair enough, but then it told me that I had to respond to a verification e-mail. I fired up Thunderbird, saw the new e-mail come in, opened it, clicked on the link, only to get the message “You have failed to respond to this e-mail in a timely manner. You have to start the process over.” And sure enough, all my info was gone from the web page. I responded in seconds maybe thirty seconds in all from reading the notice to clicking on the link in the e-mail. Apparently, someone set the time limit using an iphone.
Also, the site requires you to not only have an e-mail account, it requires a mobile phone. Mobile phone number is a required field. What a POS! It is aimed at yuppies, not the older poorer people it is supposedly aimed at.
There should have been alternate sign up by mail with forms and plan brochures available at public libraries, but no, the punks running this program assumed that everyone has a smart phone.
The news coverage coming out is that the sub-contractors hired a bunch of inexpensive less-experienced programmers with few experienced programmers to leaven the work teams. The red state governors sabotaged the work schedule and requirements setting by dumping states on the federal exchange at the last minute, and a system that had originally been designed to service 50 states as a backend, not be the frontend for 28 states.
There is enough state shenanigans in this to call it a matter of Republican governor sabotage.
Sure, but we knew months and months ago they were going to sabotage.
What I want to know is it possible to use emergency measures to set aside standard gov. process so this thing can be fixed in a timely manner?
Drum pointed out something: in the private sector if something is behind like this you don’t put it out, you simply delay it and take the hit. By law this COULDN’T be delayed. Oct. 1 that site had to go live. Problems you might be able to fix in a few weeks of delay could become next to impossible to fix this way for months and months.
Right, it was known that Republican states would sabotage but it was not known which Republican states would sabotage. Nor was it known which states would get Republican governors in the 2012 elections.
The private sector has had much worse snafus that they have just written off and gone on. Drum is right.
Enrollment really isn’t a biggie to delay except for those who need to access health care as soon as they can charge the costs. Come March, it is possible to continue open enrollment and delay the closing date much easier than delaying the opening date. And you can do that without resorting to emergency measures.
Fixing the software is going to take a little time this fall just because the subcontractors delivered shoddy work and there is testing code for misspelled variable names and other nonsense. Plus the code must be more forgiving in matching some information. If you’ve not abbreviated your address terms the same way Experian has, right now it kicks out the credit match. Legacy keypunch abbreviations in the Experian database come back to screw a new system.
Once the “new system” peak passes, the system will be able to be evolved through weekly maintenance windows on the front end and nightly updates of tested code on the backend.
As the major design issue and shoddy coding get worked out, the remaining bugs will be reduced substantially. The work that will remain will be performance tuning and enhancements that are identified from call center tickets.
I don’t think it will be an issue next November at all. If there are complaints, it will be on the payment side, not the enrollment side. And that will have to be directed back at the private insurers, which will be some confusion. The other issue will be the people who will be mandated to enroll but did not.
I know that generally the same contractor has to be the one to fix it, anyone new would have to learn the system from scratch and would never know it as well etc. but CGI has demonstrated bad work at both the state (Vermont) and Federal level so I hope they don’t use them again.
You’d think a bunch of Canadians would be better at building a healthcare system.
The prime contractor is only part of the issue. There are also the subcontractors, and it is the subcontractors who know the work. Indeed when prime contractors change, on most projects most of the personnel stay the same and change companies. It’s why the contractor way of managing government has become a joke that just pads needless expenditures in contractor supervision and contract management by government agencies. Not to mention the built-in profit of the contractors.
At some point in the future, governments need to reel all that work back into civil service jobs.
If I could upvote that 1000 times I damn well would.
10,000 times
Requiring an e-mail address and a mobile phone are specification flaws.
When I think of the thousands of experienced talented seasoned professional programmers put out to pasture because they were over 50 and cost more than half-witted H1-B’s I could cry. Then I could go up to the Capitol and say like Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman, “If I were the man I was five years ago, I’d take a FLAMETHROWER to this place!” Only I’d have to say nine years ago.
Book programmers who copy code examples without understanding them. No talent bums out for the money and no love for the job. Do you understand what I’m saying, TarHeelDem? It’s like a cabinet maker talking about unskilled wood butchers. It’s not just that the product is flawed. The process is flawed. There was no process. Because they were hacks not professionals.
Thank whatever Supreme Deity that may exist, at least dataguy understands.
One database command can end the requirement for an email address and a mobile phone, unless there are edits written into the software (which I doubt).
Specifications are written for non-technical clients to understand. The client, the gov, should have rejected this. Design documents are written for the developers. I wouldn’t expect the client to understand them, although some try and insist on changing language they don’t understand.
In this case I doubt there was even a sp4ecification. They just hacked it together.
This is Illinois. The last Republican Governor went to jail long ago. The only Republican with any influence is Ray LaHood.
There’s a toll free number and people out in communities helping people sign up in person.
My wife and a couple of our neighbors are among those volunteers.
Here’s a wrinkle to watch. There is a disinformation effort going on in black communities in which people are being called and told that Obamacare requires them to get a micro-chip implant. If this is going on in North Carolina, it is likely going on elsewhere.
So there is more than just confusion going on. And of course, this effort can always use more volunteers.
not just in those communities I’ve heard it all over the place by me too – why would anyone think that anyone would be okay with that baffles me but just one more thing to work through
Here’s the help page that has phone numbers and local help
https:/www.healthcare.gov/contact-us
https:/www.healthcare.gov/contact-us
YOU WERE VERY RIGHT
I WAS VERY WRONG
Though income verification will be a bad business with Obamacare, maybe it can be crafted to take a relatively benign form.
Can’t Income verification be done through the IRS? I thought they were doing this already. Or does your employer have to do something before you can buy on the exchange? If it’s the latter, it’s a HUGE concession.
Cruz has made himself the star of the extreme right wing, but he really is the most hated man in America. It would take me too long to explain, but I do not think he has much of a future ahead of him.
I think something just changed in this country.