GOP unveils strict new House rules

By: Jonathan Allen and Jake Sherman December 22, 2010 07:28 AM EST

The new House Republican majority will force lawmakers to vote when they want to raise the nation's debt ceiling, publish committee attendance records, keep former members from lobbying in the House gym and require new mandatory spending to be offset by cuts to other programs. Those planned changes to rules in the House and elsewhere, scheduled to be adopted Jan. 5, are described in a summary that was provided by House Republicans early Wednesday morning. The actual text of the rules package, which still could be amended by the full Republican Conference on Jan. 4, was not yet available. House Republicans will even provide for a reading of the Constitution in the House chamber on the second day of the next Congress. House Republicans have left untouched rules governing the controversial Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog agency that has the power to investigate lawmakers and refer cases to the internal House ethics committee. Taken together, the rules changes appear aimed at addressing complaints that the legislative process isn't transparent enough, that Congress is rigged to overspend and that lawmakers ignore the Constitution when formulating policy. "These reforms represent Republicans' first step in keeping the promises we outlined in the Pledge to America to change the way Washington works and address the people’s priorities: creating jobs and cutting spending,” Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement issued with the summary. Many of the new rules focus on the operations of committees. One that promises to cause consternation among lawmakers — and fodder for challengers on the campaign trail — is a requirement that committees publish online records of who did and didn't show up for committee meetings. In addition, chairmen will be required to circulate the text of bills at least 24 hours before they are considered, post the text of amendments and vote results online, publish "truth in testimony" statements, so that potential conflicts of interest for witnesses are known, and give three days of notice before a markup. Some of the committee rules — and at least one for the full House — address concerns that legislators don't spend enough time reading bills and members of the public have trouble accessing them. "[I]t shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution which has not been reported by a committee until the third calendar day … on which such measure has been publicly available in electronic form,” reads one new rule. It's not clear, however, that the rules changes will require that Rules Committee alterations to major bills be posted online three days in advance of consideration on the floor. That would leave GOP leaders a significant exemption to make last-minute changes without such a long period of public scrutiny. But the GOP will make standard printing bills in electronic form. On the spending front, Republicans plan to implement a series of rules called CUT/GO — a conservative answer to the PAY/GO rules instituted by Democrats. Under CUT/GO, increases in mandatory spending would have to be offset by spending cuts in other programs. Mandatory spending refers to the autopilot portion of the budget covering Social Security, Medicare and other programs designed to make payouts based on eligibility criteria rather than a set dollar figure each year. Under CUT/GO, offsets could not be achieved by raising taxes, according to the summary. In addition, GOP leaders will eliminate the so-called Gephardt Rule, which has long allowed House members to avoid a direct vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling. The rule provided that a bill increasing the debt limit was automatically generated when the House adopted a conference report on the annual budget resolution. Republicans will continue a Democratic policy forbidding former lawmakers who register as lobbyists from using to the House gym. Republicans will also restore House rules limiting chairmen to three two-year terms and prohibiting delegates and resident commissioners from voting on amendments on the floor. The GOP is renaming restoring the Education and Labor Committee to the Education and Workforce Committee, renaming the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the Committee on Ethics and the Committee on Science and Technology will now be called the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

Obama in the Age of Accommodation

Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com)

---

Melissa Harris-Perry | December 22, 2010

Barack Obama's candidacy inspired comparisons to change agents like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Ella Baker and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Critics of his presidency have invoked Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to portray him as weak and to decry his rightward shift. In my circle of African-American progressive academics and advocates, the name hissed with particular derision recently is Booker T. Washington, who at the turn of the twentieth century publicly articulated his acceptance of segregation, brokered compromises on racial disenfranchisement and emphasized individual effort over structural justice. To equate President Obama with Booker T. Washington is to suggest that the president is willingly complicit in atrocities of inequality.
The age of Washington is most frequently remembered as an age of accommodation, when black people, led by Washington, cowered beneath the descending shadow of Jim Crow. But in her brilliant new book, Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson, my friend and colleague Blair Kelley alters our understanding of this era. Kelley tells us that the early decades of the twentieth century were not exclusively the story of an accommodating race leader. She details aggressive, organized and courageous protest communities in the South. Far from accepting Jim Crow as a fait accompli, journalists, community leaders, laborers and educators coordinated efforts to resist segregation and disenfranchisement. It turns out that the age of accommodation was not so accommodating after all; these decades are better understood as a time of "thwarted resistance," Kelley tells us, "because their protests ultimately failed, their efforts have not been well remembered."
Kelley's scholarship reminds us that accommodation is not the same as failure. The men and women of the early twentieth century were not cowards but activists who were forced to bow to, as W.E.B. Du Bois described it, "superior brute force."
This rendering of the nadir of American racial history forces progressives to rethink some of our criticism of the president and to reconsider our role in his administration. In American political history, thwarted resistance is more common than sweeping social change. Efforts to effect change are likely to meet with years of failure before experiencing even the glimmers of success. And in every decade, change is as much the work of courageous citizens as it is the responsibility of empowered leaders.
These lessons were readily apparent when the lame-duck Congressional session of 2010 brought with it hard-fought successes, painful losses and the difficult pill of compromise. In a nearly inexplicable bipartisan effort the Senate voted to end the military's homophobic "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Just hours earlier another bipartisan group defeated common-sense immigration policy reform when five Democratic senators joined solid GOP resistance to the DREAM Act. The day before, President Obama simultaneously protected unemployment benefits and likely ensured deepening economic inequality by signing a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts. The proximity of the win, the loss and the compromise produced whiplash for progressives unsure of whether to applaud or boo the president.
But focusing on the role of President Obama is less important than asking about our own accountability in these outcomes; the real issue is the work of organized citizens. Consider the week's biggest win, the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Gay rights activist Frank Kameny led his first protest against the military's exclusion of gay Americans in 1965, so this year's victory was the culmination of forty-five years of struggle. As that battle raged, thousands of soldiers were shamed, silenced, dismissed and disgraced. America lost their talent, skills and contributions. Yet during these years many gay men and lesbians continued to enlist, to shield their identity, to compromise themselves in order to serve. In short, they accommodated to the policy. And even after nearly half a century, repealing "don't ask, don't tell" is an enormous but only a partial win, one that leaves in place discriminatory housing, employment and marriage policies in dozens of states.
These failures and accommodations are not ancillary to struggle; they are the core outcome of struggle. Remember that when Congress passed, and President Johnson signed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was more than fifty years after the protesters Kelley writes about had been repeatedly defeated by the entrenched interests of the segregationist South. The standing ovation belongs less to the legislators of the 1960s than to the crushed movements of the 1900s. These movements failed, but their failures were the groundwork on which the civil rights movement built its success.
The nadir was initiated by the Supreme Court's disastrous decision, in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), to uphold the rights of businesses to segregate based on race. This decision revived Confederate dreams of a white supremacist national order and provided the legal tools to enact it. Our moment is marked by the Court's landmark decision to uphold the election spending rights of corporations in Citizens United. In its wake, the next Congress will feature a well-financed Republican House majority buoyed by a vocal right-wing populist movement and a newly emboldened and fiercely obstructionist minority in the Senate. Arguably, progressives are facing a "superior brute force." It is an era that will undoubtedly produce failures and likely require accommodations. But failure is not an excuse to stop struggling or a reason to deride those who must, and who will, sometimes bow to the opposition. Kelley's reassessment of the nadir encourages us to measure accomplishment with a long view, to judge first our willingness to sacrifice and refuse to denounce as cowards those who fail today so that we can win tomorrow.

We're Still at War:

 Photo of the Day for December 22, 2010

Wed Dec. 22, 2010 2:30 AM PST

U.S. Army Pfc. Carlos Ortiz stands guard while engineers from the Zabul Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) show contractors a proposed bridge erosion control site near Qalat, Afghanistan, Dec. 13, 2010. Zabul PRT is comprised of Air Force, Army, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development and U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel who worked with the government of Afghanistan to improve governance, stability and development throughout the province. (DoD photo by 1st Lt. Brian Wagner, U.S. Air Force/Released)

Senates last day?......

Obama to hold a news conference at 4:15 pm ET
The Senate just passed the 9/11 first responder bill by voice vote. Now back to the House.
9/11 health bill passes Senate by unanimous consent with Biden in the chair. I've never heard Reid read the procedure language so fast.
Senate passes $4.2 billion aid package for 9/11 responders and survivors - AP
Biden literally just passed the 9/11 health bill himself.
Biden is in the President of the Senate seat in the chamber. Wearing a 9/11 remembrance ribbon.
************************************************************************************
The Senate Ratified the START Treaty       yeas 71        nays 26

The 13 GOPers for New START: Alexander Gregg Corker Cochran Isakson Lugar Collins Scott Brown Johanns Voinovich Snowe Murkowski Bennett

75 House lawmakers miss vote to fund government

By Molly K. Hooper - 12/21/10 08:05 PM ET

Scores of House lawmakers skipped Tuesday’s vote to fund the government.

At least 75 members were no shows at the rare House session. Most appeared to have failed to make the trek back to Capitol Hill to cast votes four days before Christmas.

The House approved a resolution 193-165 late Tuesday to keep the government in business through March.

Earlier in the day, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) broke the news to lawmakers that they would remain in session on Wednesday as well to vote on the 9-11 First Responders bill that provides health coverage to rescue workers at the September 11 attacks.

But the outlook for House members sticking around to vote on that legislation was not positive because members were having trouble finding flights home.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said he intends to miss votes on Wednesday because he wants to make it home for Christmas.

“I'm catching a plane tomorrow morning, I've had this one reserved for a while and if I miss this one I probably don't make it home for Christmas,” Simpson told The Hill. He indicated he would vote against the 9/11 bill if present, stating: “and the 9/11 responders hope I’m not here when this vote comes up.”

Barbour: Segregationist Citizens Councils That I Praised Were 'Totally Indefensible'

Eric Kleefeld | December 21, 2010, 12:15PM

Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS), the potential presidential candidate who has come under fire for comments praising the segregationist Citizen Councils that operated during his youth in the South, has now released a statement fully condemning the organizations:

"When asked why my hometown in Mississippi did not suffer the same racial violence when I was a young man that accompanied other towns' integration efforts, I accurately said the community leadership wouldn't tolerate it and helped prevent violence there. My point was my town rejected the Ku Klux Klan, but nobody should construe that to mean I think the town leadership were saints, either. Their vehicle, called the 'Citizens Council,' is totally indefensible, as is segregation. It was a difficult and painful era for Mississippi, the rest of the country, and especially African Americans who were persecuted in that time."

In a profile in the Weekly Standard, Barbourrecalled the group in positive terms:

"You heard of the Citizens Councils? Up north they think it was like the KKK. Where I come from it was an organization of town leaders. In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. If you had a job, you'd lose it. If you had a store, they'd see nobody shopped there. We didn't have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City."

The Citizens Councils were founded in Mississippi in 1954, in protest of the Brown v. Board of Educationdecision that declared public school segregation to be unconstitutional.

The councils were dedicated to political activities opposing civil rights, notably through the use of boycotts against African-Americans who sought out their civil rights, and whites who supported them -- including afamous instance by the group in Barbour's hometown.

For an example of the Councils' racist political rhetoric against racial integration, check out one of their newspapers here.

Yesterday, in an interview with TPM, Barbour spokesman Dan Turner had initially defended the comment:

"It was an organization in Yazoo City that was, you know, a group of the town leaders and business people," Turner responded, then referring back to Barbour's comment. "And they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. And that doesn't sound like a racist to me. Does it to you?"

Barbour's Brother, While Yazoo City Mayor: Blacks 'Not Listenin To White People Like They Used To'

Rachel Slajda | December 21, 2010, 12:10PM

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R), when defending the Citizens Council in his hometown of Yazoo City, painted himself as oblivious to politics and the civil rights movement as a teenager. When Martin Luther King Jr. came to town, he said, he and his friends paid more attention to the girls than the reverend.

But Barbour's older brother, Jeppie Barbour, was very aware of politics and the civil rights movement, as he was mayor for several years starting in 1968. As the Weekly Standard profilenoted, that meant Jeppie Barbour was in office during the court-ordered but extremely peaceful integration of the city's schools, an integration the elder Barbour saw as inevitable.

It was a question about that non-violent integration that prompted Haley Barbour'scontroversial comments, as he credited thesegregationist Citizens Councils for that peacefulness. Barbour today issued a statementbacking up a bit, saying it was the town leadership that kept integration peaceful but that "their vehicle, called the 'Citizens Council,' is totally indefensible."

While mayor, Jeppie Barbour became a central figure in reporter Willie Morris' 1971 book about the integration of Yazoo City. The book largely portrayed Barbour as a relative moderate on race.

But during one interview for the book, Barbour told Morris that he was having trouble working with the town's biracial commission, complaining that whites could no longer appoint black commissioners of their choosing. From the book, as quoted at length by HuffPo's Amanda Terkel:

"Maybe five years ago," he said, "you could've appointed a colored man yourself. Now you simply can't get away with it. They're goin' to have to pick their own leaders. You could've gotten on radio five years ago using these very words, 'George Collins is this ni**er we've appointed,' and could've gotten away with it. I guess they're just goin' through a state of being rebellious and hard-nosed and not listenin' to white people like they used to."

He also complained about a black boycott of white businesses -- a tactic the Citizens Council was known to use, albeit in reverse.

We were having some fish for lunch in the back room at Danrie's, and Jeppie complained about the Negro boycott. "South Main Street's dryin' up," he said, and listed the stores that had gone out of business, including one drugstore hit hardest "because it specialized in chitlin' sandwiches and two-dollar pistols." The Negro leaders in charge now "are completely irresponsible. They're determined to destroy the whites economically. That's totally unreasonable. Unfortunately they've got the support of the colored community now."

He also noted the usefulness of pepper spray when dealing with public drunkenness:

The town has seventeen policeman in all, which struck me as a substantial force for a town of 14,000, and Mace is standard equipment; the policemen carry it on their belts. "You get a drunk," Jeppie says; "you either get him to come with you or you have to manhandle him. You give him Mace and he'll want to go anywhere with you. It keeps that ni**er's head in good shape."

Late update: A reader notes that Jeppie Barbour is now working on the Mississippi gubernatorial campaign of Republican Dave Dennis as the campaign's field director.

Historian: Segregationist Citizens Councils Were A 'Terrorist Organization'

So what was Gov. Haley Barbour doing, exactly, when he defended the reputation of the Citizens Councils, a segregationist movement that was formed to oppose the civil rights movement after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision? Barbour released a statement this afternoon, declaring: "My point was my town rejected the Ku Klux Klan, but nobody should construe that to mean I think the town leadership were saints, either. Their vehicle, called the 'Citizens Council,' is totally indefensible, as is segregation." So let's take a look at exactly who they were.

Earlier, I asked Todd Moye, an associate professor of history at the University of North Texas, and also the author of Let the People Decide: Black Freedom and White Resistance Movements in Sunflower County, Mississippi, 1945-1986, for his expertise on the matter.

He called the councils a "terrorist organization."

In a profile in the Weekly Standard, Barbourrecalled the group in positive terms:

"You heard of the Citizens Councils? Up north they think it was like the KKK. Where I come from it was an organization of town leaders. In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. If you had a job, you'd lose it. If you had a store, they'd see nobody shopped there. We didn't have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City."

"Well he's right about the responsible business leaders part," said Moye. "At any given time in Mississippi in the 50's, the Citizens Council would have included people who led the Rotary Club and the local bank and the Boy Scout troop -- all these positions of leadership you can think of. But they were also members of this group that is, I think, a terrorist organization."

The councils were dedicated to political activities opposing civil rights, notably through the use of boycotts against African-Americans who sought out their civil rights, and whites who supported them -- including afamous instance by the group in Barbour's hometown. It was distinguished from the Klan by the public self-identification of its members, and its image of suits and ties as opposed to white robes and nooses.

"They used economic terrorism for the most part, but they definitely reserved the right to use violence. And in a few cases they did use violence," Moye further explained. "Now they were distinguished from the Klan because they didn't go around shooting people. But you saw the story in Yazoo County where the people who signed petitions lost their jobs. That was really the modus operandi."

So why, I asked, do people continue to defend the Citizens Councils? "It's in part because the people who led the Citizens Councils really were respectable members of the community," said Moye. "It's hard for people to admit today that what they were doing was disrespectable."

Professor emeritus John Dittmer of DePauw University in Indiana, author of Local People: The Struggle For Civil Rights In Mississippi, gave us this comment today:

Yesterday I talked with a couple of reporters about the Haley Barbour piece, pointing out that the Yazoo City Citizens' Council had published the names of the black parents petitioning to desegregate the local schools in 1955. And then I saw your article, where you referenced that point. Another factual error in the Weekly Standard story was the assumption that Yazoo City was probably the only city that avoided violence when its schools were desegregated in 1970. Truth is, there was no violence reported in any of the schools that integrated that year, fulfilling the mandate of the Supreme Court decision in the Holmes County case. The Citizens' Council in Mississippi was, in Hodding Carter II's words, the "uptown Ku Klux Klan."

In addition, Amanda Terkel at the Huffington Post got this take from the state NAACP:

"It is quite disturbing that the governor of this state would take an approach to try to change the history of this state," said Derrick Johnson, president of the Mississippi NAACP. "It's beyond disturbing -- it's offensive that he would try and create a new historical reality that undermines the physical, mental, and economic hardship that many African-Americans had to suffer as a result of the policies and practices of the White Citizens Council."...

..."In fact, if you look at Yazoo City, their approach to integration was very similar to other communities across the state, where the parents pulled their children out of the public school system so white children would not have to attend an integrated school system," responded Johnson. "They established a private segregated academy which still exists today."

In an interview with me yesterday, Barbour's spokesman insisted that the Mississippi governor is not racist.

Haley Barbour Backtracks on Support for Segregationists

Mississippi Governor and potential GOP presidential candidate Haley Barbour got himself in hot water recently when he came out in favor of the Citizens' Council, a pro-segregation group, and said that racism in the South before the civil rights movement "wasn't that bad."

Now, Barbour has backtracked on that sentiment, saying in a statement (H/TTalking Points Memo):

When asked why my hometown in Mississippi did not suffer the same racial violence when I was a young man that accompanied other towns' integration efforts, I accurately said the community leadership wouldn't tolerate it and helped prevent violence there. My point was my town rejected the Ku Klux Klan, but nobody should construe that to mean I think the town leadership were saints, either. Their vehicle, called the 'Citizens Council,' is totally indefensible, as is segregation. It was a difficult and painful era for Mississippi, the rest of the country, and especially African Americans who were persecuted in that time.

Today the Citizen's Council is "indefensible," but in a recent Weekly Standardprofile, Barbour called the group's members "town leaders":

You heard of the Citizens Councils? Up north they think it was like the KKK. Where I come from it was an organization of town leaders. In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. If you had a job, you'd lose it. If you had a store, they'd see nobody shopped there. We didn't have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City.

The backtracking might not do enough, as Barbour's presidential hopes are widely considered to be over.

By Lauren Kelley | Sourced from AlterNet 

Posted at December 21, 2010, 10:12 am

Will Jon Stewart's Shaming of GOPers Blocking 9/11 First Responders Bill Pay Off?

It's too soon to say for sure whether Republican obstructionism will kill the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The supermajority appears to be coming together, and Senate Democrats are keeping the pressure on -- this new video is worth watching -- but time is running out, and a leading conservative senator and his allies aren't budging.

While we wait and see, it's heartening to see the White House give some credit toa certain comedian who kept this issue on the political world's radar screen, and helped make progress possible.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs praised television host Jon Stewart on Tuesday for talking about legislation stalled in the Senate that would provide health benefits for 9/11 first responders.

"I think he has put the awareness around this legislation, and that's good," Gibbs said of the "Daily Show" host. During his press briefing, Gibbs said he hoped Stewart could convince two GOP senators to vote to break a filibuster of the bill.

I'm glad Stewart's efforts are garnering attention, because it's really not an exaggeration to say the bill would have no chance without his coverage. Indeed, major media outlets -- at least in broadcast media -- almost completely ignored the Zadroga bill every step of the way. When a GOP filibuster blocked the most recent attempt at passage, despite 58 votes in support of the proposal, it looked like Republicans had killed the bill.

But then "The Daily Show" ran a bunch of segments on this, noting not only the legislation's merit and the inanity of Republican talking points against the bill, but also calling out news organizations for blowing off an important story regarding 9/11 heroes who need a hand.

And sure enough, Stewart's public shaming paid off -- news shows that couldn't be bothered to even mention the bill in passing started talking about it. The visibility took a story that was entirely overlooked by the mainstream and made it a national issue, which in turn prompted Republican senators to begin talking to Democratic sponsors again.

The New York Daily News noted this morning, "Thanks in large part to relentless television advocacy by Jon Stewart of 'The Daily Show,' the 9/11 bill has risen up the agenda."

It'd be an exaggeration to say Stewart was solely responsible. Other voices in media (including, ahem, the one you're reading now) were reporting on the importance of the bill several weeks ago, and as soon as the tax deal was settled, Republicans who were at least open to the Zadroga bill were willing to start talking again.

But as Christopher Beam noted last night, Stewart "shined a light on the issue at the right moment," which in turn generated some momentum where none existed. With that in mind, the White House shout-out is entirely warranted, and if this manages to somehow pass, "The Daily Show" will have played a key role in making that happen.

As for the bigger picture, Stewart told Rachel Maddow last month that he's not "in the game," but rather, is "in the stands yelling things, criticizing."

Due respect, Jon, but the progress on the Zadroga bill suggests this self-analysis may need some revision.

By Steve Benen | Sourced from Washington Monthly 

Posted at December 21, 2010, 3:04 pm

Calendar shows divided Congress

By Brian Friel

To get a sense of how things will work in the 112th Congress, look at next year’s House and Senate schedules.

Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., released separate 2011 calendars for their chambers the week of Dec. 6.

The leaders did not collaborate on scheduling, resulting in an unusually large number of weeks — at least 12 — when one chamber will be in session while the other takes a break.

“It just shows how much the leadership is not on the same page in the House and Senate,” said Brian Darling, director of Senate relations at the conservative- leaning Heritage Foundation.

With Republicans taking control of the House in January and the Democrats’ advantage in the Senate dropping to six seats, the divergent schedules are expected to add to the difficulty Congress is already having as it tries to advance legislation. Adopting the annual budget resolution, working out the final versions of bills in conference committees and sending measures to the president have been difficult with Democrats enjoying comfortable majorities in both chambers.

And, House and Senate leaders have outlined contrasting approaches to fundamental congressional duties that will add to the disconnect between the two chambers.

Expect the House and Senate to talk past each other much of the year, students of Congress say. Just look to Congress’ primary responsibility — appropriating money so the government will operate — for an example.

House Republicans plan to use the Appropriations Committee to find ways to cut the federal budget, and even floated the idea of splitting the 12 annual appropriations measures into smaller agency-by-agency bills.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, which last week produced a $1.1 trillion omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal 2011 that ultimately was pulled from consideration, plans no such changes.

“I never have an opinion on what the House does or doesn’t do,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. “They can do it their way, and I guess we’ll do it our way.”

Before Congress gets to fiscal 2012 appropriations measures, each chamber will develop a budget resolution setting overall spending levels for that fiscal year.

In the early 1980s, Democratic Houses and Republican Senates negotiated budget resolutions that a majority of each chamber agreed to, and even used the budget reconciliation process to push through tax and spending deals with just 51 votes in the Senate rather than today’s 60-vote standard required to overcome procedural motions.

However, most observers see little chance of a House-Senate agreement on a budget next year. Indeed, a battle over holdover fiscal 2011 funding is likely to confront the new Congress early on when a likely short-term funding measure that Congress is expected to clear this week expires, opening policy fights over spending for everything from implementing health care overhaul to the financial services law.

“The House and Senate may pass versions of a budget, yet that budget will never be reconciled by a conference committee,” Darling said.

Even with Democrats in control of the White House and Congress for the past two years, House leaders openly disparaged the Senate, where hundreds of House-passed bills stalled.

The much slower Senate moves far less legislation than the House in any year, but Democrats will have even fewer incentives in the new Congress to respond to House demands for Senate consideration of legislation passed by a Republican majority.
Bills Geared to the Base Are Likely

Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, said the new House Republican majority probably will act as all House majorities have: passing bills regardless of their Senate prospects. The practice enables the House majority to appeal to its base and to stake out a position for negotiations down the road with the Senate and White House.

“They will use the Rules Committee to produce bills that best reflect the House Republican caucus,” Binder said.

It will be harder for Senate Democrats, given the rules of the chamber, to use their majority to appeal to the party base or to stake out left-leaning positions ahead of negotiations, Binder said.

Darling expects both chambers to spend a good deal of time on “messaging” bills that have little to no chance of passage in the other chamber. “House Republicans will debate the issue of ‘Obamacare’ repeal, a permanent extension of tax cuts and legislation to cut spending,” Darling said. “Sen. Reid will debate union priorities like card check. . . and more money for projects in the name of stimulus.”

A wild card will be what position the White House stakes out on legislation. The extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax rates that the White House worked out with Senate Republicans this month (HR 4853) won Senate passage last week in part because of Obama’s imprimatur on it.

The White House launched a major public relations and behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to drum up support for the measure, which Obama signed into law Dec. 17.

On the other hand, the president endorsed a House Republican proposal to ban earmarks — appropriations set aside for specific projects requested by members of Congress — in November.

But he did not press hard for its adoption in the Senate, where a Nov. 30 vote to adopt an earmark moratorium for three years garnered 39 votes, including seven from Democrats.

“Much of it depends on how active and aggressive the president is in taking a position,” Binder said.

Although gridlock is largely seen as the most frequent outcome for legislation in 2011, lawmakers in both parties say agreement could be reached on issues, including trade deals, modest energy proposals and simplifying the tax code.

“Divided government in the end does better work,” said Sen.Mark Steven Kirk, R-Ill., who worked in the State Department during the administration of President George Bush. “In every Bush meeting, the first question was, ‘Which Democrats can we get for what we want to do?’ That was very healthy.”

Omnibus crash: Another Tea Party win

Monday, Dec. 20, 2010

The Tea Party movement did America another huge favor last week.

The Democratic leadership in Congress had managed to go a whole year without passing a federal budget bill. As it did with the health care bill and others in the past two years, the party had manufactured a "crisis" with a sudden deadline (the government might shut down!) in hope of passing a humongous spending bill.

The trick might've worked thanks to Republican fondness for pork-barrel spending. Senate Democratic leadership won over lots of Republicans by rolling GOP pork projects (earmarks) from previous bills into the larger one.

But Republican leader Mitch McConnell, already chastened by the Tea Party last month for earmark support, saw a path to victory. He gave Republicans an alternative to the two choices Harry Reid was offering (a government shutdown or the 1,900-page spending bill). McConnell offered a one-page continuing resolution that would fund the government until next year, when Republicans take over the House. It worked, and the spending bill died.

The Tea Party gets another win, and the taxpayers save billions of dollars. For now. What happens when Republicans take control of the House next year is anyone's guess.

The truth is that without the constant vigilance currently provided by what can loosely be called the Tea Party movement, Republicans would be just as happy as Democrats to squander taxpayer money. They are only acting frugal now because they know they're being closely watched, so keep watching.