The most widely predicted course for Washington over the next two years is gridlock. "What we know is that we're going to have gridlock," says NBC's Chuck Todd. "On the big questions, especially federal spending and taxing, confrontation will be the order of the day [...] gridlock is likely to be the dominant theme," predicts Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein. Washington is in for "two years of legislative deadlock," holds Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution. There will "absolutely" be "more intense" gridlock than there was before the 2010 elections, says Thomas Mann, also of the Brookings Institution.
As I see it, this is true only for liberal policies--not for conservative ones. It is already clear that conservatives will get basically the kind of extension of the Bush tax cuts they want--by far the biggest item for the near future, involving three or four trillion dollars, depending on the small print.
In addition, they will, in one way or another, undermine what they call "Obamacare," although they will not abolish it. And the same holds for the new financial regulations. That is, they will roll back "only" the two main achievements of the first two years of the Obama presidency.
In addition, the conservatives (GOP plus select Democrats) will get to cut the spending of most if not all discretionary federal programs. And, if recent news items are to be trusted, the GOP may even get Obama to lead the trimming of entitlements, all while conservatives hold that they would not go near Medicare and Social Security, even with a children's pair of scissors. In an interview on 60 Minutes shortly after the midterm elections, President Obama observed that "the vast majority of the federal budget are things that people really think are important. Like Social Security and Medicare and defense." He than added, "I mean, we're gonna have to [...] tackle some big issues like entitlements that, you know, when you listen to the Tea Party or you listen to Republican candidates they promise we're not gonna touch." If President Obama follows through and takes a knife to entitlement spending, the GOP is unlikely to oppose him -- and may well outflank him with deeper cuts of the kind seen in Representative Paul Ryan's "roadmap." The FDA, the EPA, funding for scientific research -- and above all, the new consumer protection agency -- are all in for a close haircut.
Even DC gun control regulations will be further trimmed (although there is not much left to cut).
And conservatives are very likely to get their way on key foreign policy issues. Surely they will prevent President Obama from disengaging in Afghanistan, which, as I see it, will be disastrous. They will get a $4 billion increase in funding for nuclear weapons facilities (besides the $10 billion already promised) before they will even consider approving the New START treaty. And Attorney General Holder is likely to find it even harder to try terrorists in civilian courts.
In a few areas, the GOP may even cooperate with the Democrats and the White House -- as long as their goals are compatible with the Republican agenda. More free trade and more charter schools for instance.
If this is gridlock, I do not know what you would call a major sweep.
Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor at the George Washington University and the author of The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics.
This will not be easy as corporations will be showering the Senate Democrats with corporate campaign cash to try and get them not to filibuster even if they vote against the legislation.
To advance progressive legislation in the meantime we need to work with those states where the Democrats still control the legislature and have Democratic governors (California, Washington, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii) and seek to advance policies there that can be used as national models in the future.
Each of those states could pass a statewide public health insurance option if they so chose.
Stop waiting for the President to "get his mojo" or stand up and do the right thing. He's not a transformational leader. He's a weak leader who has chosen the path of serving corporatists and capitulating to conservatives in the name of "bipartisanship" -- anything to avoid confrontation.
We need to be building progressive movements on the ground and thinking in the long-term electoral realm of a post-Obama era and ensure the Democrats nominate a strong leader instead of a weak one.
We've already wasted too much of our time and energy on a President who is leading the Democratic Party and the progressive side of politics over the cliff in the name of "bipartisanship".
Obama is not only just another politician, he's an inept one at that.
The government is tackling this by having the Fed buy up close to a trillion dollars in outstanding US bonds. That's right--that's their big program. It seems to be having almost no effect.
Meanwhile, we have a military that's as costly as the rest of the world combined. Much of it is completely useless, unless we continue to invade and occupy innocent nations. And they're talking about massive tax breaks for the rich.
This country's politics are a mess, people, and I look forward to the day when enough of us are fed up with it and hit the streets. A million people on the mall might start to wake these people up. Until then, our people will suffer terribly, and the politicians will go on serving the richest .01%.
The American party, the future of American politics as the Democrats and Republicans are the past, understands that liberal and conservative are words not people who are being hurt. It understands that both camps used these terms to harm America.
In the middle, not as a referee but as an equal, talking over what is best for this nation is what the American party stands for. The people, the government, workers, main street are now on the table. There are seats for discussion on every topic and ice baths, yes throwing each other in an icy lake to cool off, baths. We are willing to allow each of the hundred sides to express themselves. No, neither party will be happy with the final outcome but it will be what is best for America.
Great education, fair taxes, a strong military, health care reform, more jobs that are full time and allow you to live the American dream, controls on insurance, financial, rebuilding, retooling and educating America. American party,!
I went to a number of universities recently and asked the engineering faculty if they were seeing any more funding "to bring production back to the U.S.". They laughed at me, "No".
Bottom line... this country has been hijacked by mean, nasty, ignorant, rich children. It's now becoming so obvious what happened in Germany in the 1930s.
Time to jump off this train?
Go ahead.ask any Canadian if they would like to replace it with a U.S. style system.
That low key nature they are known for will soon fade. Gun laws as well.
Very civilized.
Health Care will not be affected because, as limp as it is in controlling costs, it does prevent Health Insurance companies from cutting people with pre-existing conditions and it does cover children and youth. It would be hard to roll those back. Even a Republican supporter would see those as positive, although they wouldn't actually be able to speak the words.
The Finance Reform was full of holes to begin with and , in the end, would not prevent another bubble. It would be interesting to see how the Republicans justify deregulation though. Unless they can sell the idea of speeding up the arrival of the next bubble as being a good thing, just cancelling what already exists would a hard sell indeed.