Are Democrats starting to play some offense? Three reports seem to lead to this conclusion, although at this point it is too early to tell what sort of effect this will have on the political landscape, for both the near future and for the 2012 election season. For now, it is refreshing to see Democrats pushing back on a few key issues, whatever their chances of legislative (or political) success happen to be. And the Democrats have picked three pretty good issues with which to launch this particular offensive -- the mortgage crisis, gay marriage, and taxing millionaires.
Let's take these one at a time. The Obama White House is apparently pushing hard for a quick settlement over the mortgage mess. From The Huffington Post today:
The Obama administration is seeking to force the nation's five largest mortgage firms to reduce monthly payments for as many as three million distressed homeowners in as little as six months as part of an agreement to settle accusations of improper foreclosures and violations of consumer protection laws, six people familiar with the matter said.
Described as a "shock and awe" approach, the deal would accomplish the four goals set out by state and federal policy makers and regulators as part of their multi-agency investigations into abusive mortgage practices by the nation's largest financial firms: punish banks for violations of state law and federal regulations; provide much-needed assistance to distressed borrowers; stabilize a deteriorating housing market; and dissuade firms from abusing homeowners in the future.
The modified mortgages could cost the five financial behemoths -- Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial -- as much as $30 billion, according to sources. Combined, the five firms handle three out of every five home loans, according to newsletter and data provider Inside Mortgage Finance.
It also could lead to reduced mortgage payments or lowered loan balances for nearly two-thirds of the 4.7 million delinquent homeowners who have yet to fall into foreclosure, according to data provider Lender Processing Services.
The rest of the article extensively examines what this all would mean, who is on board with the plan, and who is not. While I readily admit I'm no financial or economic wizard, what it seems to boil down to is getting a perhaps-not-optimum solution in place quickly, versus getting a perhaps-more-punitive-to-the-banks deal a lot further down the road. Obama seems to be throwing his lot in with the "sooner, rather than later" concept. When you consider that the housing market is still a drag on the American economy -- and will likely remain so until this matter is concluded -- this seems to be a reasonable stance for him to take. But even a fast deal may take quite a while to put together, and it will be decided by the 50 state attorneys general (and not Congress), so it may take place below a lot of people's radar, so to speak.
The second issue Democrats have recently pushed is repealing the federal Defense Of Marriage Act, or "DOMA." Fresh off repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of excluding openly gay men and women in the military, Democrats sense that the public opinion tide is turning on the entire gay rights issue. President Obama's Justice Department made the news a while back by stating that they weren't going to defend a key provision of DOMA in court any more. The House of Representatives is going to step in and provide the legal team to defend DOMA, as a result of this decision. DOMA, if not addressed legislatively, is likely headed to the Supreme Court.
Today it was announced that a bill (the "Respect for Marriage Act") will be introduced in both the House and the Senate to repeal DOMA. This is a bold move by Democrats, for a number of reasons. The first is that, while polls showed overwhelming public support for allowing gays to serve in the military openly, public support for gay marriage is not nearly as strong. It is approaching a tipping point, but currently roughly an equal number of people support gay marriage as the number who are against it.
The bill's chances for passage in both houses of Congress appear pretty low, as well. In the Senate, all Democrats would need to vote for it, as well as seven Republicans -- which isn't likely to happen. Harry Reid, knowing this, may not even bring it up for a vote, unless he saw a political advantage to losing the vote and putting everyone on the record. Over in the House, chances that Speaker John Boehner would allow a vote on the bill seem to be nonexistent. If it actually came to a vote in the House, a surprising number of Republicans might actually vote for it (those with an eye to the future, or with a large youthful constituency, perhaps). Since Boehner has been allowing amendments to other legislation, though, it might be tacked on as a rider to some other key bill -- forcing such a vote anyway. But at this point, it has to be said that the odds seem to be against this ever actually becoming law, given the current makeup of Congress.
This shouldn't stop Democrats from trying, however. The gay rights issue is going to become more and more of a millstone around the neck of the Republican Party in coming years. More than just about any other "hot button" social issue, gay rights is clearly a generational issue. Older Americans don't like the concept of gay marriage. Younger Americans don't mind it a bit. Even younger Republicans, in surprising numbers, approve of the concept. As time goes by, the public (if this trend holds, as it is likely to) is going to become more and more supportive of the idea -- and those fighting against it are going to be seen as more and more out of touch. This is certainly ironic, since the whole social/political fight was exploited for so long (and, it has to be said, so successfully) by the Republican Party. The phrase "hoist on their own petard" springs to mind. Watching Republicans now trying to avoid the issue (and avoid even holding a vote on it) is certainly a turnabout from Republicans pushing anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives back in the 1990s, to encourage their base voters to turn out at the polls.
The third issue Democrats are getting out in front of is levying a surtax on millionaires. This issue is going to be a big one in the 2012 race, which President Obama set up. Last December, Obama struck a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans -- for two years. Which means Congress is going to have to address it again before the end of 2012. This was a politically bold move, because the conventional Washington wisdom is that nobody ever gets elected on a platform of raising taxes. But as a recent poll from NBC and the Wall Street Journal showed, when presented a list of two dozen ways to tackle the deficit, the number one answer was "institute a surtax on millionaires." This idea was supported by an astounding 81 percent of the public.
Maybe we shouldn't be so surprised by that number. As Representative Jan Schakowsky put it, in the press conference to announce her tax-the-rich bill:
In the United States today, the richest one percent owns 34 percent of our nation's wealth -- that's more than the entire bottom 90 percent, who own just 29 percent of the country's wealth. And the top one-hundredth of one percent now makes an average of $27 million per household per year. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of Americans? $31,244.
This bill, though, was only introduced in the House. Which means its chances of passage are likely pretty infinitesimal. It's doubtful that it'll even pass the House -- or even get voted on, for that matter. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth the attempt. It certainly sets up the fight that is going to happen next year (in the midst of the presidential campaign), so that Democrats make the case for their side. It's pretty hard to ignore an issue that eight out of 10 Americans approve of, and if Democrats can get Republicans playing defense on the issue early, it can only help in next year's political landscape.
Republicans certainly have the numbers in Congress to block Democratic bills, if they stick together. Even on the mortgage issue, there are a lot of Republican state attorneys general who may not go along with any deal the Obama administration puts together. But again, that doesn't mean the Democrats shouldn't get behind efforts like these, which can help define their party's agenda for the next two years. Because of their minority status in the House, Democrats are reduced to the age-old tactic of bringing up issues calculated to embarrass the Republicans (who fight to not even hold votes on the issues). This is pretty standard stuff, no matter which party is the "out" party at the time.
What is a bit surprising, though, is that Democrats are making the attempt. Democrats, to be blunt, aren't usually all that good at playing this game. Republicans are much better at it. This should encourage Democratic voters, because the issues that Democrats decide to push now may become key campaign issues in the next election cycle. Democrats need to contrast their party's priorities with what the Republicans (especially Tea Party Republicans) have shown their top priorities to be (which, on the state level, borders on the ridiculous).
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
"Following the clusterflock of black swans that has hit world markets in the past month, the Fed has realized it needs to act quick to distribute money to undercapitalized bank shareholders ahead of the upcoming bank sector bail out, which will naturally be funded by taxpayers all over again."
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fed-gives-bank-dividend-green-light-full-release
This is a whitewash. They have not even PROPERLY INVESTIGATED the fraud or the EXTENT of the fraud. They haven't even LOOKED at the fraud before they SOLD US ALL OUT. I'm very disappointed in that braggart Miller who promised us jail time for the banksters. I say NO DEAL. I want a proper investigation by a qualified and neutral third-party auditor, perp walks and break-ups of too big to fail. There should be mandatory prison time for the CEOs and high-level execs of these Ponzi banks.
And that shift in public opinion on gay marriage? The president was paying careful attention to that issue and publicly shifted his own position last October.
I am only 26, but even I have seen a drastic change in people's views over the years. It's actually one of the few areas in which I have seen improvement and find some degree of hope. Still, I do not have much hope that legislation will correct the situation. I suspect it will happen following a supreme court ruling just as segregation was eliminated- officially at least- in 1954. I cannot see it as anything other than a constitutional issue. Essentially every argument against gay marriage hinges on religious convictions. That marriage was ever treated by the government as a religious arrangement is unconstitutional. The first amendment clearly prohibits establishing any religion and laws for the sake of one. I have yet to see any credible argument based on science or reason.
It ain't Democrats who've focused the attention on social issues that they didn't run on, and not one of which will produce a single job - for an American.
You. Are. Not. Believed.
I'll start using "Regressive." Thanks!
While the dems were governing, making policies in 2009, 2010 all the conservatives did was throw spit balls, create havoc in congress, and poison the airwaves with lies, distortions, misinformation.
Dems need to expose to the public what this 'free market' religion is all about and how it's been around for centuries. Each time, it has caused havoc. Remember the 'roaring twenties' which led to 1929 stock market crash and Great Depression all resulting from laissez faire capitalism. Now they call it 'free market enterprise', same philosophy of republicans' laissez faire but different name. Dress it up, say anything about it but this philosophy never help the ordinary people - always help the corporations, the business leaders.
2008 economic crash was the result of 'free market enterprise' - no regulations, wars, tax cuts, wall street schemes & swindles. Guess where the 'free marketers' went running with their hands out - the govt. Did any of this help the ordinary folks - NO.
Once again, I have to plug my own stuff here. Check out (every Friday) my "Friday Talking Points" column, where I attempt to school Democrats in doing just what you have suggested. If it doesn't appear on your regular channel, try:
www.fridaytalkingpoints.com
-CW
So, that DADT repeal would have happened with Republican support? I'm confused...
-CW
Every single Republican in the House and Senate already voted to:
- reallow insurance corporations to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and to rescind policies and sue their former customers after the fact
- reallow insurance companies to kick 18-26 year olds off their parent's policies
- reopen the Medicare doughnut hole.
The political ads just write themselves:
"Congressman Smith voted with the extremists to re-allow insurance companies to deny you and your family insurance for pre-existing conditions or rescind your policy for flimsy excuses, to allow them to kick your child off your insurance policy. Now it's your turn to give Congressman Smith the kicking he deserves for siding with the insurance companies against you..."
The Republicans could have submitted their own health care bill, their own amendments to last year's bill, even just to rescind the mandate. But no... They went for outright "repeal" as they are completely held hostage by the extremists who've hijacked their party.
With this and all the other issues you mentioned the next two years are going to be great fun as we give conservatives the political smackdown they have coming for what their failed ideology did to America.
Agreed. Starting with John McCain. Let's see how expensive it is for him to get health insurance on the private market.
-CW
And in all fairness, the Republicans could not have submitted their own health care bill without either losing 90% of their base (dumb or not, they're still real people with real problems) or 96% of their campaign contributions.
F&F - stay optimistic. The GOOD people of Wisconsin have almost restored my faith in the American voter, and your post got me a little closer. I need that.
It's easy to propose good bills that would actually fix problems when you know they won't pass. The Dems are not playing offensive, they are playing their role as the "loyal opposition" to keep the peasants from rioting in the street. Personally I am beginning to believe that the system is so corrupt that only a complete reboot is the way to go.
Hose out the stables!
Well, we can always hope for a Denard Robinson, can't we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denard_Robinson
:-)
-CW