Democrats in the 111th Congress may be down, but they are not quite out yet. Due to the quirky nature of our political calendar, the "old" Congress will reconvene in a week or so, and stay in session through December, and then the "new" or incoming Congress will be convened for the first time in January. What, if anything, this "lame duck session" will accomplish is an open question. They certainly won't have any shortage of issues to tackle, and this may well be the last chance Democrats get at moving their agenda forward for the next two years. Whether they will take this window of opportunity to do so or not remains to be seen, though.
Originally, the term "lame duck" was part of a triad of terms used on the stock market. These originated in England, but somewhere along the way over the Atlantic to America, "lame duck" got dropped from the more-familiar "bears" and "bulls" which we still speak of today. The term originally meant a bankrupt investor (insert your own ironic joke here). As it migrated to the world of politics, it changed into the modern meaning of "politicians who have a foreseeable limit to the time they have left to serve." Its meaning is considerably looser when used about presidents, since in the last two years of any president's second term, they are often called "lame duck presidents." In Congress, however, it specifically means the next few months -- the gap between the election and the swearing-in of the new Congress.
The lame duck House will remain the same, under the control of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The lame duck Senate, however, will change slightly in its balance of power between Democrats and Republicans. The good news for Democrats is that this could have been much worse than it actually is going to be. Four states held Senate "special elections" a week ago, rather than the normal elections dictated by the Senate's calendar. Three of these special elections were to replace seat-warmers appointed after sitting senators left the Senate. Three of the four seats were vacant due to people who essentially got a promotion -- Barack Obama of Illinois, Joe Biden of Delaware, and Ken Salazar of Colorado (who was named to a cabinet seat). The other special election was due to the death (while in office) of Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. But all of the winners of these races will be seated not in January, but immediately when Congress returns.
I wrote about this a while back, because all of these seats were tough races for Democrats. At least they were until the Republicans of Delaware nominated Christine O'Donnell, which was an early Christmas present from the Tea Party to the Democratic Party. West Virginia turned out to be not nearly as close as the right-leaning polling operation Rasmussen had predicted. But Colorado and Illinois were very close races indeed. Democrats held on in Colorado (another Tea Party present), but lost Barack Obama's old Senate seat to Republicans. The upshot is that while Republicans could have gotten as many as 45 Senate seats in the lame duck session, they will have to settle for only 42 instead. But that still means it'll be one vote harder for Democrats to get anything done.
Let's be blunt -- this window of opportunity is going to be the last chance for the Democrats to pass any bills on their agenda for at least two years. And it's going to open and close fast. Which means -- given the slow pace of the Senate, chained down by archaic rules -- that most likely only a few things will manage to even be debated (much less passed). And the list of issues vying for this honor is already pretty long, I have to say.
Three important reports are scheduled to come out either in December or just before: a progress report and strategy review of the military effort in Afghanistan, a Pentagon report on how they can best transition away from the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy of excluding open gays from serving their country, and the blue-ribbon deficit commission's report on our long-term budgetary outlook and what we should do about it. That's a lot to deal with right there. But there are two other issues which face a deadline of the end of the year as well: energy legislation and what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts. As well as other problems facing their own deadlines, like extending unemployment insurance payments, and passing some sort of continuing resolution to paper over the fact that Democrats haven't passed even a single budget bill for this year yet.
So far, the Bush tax cuts have garnered the most media attention. Which means they may wind up dominating the lame duck session, to the exclusion of most everything else. Or perhaps not, if a deal is cut early on and passed quickly -- which is indeed a possibility.
The Afghanistan review is likely to be the least contentious, at least legislatively. Republicans mostly support President Obama's actions in Afghanistan, and it is largely a matter of presidential decision-making anyway. The only role Congress will have is in setting the amount of money Obama can spend next year on the war, so while there may be disagreements (with both Democrats and Republicans) over the tactics and strategies involved, they mostly won't play out on the floors of Congress.
Obama's original plan was to have some sort of energy policy in place by this point, but that hope died in the Senate (the House did pass the "cap and trade" bill, but it went nowhere over on the other side of the Capitol). But the wildcard in this is the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) who has been given the power (by a court decision, no less) to regulate carbon emissions. The E.P.A. will begin rolling out new regulations to achieve this early next year. Congress was supposed to act before this happened, to give legislators the chance to mold energy policy, but the legislators punted. This is going to seriously freak out the Republicans next year, I should mention, but given the nature and complexity of the issue, it is unlikely they'll have legislation passed before the E.P.A. acts. This could actually be good news for environmentalists, if the E.P.A. goes farther in creating regulations than Congress would assumably have gone. But, again, the issue is large enough that it likely won't even make the list of what the lame duck session tackles, since I really can't see the cap and trade bill from the House suddenly passing in a 42-58 Senate.
Unemployment benefit extensions are also quite likely to also be dropped unceremoniously from the lame duck Congress' "to do" list. This is going to be tragic for millions of people, but Democrats likely won't have the votes to pass anything (especially anything which smacks of "spending" to the Republicans), so the issue will likely die a quiet legislative death. Republicans, it is assumed, will continue to ignore the issue after January.
The continuing resolution to keep the government funded may spur some grandstanding on the part of the Tea Partiers, but most of them won't be in office yet, and the Republican leadership will likely sell the concept to its members as "this is just the handoff to Republicans being in charge, so it's no big deal." The continuing resolution will likely be extremely short in nature, to put the pressure on the incoming Congress to deal with the budget.
The only budget bill I can see making it through the Senate (which doesn't just put the federal spending on autopilot, as the continuing resolution bills will) is the Department of Defense's budget. More on that in a bit, here.
The two big issues likely to dominate the political discourse until the new year are whatever comes out of the deficit commission's report, and the Bush tax cuts. The deficit commission could either (1.) not agree on much of anything, and reflect this division of opinions in their report, or (2.) come out with specific proposals. If they punt (due to the commission's setup, "not punting" is likely going to mean either Republicans approving tax cuts or Democrats approving entitlement benefit reductions, so the deck is stacked against much of any concrete proposals that would solve much of anything), then the discussion will move into next year. If the commission does agree on specifics, though, they are not likely to be agreed upon fast enough for the lame duck session to pass anything. If Democrats do try to pass any legislation based on the commission's report, the Republicans are going to loudly howl that these things should wait until the new Congress is seated. Meaning it will likely crash headlong into that 42-58 Senate wall, even if Democrats were bold enough to try (my guess: they aren't).
The Bush tax cuts are what everyone is focusing on right now. Because of this early attention, the issue is likely to suck the oxygen from the lame duck Congress, in terms of talking about other issues or getting much of anything else done. This issue is so complex, politically, that I can't adequately do it justice here, so I'm not even going to try (my guess is I'll be writing plenty of columns solely dedicated to this issue in the near future anyway).
But I would like to raise one bright red flag here at the beginning of the debate. So far, the compromise being floated by the Democrats is to extend the Bush tax cuts permanently for just about everyone, and to only temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy few. But Obama and the Democrats seem about to step into a giant bear trap -- which they don't even seem aware of at the moment. The Democrats are talking about extending the tax cuts for the wealthy for "one or two years." I shudder every time I hear a Democrat use that phrase, from Obama on down. Because I can read a calendar, and I can add.
A one-year extension would mean the Republicans (in the House, and to a lesser extent in the Senate) would be forced to deal with the issue head-on in the next year, which wouldn't be all that bad a schedule. But extending them for two years virtually guarantees that this will become one of the largest issues in the 2012 election season. And Democrats running on raising taxes hasn't exactly worked out real well in the past -- not even counting this year's midterms. Do Democrats really want to have this giant political fight again in the midst of a presidential election year?
My advice: pick an odd number of years to extend the cuts: one year, or three years. But decidedly not two years. It remains to be seen whether Democrats in Washington figure out this basic addition/calendar problem in time to avoid it, or not.
But if Democrats (and the White House) were smart, they would pick a very winnable fight in the lame duck session -- legislatively repealing DADT. The reasons for doing so are many, both political and practical. Republicans are making a lot of political hay right now over how they're "listening to America" and about to "do what the American people want us to do." Conveniently, over 70 percent of Americans surveyed want to get rid of DADT. Meaning the president and other Democrats could turn this against the Republican opposition to repealing DADT -- "Democrats are doing what a huge majority of the public wants, and Republicans are refusing to listen to The People."
But that's just a talking point. The real driving factors here will be twofold. First, the Pentagon's report is likely to surprise some Republicans. The Pentagon was told to report not on whether to repeal DADT, but how best to manage the transition. This fact is lost on a lot of people, both in the media and politicians themselves. Anyone expecting the Pentagon to put out a harshly critical report which slams the idea of getting rid of DADT is quite likely going to be very disappointed. This is going to make the politics a lot easier for the lame duck Congress. Democrats can frame the issue as "the Pentagon has a solid plan to do this, and we're standing with the brass on this one." Republicans, up until this point, have gotten away with splitting hairs on this issue, which is soon to be shown to be the hypocrisy it truly is. John McCain, for one, has been saying for a while that he'd be willing to repeal DADT "if the Pentagon agrees to it." This, conveniently, means McCain doesn't have to stand in opposition to the brass. But if the Pentagon does indeed agree to it, McCain (and all the other Republicans using this reasoning) are going to have the rug pulled out from under their position.
The second driving factor to all of this is that if Congress doesn't act, either the White House or the courts may soon act anyway. Obama, so far, has said repeatedly that Congress should really be the one to overturn the policy. But if Congress refuses to do so, Obama could essentially overturn it himself with an Executive Order. Obama is not likely to use this route to completely change the policy, he is much more likely to do so as some sort of stopgap incremental measure -- such as ordering the military to stop enforcing the DADT policy. This would leave the policy technically "on the books," but would effectively end it for the time being. This would be one of the least satisfying routes to ending the policy, though, because it would not answer the many questions the Pentagon is currently grappling with (such as benefits, spousal rights, etc.), and instead would leave everything in legal limbo. Also, what one president does with an Executive Order can easily be undone by another president.
But the courts are really driving the calendar on the issue. There are several cases wending their way through the court system, and the most prominent of these has already scored an enormous victory. The appeals court will hear the Obama administration's appeal, and the case could eventually (in the next year or so) make it to the Supreme Court. But Obama does have another route he can take with this effort, as well. If Obama loses his appeal, instead of taking his chances in the Supreme Court, he can simply refuse to appeal the case further, and say: "The courts have ruled this unconstitutional, and I agree with the courts -- therefore the federal government will abide by the judge's order to end the policy immediately, and will not file further appeals."
The chances of this happening are probably not all that great. Politically, it would be the least appealing route for the president to take, as it would be portrayed politically as the courts being in charge of military policy. But Obama could point out to recalcitrant senators unwilling to repeal DADT in the next two months that the courts may wind up making the decision anyway (instead of Congress) -- which may be an effective goad to use on them.
Perhaps even this is too optimistic. The safe betting, right now, would be on the lame duck Congress addressing only one major issue -- the Bush tax cuts. Even on this issue, getting anything passed is still very much up in the air. All other issues will likely be punted past New Year's Day, for the next Congress to deal with. But perhaps Democrats will realize that this is their last, best chance to get much of anything done until after the 2012 elections. Democrats will be frozen out of the House completely for the next two years, due to being in the minority in a chamber where the majority definitively rules. And if you thought the last two years were epic years of gridlock in the Senate, you ain't seen nothin' yet. With both parties able to successfully filibuster at will, I would personally be surprised if the Senate could pass a resolution stating that the sky is blue in the next two years (much less anything even slightly more contentious).
The lame duck Congress window is about to open. It won't be open for very long. And Congress has to (of course) take a few weeks off for the holidays in the midst of this time period, making it effectively even shorter. Democrats have the choice of making a final push to see some of their agenda items pass before Republicans take over the House, or they can shrug their shoulders and not even try. Democrats can allow the Bush tax cuts to be the sole issue on the table during the lame duck, or they can put a few other things on the table as well. At this point, it is entirely their decision whether to do so or not. Obama could get out there and publicly and repeatedly call on Congress to get something done on DADT (or any of the other issues at hand), or he could remain on the sidelines and hope that congressional Democrats do so on their own initiative. The lame duck window is about to open, so here's hoping Democrats are ready for it and make use of it before it slams shut.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
THIS IS A FACT. THIS IS REALITY.
they HAVE to capitulate to get ANY of their bills passed into laws.
instead, i see most people here are debating on how many illions to give the rich, or if gays get better treatment in the military.
im frankly ashamed at everybody here for their extremely poor sense of priorities.
pox on your houses
I actually think it is in the Republican interest to have the lame duck Congress repeal DADT. While the Socially Conservatives can vote against it to appease their base, they simply do not filibuster it and blame the Democrats for passing it during the lame duck. By the next election cycle it will be but a footnote and not come back to hurt them much.
Like you suggest whether they vote on it or not it is likely to happen soon. If they let the Dems pass it and a few like McCain that are safe for the next 6 years stop a filibuster, in 2012 they can blame Dems in congress which will play to the Social Right as an easier target to get the base fired up then if the courts overturn it.
If they let Obama overturn it , the base of the Republicans already hates him, most American swing voters will give him credit for it because so many support it, and it works out as a republican negative in 2012 election cycles.
I agree that no large energy or immigration reform bills will be passed during the Lame Duck although some will be proposed by "old school" republicans to get ahead of the Tea party and "young buck" crowd coming in.
I shouldnt eat lunch and post.
Dang, I knew I forgot something in that "to do" list. Immigration! There are people out there pushing hard to get (at least) the DREAM bill passed in the lame duck.
I agree with your assessment on it, though, I would have included it in my list of things which are likely going to be punted. Sadly, as it'd be another great issue for Obama/Dems to fight hard in the Lame Duck on....
I wonder, personally, if the Pentagon report says "we're OK with repealing DADT" whether that will entice the three Republicans the Dems will need over to their side of the aisle or not. The ladies from Maine, and maybe Scott Brown...? Could happen, could happen...
-CW
Anything they do which ends up being successful the Gooptards will just claim credit for, and since we already know going in the Gooptards won't have a single success to point to of their own, I say let them run on the same miserable failure and fraud they had for eight years under the George Dubai Bush administration.
Sir, you are better then that. The DADT policy allows gays and lesbians to serve their country and prohibits the military into asking about it. While i agree it should be repealed and look forward to the Pentagon review of the effects of the removal before I make any ultimate decision, let's be honest about what we are saying. You are a Huffington Post writer I respect But I am going to call a bit of a cheap shot at that one.
it would be correct to say "the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy of excluding open gays from 'OPENLY' serving their country"
There are a lot of gay and lesbians serving in the military right Now and DADT does nothing to prevent their continued service.
Again as a retired military officer, I support you in the repeal of it pending the reports outcome, but you are to good of a columnist to mis-characterize the DADT policy and in doing so you actually unintentionally slight the Gay and lesbians who are LEGALLY serving in the military currently.
I am not sure what you are afraid of but I can assure you if you research the current DADT policy it does not Prevent gay's from serving in the military.
As a military officer in 1995 I had at least two woman in my unit that were probably Lesbian but nothing in the DADT policy prevented them from serving.
In 2000 I was responsible for actually teaching a class on DADT to my entire Company as the Commander of the unit (about 120 soldiers at the time in Kosovo) and I assure we specifically stated that Gay and Lesbians were allowed to serve in the military. The material I used in the class came from the Department of the Army and the class was mandated from the Department of the Army and specifically said gay's and lesbians could serve.
In 2001-2003 I was in an Army recruiting Comapny and we enlisted over 1000 individuals into the Army from my company area of responsibility. Many of those GREAT Americans were gay and lesbian and absolutely NOTHING was ever done, asked or said to prevent them from joining.
In fact if we HAD prevented them from serving WE would have been in violation of the law.
Don't be afraid but get the facts!
No intentional one, that's for sure. But as a writer, I have to be responsive and aware of how language can be characterized by others, as well. I've pretty consistently used the "openly serving" phrasing in the past, I think, and that really was what I intended to write, so tinsldr2 was actually right in bringing it up.
-CW
You're right.
That was a badly worded sentence. I usually catch stuff like this when I re-read and edit before posting, but this slipped through. Your correction is much better, although I'd remove "open" just because of avoiding word repetition (something in Journalism 101 Brian Williams must have slept through, but I digress). Here's how I'd put it:
"the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (DADT) policy of excluding gay people from openly serving their country."
No slight intended, just sloppy editing, that's all.
Mea culpa.
-CW
He needs to step down and let somebody who actually wants the job for more than ego reasons to take over.
Then I would let the whole Bush's tax cuts die a natural death, w/o any legislation, then let the Democrats come back for the Middle tax breaks and dare the Republicans to vote against the Middle Class, which they will do, and it will be a wiiner in 2012. Obama's base.
For heaven's sake Dems, don't even bring up the Bush tax breaks....let them expire..
Keep Reid's mealy mouth and Durbin's timidity in the backroom, twisting arms and counting votes, out of the TV viewing and bring in Shumer to talk for the Senate /Dems. he loves cameras, is brash, and knows how to smack down Republicans.
The rest of the 2 years, Democrats say NO to everything while playing "getting along" Don't compromise on anything. Nothing. Let there be gridlock and let Republicans simply die. I can't see what we can accomplish by giving in to one iota of the Republican's agenda. Just block them or veto everything.
Let Obama come out with a new Stimulus bill, solely to be spent on jobs when Dems come back. Nothing else, no compromise, nothing unless they pass another recovery package.
DADT and a new Recovery package for jobs. Nothing else in this lame duck congress.
And.....no TAX BREAKS for the wealthy.....
http://www.slate.com/id/2273708/ Good read
Pelosi has already won, and so has Obama.
Keep them busy with appointments LOL
Voters have a short attention span on MANY issues but a large TAX INCREASE blamed on the Democrats is not going to play out well and will be remembered by the moderates that decide elections in 2012.
As for coming out with a middle class tax cut retroactively that would originate in the Republican House and they would get the credit. While Obama may get some Credit for it in 2012 the Dem Senate and many Dem congressman would get hammered for allowing the Tax increase in the first place.
Remember of the Senate seats that were voted on, about 2/3rds were won by Republicans in the 2010 election, if there is another election like that in 2012 it would be very bad for the Dems.
Throw in the large Republican changes in state races and governorships and with redistricting coming from the new Census results and the outlook for 2012 is changed dramatically.
Angering the moderate voters by allowing a large Tax increase on the middle class to not be stopped will be seen as disastrous for people up for elections in 2 years. Lot's will be forgotten by then but not a tax increase!
Nice spin, I have to say.
But this "tax increase" was a direct result of Republican action. They passed the Bush tax cuts with expiration dates. Bush himself even pleaded with them for years to make them permanent when the GOP controlled Congress. They refused to. The only reason we're facing this deadline is because of Republicans. Republicans built this "tax increase" into the bill from the beginning, refused to change it for years, and now it has come to pass. If Democrats do nothing right now, we will just be following the Republican plan for the future, complete with giant "tax increases" built in. Thanks, Republicans!
Which is more spin, in a counter-tinsldr2-wise direction, I fully admit. But, you know, just tossing it out to the marketplace of ideas and all of that...
:-)
-CW
What "tax increases" are you talking about?
You know, people who go around accusing others of being afraid of the facts are often the ones who play fast and loose with the facts themselves. You are no exception.
Chris,
There is at least one prominent member of the Obama/Biden administration who agrees wholeheartedly with you and has NEVER used that phrase. In fact, he shoots it down at every opportunity. He's been advocating for a fiscally and morally responsible approach to dealing with the Bush tax cuts and is the only one in the administration who consistently puts forward extremely effective arguments for doing this while exposing and discrediting the Republican position as just another rehash of their failed policies of the past.
You know who I'm talking about. You also know that this career public servant has been so maliciously maligned and falsely accused of all manner of odious behavior and motivation by such a wide range of misinformed critics that most Americans wouldn't give him the time of day, much less be persuaded to support him in their own best interests.
And so, unfortunately, the one guy in this administration who could be the most effective advocate for acting responsibly on this issue is effectively silenced, insofar as the American people are concerned.
Doesn't sound like there will be time enough to really push for any of the items that the party in power now wants to pass. Special sessions, anyone?
I would love to see DADT finally taken down, but somehow I suspect that if they couldn't do it when the Democrats controlled both Houses, they certainly won't do it while they are on the wane.
Oh, I don't know. I remain cautiously optimistic. When Dems realize that "this is it" -- this is their last, best chance to move anything, then they may rediscover their backbones.
Of, course, I could be wrong.
Sigh.
-CW
They should! They obtained far better leverage--to advance the interests of the average American working family--in 2008 than just now. The real question is whether Barack Obama and Harry Reid (not "Democrats" in general) want to fight at all. They can continue to placate Neo-Con ideologues (who exploit ignorance, gullibility and race hatred and spend limitlessly) and their reliable Blue Dog allies. Or they can draw a line in the sand and fight. So far, they've brought cupcakes to the party--and the Neo-Cons, brass knuckles and tire irons.
The result has been the death of 420 bills that Nancy Pelosi and the House Progressive Caucus delivered to Reid's in-basket. Average Americans suffer, in consequence.
Obama and Biden need to get Reid to force the GOP into an actual Christmas season, round-the-clock, cots-in-the-cloakroom filibuster over tax cuts for America's neediest billionaires--and keep fighting, as long as it takes. (Unless Obama and Biden "really want to have this giant political fight" waged for them. In 2012. By, say, Dean and Feingold.)
Now, THAT was funny! You just don't give up, do you!? :)
And, on a serious note ...
Obama and Biden need to put the one guy in the administration who knows how to make a strong case for acting responsibly with respect to dealing with the Bush tax cuts - and how to effectively discredit the Republican position - in full charge of this "gigantic political fight".
Too bad, though, that this guy is a bit radioactive in the eyes of most Americans - for reasons that provide enough fodder for a whole other piece that I hope Chris will think about writing someday.
Care to guess who I'm talking about?
No, not really.
Let me take a wild guess. His last name begins with "G" and has a useless "h" in it?
:-)
-CW