Congress: The Roots of Obstruction

Like Rodney Dangerfield, this Congress doesn't get much respect. Americans rate it slightly above sludge, but below George Bush, the least admired president in the history of polling. McCain strategists hope to discredit Barack Obama by linking him to Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Progressives shudder as they watch Democrats hand over a blank check to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and rail against the coming collapse on off-shore oil drilling. Republicans chant about the "do-nothing Congress."

But take another look. The reputation of the Congress would be very different had the Republican minority and George Bush not orchestrated a systematic campaign of obstruction to bottle up any progress. For example, majorities in both Houses of Congress voted for:

Setting a date certain to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end, freeing up the $12 billion a month in direct costs (about a billion a day in total) for vital needs here at home;

Saving seniors tens of billions in prescription drug prices by empowering Medicare to negotiate discounts for its bulk purchases;

Investing billions in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, generating green collar jobs, and paying for it by repealing subsidies for oil companies already pocketing the greatest profits in recorded history;

Providing health care for millions of children of working and poor families, giving them with a chance for a healthy start to life;

Ensuring that soldiers be guaranteed adequate rest and recovery between deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan;

The Congress also managed to pass the first increase in the minimum wage in a decade, the largest increase in college aid since the GI Bill, and cleaned up its own act a bit. Now this isn't everything, but stopping a bad war, changing our energy policy, caring for the troops and providing more affordable health care to seniors and children isn't a bad start.

What stopped these measures from becoming law was a purposeful and unprecedented "block and blame" obstruction strategy by the Republican minority. In the Senate, Republicans have routinely filibustered every major piece of Democratic legislation. As a report by the Campaign for America's Future which I help direct reveals, this has forced a record number of cloture votes that require a super-majority of sixty votes to end the filibusters. This was reinforced by over 119 veto threats by President Bush(who never issued a veto as the previous Republican congresses ran up record deficits). Majority rule has essentially been repealed.

The strategy hasn't been a secret. Conservatives have openly gloated about it. Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer told Fox News viewers, "I think [Democrats' inability to pass legislation][ will give the Republicans the one opening they are going to have in 2008. Everything is running against the Republicans, but I think they have a chance if they argue that the Democrats have been in charge and they are the do-nothing Congress." Or as former Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss, told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far it's working for us."

Now this is sort of like knee-capping the postman and then complaining that the mail is late. Will Republicans get away with it? As the economy has plummeted, they've started to worry. Recently, Republican Senators up for re-election have started to bail out, moving to help overcome filibusters and veto threats on Medicare funding. Politico reports that GOP leaders are advising vulnerable senators to "get well" with voters by siding with Democrats on everything but energy and national security.

As the economy gets worse, incumbent legislators should be nervous whether in the majority or the minority. But as Republicans posture about the do-nothing Congress, it's worth remembering that much would have gotten done had they not been in the way.

Comments

[research]

Please! The dems could have blocked all war funding from even coming to a vote.

The dems could have disrupted Bushes smugness by starting the impeachment hearings.

The dem leadership is weak, only Kucinich and the congresspeople around him have done anything worth while.

Contribute to Kucinich.

[jupitor]

We need to end such a thing as fillabusters! Ya right research. Do your research! You call for a impeachment, it has to be voted on! where would that get the dem's but waste more time an more of our money is all. If they have 60 seated, than they can impeach him. You don't understand that while your on the out side looking in, they are in there trying to get past the Repub's to get work done. They have to wangle and say you vote my bill , I;ll vote yours! Rather you like that bill or not! Or it's another fillibuster by the Repub's. That's what we've been trying to explain to you guys! It's not A Demacratic congress at all! It's a fillibuster congress in there! Give them what they need, and they can get the work done! Polosi and reed thought it would be so easy, and then found it wasn't and their bragging got them no where.

[research]

the dems haven't accomplished anything worth:

End the Iraq war crime, by not bring up any funding bills and announcing it publicly, challenge the BushCo folks to deliberately strand our troops rather then obey the will of congress and the people.

no FISA spy on everybody bill,

failing to start impeachment hearings to stop "executive privilege" and related pardons.

I'm getting real tire of the folks trying to guess what the vote in the senate will be before hearing the evidence. Let's hear the evidence first, shall we? By the way the constitution says "congress shall impeach" with no exceptions for possible senate vote outcome. Once people hear the evidence, any republican voting against impeachment will lose.

The dems are not playing hardball. They could go Nuclear and end the filibuster by a simple majority vote. Ried or Pelosi can simply not bring and bad bill to a vote. That's it. The rethugs did this when they ran things. What nasty secrets or chains of gold have made the leading half the dems such suck ups.

[tc399]

Someone knows something they aren't telling. Obama WAS going to back a filibuster on FISA and suddenly..­.....he voter FOR it instead. That's not right. It's SO not right that I am beginning to wonder whether we actually HAVE two distinct political parties anymore. Maybe they are just fundraising groups for predestined elections.­...I believe the appointment of Dubya in 2000 signaled the end of popular democracy. Now it's not who votes that counts....­it's who counts the votes.

It will either get a LOT better very quickly, or it will get a lot worse. We'll see in November.

[NicholeWebb]

I believe you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

[jayrayspicer]

The Congressional approval rating is a completely bogus statistic. Think about it. 2/3 of Americans hate Bush. 1/3 support him. 2/3 of Americans are mad at Congress for not giving Bush what-for. 1/3 of Americans are mad at Congress for not supporting him. Congress can really never have a high approval rating.

The question that the surveys should ask is "Why do you disapprove of the job Congress is doing?"

[Southmouth]

Mr Borosage, you are right on the money as usual. But why are we not hearing this from HARRY REID?
When Repugnicans were on the majority, they kept cackling that their sick proposals deserved an up-or-down vote and that the democratic fillibusters were an outrage - they even threatened the nuclear option of changing the rules of the senate!
The pattern continues.­..repugnic­ans are attack dogs with no conscience­...and democrats, being right on the issues, are cowards with no political courage.

[sfarnell]

We need stronger leadership. Pelosi and Reid are worthless. Remember when the Republicans threatened the "nuclear option" when they controlled the Senate. The Dems should not only threaten, but do away with the fillibuster for two years and see how Congress' approval rating rises. Let's play hardball.

[BrettnCalgary]

I'm not an American but I do follow your politics, and I do not understand why the filibuster bluff is not called. Why not make them carry out the threat, and just see who can outlast the other? Then, do it again. I do understand there is physical discomfort in the process, but it would surely garner lots of attention, and the spotlight would be on the obstructionists. Just keep doing it until they get the message.

If this filibuster threat was a sure way to stop all legislation, then why hasn't it been used more in the past? What is different now?

[Robed]

According to Borosage:
"Progressives shudder as they watch Democrats hand over a blank check to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae....."
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-

Why should progressives shudder? Progressives created Fannie.

Progressives looted Fannie and stuck us taxpayers with the bill.

[research]

Fanny and Freddie were privatized under pressure from the conservatives.

So typical of conservatives projection to blame others for their sins.

[huzzah]

You mean conservatives looted it?

[nobozos]

Robed --

You stand corrected. The creation of a decent hope for achievement toward home ownership is not, nor ever was, a poor choice for the good of this country or taxpayers in general.

The all pervasive GREED of corporate America, enabled by our lopsided tax system and nearly everyone currently holding national office, at the expense of the general welfare is the problem.

I think it's pretty obvious the greediest, however, usually vote R.

[BachelorJohnnyCool]

Funny, but when the Democrats tried to filibuster or use other blocking maneuvers to prevent votes on some of Bush's appointees, the Republicans cried foul and demanded "up or down votes." Now that the situation is reversed, I don't understand why the Dems don't do the same thing. I know Harry Reid is plenty tough, but he's unable to project that toughness to the public. He tends to exhibit all the ferocity of a docent at a tea cup museum. The Dems need a majority leader who will breathe a little fire once in awhile and make sure the public is made aware of some of the more egregious examples of obstruction.

[donttasemebro]

"I don't understand why the Dems don't do the same thing."
The problem is that Democrats were born with a sense of fair play. Most Republicans don't suffer any such handicap, so they can do whatever they want. They don't even see anything wrong with it. Sigh...

[joebaggadonuts]

Even if you have a sense of fair play, you should read Sun Tsu's Art of War and understand that your enemies don't deserve your fairness and won't give it to you when you need it. fair play is to be reserved for those who treat you similarly. Sort of the obverse of the golden rule. Do unto others as they are doing unto you. Or as the pResident has put it: Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice..... can't get fooled again.

[Mikey5099]

It's about time somebody starts driving this point home...

The Rubber-Stamp Republicans approved every piece of Bush-backed legislation when they were the majority, and now as the minority, are obstructing every piece of Democrat-proposed legislation not backed by Bush--essentially just a different kind of rubber stamp--one that says "Denied."

Yet every political pundit and conservative will gleefully point out that the "do-nothing" Democratic­-controlle­d Congress has even lower ratings than Bush--despite the fact that the Democrats have only been the majority for less than two years ago, and despite the fact that the GOP minority is consistently blocking any real progress. Kind of like McCain repeatedly bleating that the surge has worked, the surge has worked--while failing to acknowledge that the truce with al-Sadr's militia, the rise of the Sunni Awakening and the ethnic cleansing in various neighborhoods being completed--are all contributing factors that have led to a decrease in violence..­.

But then, the TRUTH has never been held in very high regard for the right whenever it reveals itself as inconvenient or damning...

[mlaiuppa]

First, we need a filibuster proof 60.

Then we need to take the Republican Party down. Completely. From K st on we've had nothing but failed economic policies, corruption and obstruction. Time for them to go.

[SaintAlphonso]

I laugh every time I hear a repub gloat that the "Democrati­c-controll­ed Congress" has a lower approval rating than Bush. It is specifically because of the obstructionist repubs in Congress that its approval rating is so low. It is just further proof that repubs care more about their party than their country, as the 2006 mid-term elections clearly stated what the people's wishes were. The repubs didn't care, and they'll pay the price again during these elections.

[texanna]

They have NOT filibustered -- they have THREATENED to filibuster and Reid has caved in. It would be a lot easier for Reid and the Democrats to make it clear that the Republicans have kept things from happening if they had actually had to stand up and filibuster. But, no, Reid just counted noses and threw up his hands. This is exactly why he and his fellow Senators are held in such low esteem by the electorate. As for Ms. Pelosi and her Representatives -- she lost us at "...impeac­hment is off the table.", and it didn't improve after that. The Republicans are largely responsible for the problems with the Congress, but the Dems need to look in the mirror for the rest of it.

[holyhandgrenaid]

If you were Reid and one of these Republican blowhards threatened to talk you to death in a filibuster, you'd cave too. Noone wants to hear one of those windbags talk for several hours straight.

[HepsibahStarbuck]

I don't think all of the windbags have the physical fortitude to filibuster for days. Lets make 'em do it and find out.

[SaintAlphonso]

I laugh every time I hear a repub (synonymous with The Uninformed Masses) try to gloat that the "Democrati­c-controll­ed Congress" has a lower approval rating than Bush. Congress' approval rating is lower *specifically* because of the obstructionist repubs in Congress. It is they who care more about party than the good of the country.

[ItsNeverOver]

Last year, we spent $133 Billion on the Iraq war. If our elected officials had been investing in our economy here at home, we could have paid for: health care for 3,920,9905 people for one year, Head Start for 18,251,681 students for one year; and we could have powered 137,823,834 homes with renewable electricity for one year.

To bring this information home to all Americans, Progressive Future has built an online tool called the Invest in US Calculator. The calculator takes a person's 2007 income before taxes and tells you how much of that person's tax money went to fund the war (average: $235), and how many seconds of war that bought (average: .04 seconds). Then it tells you, with that money, how many days of health coverage that could pay for (average: 25), how many days of Head Start education (average: 12), how many days of heating a home with renewable energy (average: 78), and how many days of veterans' higher education benefits (average: 5) that money could have paid for. Then we are asking users to sign our Invest In US petition, which we plan on taking to Congress, the Platform Committees, and the media to push for new priorities for tax spending: http://progressivefuture.org/invest-in-us-calculator?id4=BLHP

[theyak]

Damn it, make them filibuster. Get every major news organization to cover it. Show the American people just who is resposible for their problems.