A Tale of Four Parties: Can the Congressional Parties Keep it Together After CRomnibus?

The most recent appropriations bill passed on December 13, or the “CRomnibus”, as it was dubbed was a real feat of political gymnastics. As the bill’s nickname suggests, the budget bill was passed as a combination of both an “omnibus”, or traditional funding bill, and a “CR” budget measure, which Congress passes in an emergency situation. In this case, the emergency was to avoid yet another government shutdown as a result of a failed budget negotiation.

Unfortunately, this stopgap-type budget work is becoming a bit of a pattern lately. Last October, the budget finally passed by Congress was a CR measure, frantically pushed through in order to keep the government’s doors open after federal employees were furloughed for about 16 days because there was no money. This year, a government furlough, or “leave of absence”, was avoided because the budget was passed before money ran out.

This story is a familiar one for the federal government—Democrats and Republicans just can’t agree on how federal money gets spent. Although embarrassing for Congress, government shutdowns are not new. In fact, from 1981-1996, there were 11 government shutdowns after the House, Senate and White House were unable to decide on a federal budget. President Ronald Reagan’s administrations were especially prone to funding gaps that led to government shutdowns, with 8 separate shutdowns ranging from 1-3 days. President George H. W. Bush had one government shutdown lasting 5 days. President Bill Clinton had two—but one holds the record for longest shutdown at 21 days.

Data from Wikipedia

This time around, the debate was especially interesting because it exposed rifts in both political parties. President Obama himself advocated for the budget and pressed hard to get it passed in order to avoid a shutdown in January. Meanwhile, leadership in both the Senate and House shoehorned the budget through the system with a few interesting riders—a prohibition on the legalization of marijuana in DC, a pay freeze for Joe Biden, and the inclusion of white potatoes on the list of vegetables covered by WIC. The appropriations bill was so loaded with riders, that it became what lawmakers call a “Christmas tree”—a bill with many, often unrelated, amendments.

To make matter more complicated, outspoken outsiders from both parties took offense with the budget proposal, for very different reasons. Senator Ted Cruz, a conservative from Texas, opposed the bill because it did not cut off funding for Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Cruz and Senator Mike Lee both argued that the CRomnibus was unconstitutional because it did not block Obama’s executive order. Cruz attempted to stall votes on the appropriations bill by forcing the Senate to go through procedural votes on Obama’s nominees before voting on the omnibus. His efforts pushed the budget vote back to Sunday morning. The Senate, however, rejected Cruz’ constitutional objections, and a majority—74 Senators—voted against his point of order against Obama’s immigration actions. The Senate’s rebuke may have come, in part, because Cruz shut down the government in 2013 over funding for Obamacare, which some Republicans argue gave the party a political “black eye”.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, who opposed the law because it reverses a key provision in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, championed the liberal argument against the CRomnibus. The 2010 Dodd Frank financial reform legislation was passed to protect Americans from predatory bank practices. The key provision weakened in the CRomnibus was designed to keep banks from making risking investments with federally guaranteed funds—money ultimately backed by taxpayers. Democrats were especially worried that this first attack against Dodd Frank would lead to others—and leaving Americans vulnerable to the same financial shenanigans that led to the recession in 2008. The White House, however, argued that enough of the law was kept intact to protect Americans, and that Democrats should overlook one line of the bill in order to pass the budget.

In the end, party line Democrats and Republicans worked together to pass the budget, while conservatives and liberals campaigned against it. Despite valiant efforts from Cruz and Warren, the budget was passed—but only because of intense campaigning by Obama, Boehner, Reid and Hoyer—a strange bipartisan coalition that was willing to compromise in order to avoid government shutdown. This vote exposed fascinating rifts in both national parties, a sign that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress need to do a bit of soul-searching. Going forward, this vote leaves us with several questions: Are the liberal and conservative factions associated with Warren and Cruz permanent? Are these factions closer to the will of the people than the more traditional party leadership? And as the balance of power in the Senate shifts to Republican control, we will have to see if these rifts widen, or if Democrats and Republicans can keep it together.

Congressional Republicans and the Myth of the "Mandate"

Clinton pin from inequality.org

In 1994, after Republicans gained control in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, then House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich called the night the beginning of the “Republican revolution”. When Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2008, many news outlets, such as Forbes, ran articles claiming the victories were a clear “mandate” from voters.

What is a voter mandate? In an article for The Forum, political scientist Hans Noel discusses both the traditional and more fanciful definitions of a political mandate: “In a narrow sense, winning the election gives you a “mandate.” You are now legally empowered to exercise your authority. But after every election, pundits will declare a more complex “mandate.” They will tell you not simply who won, but what that victory means. The winners won because they promised X and voters wanted Y and were afraid of Z.”

In this sense, elections are declared “voter mandates” by the whims of the media. For example, in 2004, when George Bush won his reelection campaign for the presidency with 50.5% of the popular vote and 286 electoral votes, many media representatives called his victory a clear mandate. A USA Today headline on November 4, 2004, for example, read "Clear Mandate Will Boost Bush's Authority, Reach." When Barack Obama won his reelection in 2012 by higher margins, however, media representatives were reluctant to call his victory a mandate. Obama’s 332 electoral votes and 51.1% of the popular vote were not enough to qualify for a mandate. The NPR website, for example, ran an article on November 7, 2012 with the title “For Obama, Vindication, But Not A Mandate”.

Although Republicans have not used the words “mandate” or “revolution” to describe their victory this year, it was easy to sense the excitement. With control of both the House and the Senate, Republicans can effectively dismantle all of Obama’s legislation, including the Affordable Care Act, while introducing ultra-conservative solutions to national debt and immigration reform. But that would be a mistake—especially if Republicans want to capture the White House in 2016.

Republicans should take a few deep breaths before assuming that their congressional victories mean that the country has taken a sharp right turn in the last few years. Far from it. Despite, handing Republicans the Senate, a majority of voters agree with Democrats on several important issues including raising the minimum wage, softer immigration policy, stricter environmental protections, higher taxes for corporations and the rich, legalizing gay marriage, and improving Obamacare rather than repealing it. Republicans in Congress even have lower approval ratings than Democrats. Exit polls showed that voters were dissatisfied with the Obama administration (59%), but an equal number (60%) were dissatisfied with Republican leadership in Congress.

So what is going on? First of all, voters often vote against the incumbent president’s party during midterm elections. In fact, “There have been only three exceptions in the past 80 years: 1934, 1998 and 2002.” Democrats may have been fighting an up-hill battle against a predictable political pattern. The second explanation is that voters don’t often think beyond their own pocketbook. If the economy is bad, voters are mad.

During Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, his strategist James Carville coined a variation of the phrase: “It’s the economy, stupid.” That mantra seems more true today than ever before. Voters are fed up with the economy—and blame Obama and the Democrats for how they have handled it. Pollster Gary Langer wrote for ABC News: “Seven long years after the economy tanked, 70 percent of voters Tuesday said it’s still in bad shape. Seventy-eight percent said they’re worried about its direction in the year ahead. Only three in 10 said their own economic situation has improved in the last two years.” The still-struggling economy was given top priority this election and the voter’s discontent was taken out on the President’s party.

So despite an obvious electoral victory, Republicans need to be careful. Their top priority should be fixing the economy. Not only boosting a sluggish economy, but also making sure that Americans feel the benefits of economic recovery. If only 30% of voters feel their economic situation has improved in the last two years, Republicans need to find a way to get money into their pockets. And this may mean focusing on a popular liberal policy—raising the minimum wage. Will Republicans decide to sacrifice conservative ideology in order to have a shot at the White House in two years? We’re about to find out.

Is Congress Productive?

Polling indicates that most Americans don’t think so…A poll published on August 3, 2014 by NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist College found that 74%, nearly three-fourths of voters, think that Congress has been somewhat or very unproductive this year. Basically—Americans don’t think Congress does anything. So how do we define productivity as it relates to Congress?

At a fundraiser on August 6^th President Obama said, "This has become the least productive Congress in modern history…And that's by objective measures, just basic activity." So how would President Obama determine whether or not Congress was productive? One definition of productivity is “the effectiveness of productive effort, especially in industry, as measured in terms of the rate of output per unit of input”. Essentially, in legislative terms, how many laws has Congress passed? In a divided Congress, where Republicans in the House block legislation from the Democratic Senate and vice versa, it is difficult for the parties to compromise and find a version of a bill both houses can pass. So can we simply look at the sheer number of bills passed per session as an accurate measure?

If we calculate productivity by volume of legislation, then yes, the 113^th session of Congress has been particularly unproductive, even by historical standards. Total volume of legislation tends to decrease when Republicans and Democrats both control a house of Congress, but the current divided Congress is particularly gridlocked.

Graph from The Fix by Chris Cillizza

What does the Constitution say?

In Article 8 of the Constitution, the duties of Congress are outlined. These myriad responsibilities include: the power to collect taxes, pay off debts, provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, borrow money, regulate commerce with foreign nations, establish immigration guidelines, coin money, punish counterfeiters, establish post offices and roads, promote the progress of science and the useful arts, provide patents, punish crimes committed at sea, declare war, raise and support armies, maintain a navy, make rules for the governing of army and naval forces and “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States”.

That is a pretty comprehensive list of congressional duties. And making laws is just one of them. To be sure, fulfilling many of these duties requires writing legislation, but is Congress required to make new laws?

How do members of Congress use their time?

In fact, most members of Congress spend their time visiting with constituents and raising money for their next election. A PowerPoint presentation given to new congressmen by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) outlines an example daily schedule. First, 4 hours of call time, 1-2 hours of constituent visits, 2 hours of committee meetings, 1 hour of strategic outreach and 1 hour of “recharge time”. This makes for a 10 hour day. New legislation is not necessarily being written during any of this time. Especially for member of the House of Representatives who are up for reelection every two years, the time spent calling may not be an exaggeration. In fact, former Representative Tom Perriello (D-Va.) said that four hours to make fundraising phone calls could be “low-balling the figure so as not to scare the new Members too much.”

Slide from a PowerPoint presentation given by the DCCC to incoming members of Congress.

If members of Congress spend four hours per day raising money for the next election, would voters find that time “productive”? Are fundraising events more productive than establishing immigration guidelines or raising and supporting armies? Doubtful. Although Congress doesn’t necessarily need to pass more laws every year to seem productive, Congress does need to act on issues that matter to voters. The idea of immigration reform, for example, has been tossed around for years, but nothing has been done. But in order for voters to view Congress as productive, decisive action needs to be taken on important issues. Unfortunately, expecting a Democratic Senate and a Republican House to compromise on important issues may just be asking too much.

Beirut to Benghazi: A Timeline of Embassy Attacks

We mourn, but then we must move forward.

The loss of American lives is always a tragedy. When these losses occur overseas, especially in areas of conflict, we get angry and demand answers. Never has this been more true than with the September 2012 attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans dead. Since then, Republicans have been on an obsessive hunt for any information that might place blame for the tragedy on the White House. The response has been overwhelming and just a tad excessive. Both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary John Kerry have been called to testify to Congress. The House of Representatives has conducted more than 13 hearings, written more than 25,000 pages of documents and held more than 50 briefings about the events in Benghazi.

On August 6, 2014, the House Intelligence Committee released yet another report on Benghazi. According to Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the senior Democrat on the intelligence panel, "Our investigation found the intelligence community warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened." Essentially, the events were not a result of malicious intentions—only a tragic misread of the available information. This conclusion matches every previous Congressional report and hearing.

Despite these findings, a House Select Committee created in May 2014 will continue to call hearings to examine evidence from the attacks. Apparently, Republicans think there is more to find. It has been almost two years since the Benghazi tragedy, and yet, Congress continues to spend time and taxpayer money rehashing the same information over and over.

But it wasn’t always this way. Unfortunately, attacks on US embassies are not a new phenomenon. The Global Terrorism Database, a service of the University of Maryland, College Park, has compiled information on over 125,000 terrorist attacks across the world. Their data shows that there have been more than 30 deadly attacks on US embassies and consulates since 1970. The timeline below shows attacks that resulted in at least two casualties. Note that the events in Benghazi technically occurred over two days in September 2012.

Timeline includes attacks on US embassies and consulates since 1970 with at least two casualties.

So how have similar situations been handled by Congress? On April 18, 1983, with President Ronald Reagan in office, a suicide bomber drove a truck into the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The resulting blast killed 63 people, 17 of whom were Americans, including top CIA personnel. This incident is still the most deadly terrorist attack on American diplomatic ground. On October 23, 1983, another bomber drove a truck of explosives into a US Marine compound in Beirut, killing over 240 servicemen. Despite the fact that Congress was controlled by Democrats, the White House was not blamed for the attack. The Democratic Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, ordered a hearing and investigation—just one.

The investigation concluded, finding that “very serious errors in judgment were made”, and the document suggested urgent security measures for President Reagan to implement overseas. Just months after the report was written, in March of 1984, another US embassy was bombed in Beirut. The CIA’s station chief, Bill Buckley, was kidnapped, tortured and murdered. In the wake of this third tragedy in Beirut in eighteen months, Congress didn’t hold any hearings. All of the culpability went to the perpetrators, not our government.

There are a lot of lessons here. First, safety measures can always be improved. In both the Beirut and Benghazi bombings, the intelligence community had intercepted information that could have prevented the attack. Unfortunately, in a dangerous world, those particular threats were not given priority. But time cannot go backwards, and we cannot save the four brave Americans we lost in Libya. We should always adapt and advance our security measures, but we must go on.

In the aftermath of the Beirut attacks, Congress was outraged—at the terrorists—at the people who brutally ended the lives of so many. A thorough investigation followed, and the resulting report identified specific weaknesses in our defense. Our security tactics evolved as a result and Americans were safer. And the episode was over. No subpoenas. No endless hearings and briefings. No political cudgel to hold over the opposition party throughout midterm elections. Instead, there was a resolution.

My advice to Congress is this: We mourn, we investigate, we improve; but then we move forward. We must—otherwise our enemies succeed by keeping us stuck in the past.

Does Rep. Eric Cantor’s loss mean that compromise is dead?

Cooperation is bad for reelection.

On June 10, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Majority Leader (the second-highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives) lost the Republican primary in his district. He lost to David Brat, an Economics professor, who ran an impressive campaign. I had never heard of him, so I decided to look at his website. In one section, titled “ Reforming Washington”, it lists the usual reasons for ousting an incumbent representative—they’ve lost touch with their constituents, they’ve become part of the problem, etc. etc.

Image from David Brat's campaign website.

But then he goes for the jugular—“Cantor’s ‘leadership’ has been characterized by capitulation to the Obama agenda”. The top of the page features a picture of President Obama and Rep. Cantor talking, surrounded by people, presumably after a State of the Union or other Capitol event. At what point did talking to the President of the United States, let alone allowing yourself to be photographed doing so, become equal to a betrayal of the worst kind? Seriously? Heaven forbid coworkers should exchange a few words after a long day. Don’t we want our congressmen and women talking to each other? Being friendly? Getting things done? I certainly do.

In the Cantor/Brat campaign “amnesty” for illegal immigrants became the dirty word. David Brat claimed that Cantor was the biggest Republican supporter of amnesty. This assertion was a reaction to an interview Cantor gave where he said: “I have told the president, there are some things we can work on together…We can work on the border security bill together, we can work on something like the kids. So far, the president has just insisted that it’s all or nothing — my way or the highway. That’s not going to happen.”

Fundamentally, Cantor rejected most of President Obama’s plans for immigration reform. In terms of policy, Cantor stayed within the conservative camp. Instead of attacking Cantor’s policies, Brat was actually villainizing Cantor’s willingness to even consider cooperating with Democrats on immigration. That was Cantor’s “weakness”. Unfortunately, Brat isn’t alone in using this campaign tactic. Republican challengers across the country, for example, have accused incumbents of being “RINO”s or “Republicans in Name Only”, implying that these politicians have abandoned conservative ideals and started working with Democrats.

What is with this compromise-shaming tactic during election campaigns? It needs to stop. Our whole system of government is built on compromise. The Constitution itself reinforces the need for coalitions and cooperation. Our founding fathers were terrified of factions controlling the government. In the Federalist Essay No. 10, James Madison defines a faction thus: “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” In short, a faction is a group with strong opinions that are adverse to (or opposite) the views and rights of the rest of the population. James Madison argued that factions contribute to distrust in public institutions and are a danger to personal liberty.

Madison goes on to argue that there are only two ways to control factions: either remove their causes or control their effects. Removing the causes of factions would be impossible because we can neither deny freedom of thought or opinion nor force citizens to share the same ideas. We are left with only one solution—controlling the effects of factions in government through checks and balances.

The whole reason checks and balances exist between branches of the federal government, and even within the branches themselves, is to prevent one faction from controlling the whole process of legislation. If any big piece of legislation passes, it has to be a result of cooperation between political parties. The Constitution requires Congress to have a majority to pass legislation. Often, even if a party has a majority in House of Representatives, it probably won’t have a majority in the Senate. Each law passed by both houses of Congress then needs to be signed by the President. If one party monopolizes both houses of Congress, a different party may occupy the White House. If an unconstitutional law happens to get through both the legislative and executive branches, the Supreme Court can strike it down. Our Constitution is quite effective at forcing collaboration—and cooperation is necessary in order for the government to work well.

There is a glaring double standard here. As voters, we get mad when a party single-handedly rams legislation through the system without the other party’s support—but then we get mad when our members of Congress compromise with the other party to get things done, as if compromise were a betrayal of principles. Where is the balance? We need our legislators to be friendly with each other. We need them to work together and get things done. Please stop shaming members of Congress every time they dare talk to the person sitting next to them—even if they are from the other political party.