Let the games begin!
Pass the popcorn, because the 110th Congress is getting started. Whatever happens, I'm sure it will give bloggers like me more interesting fodder than we've had in a while. So what are everyone's predictions?
I'm a big fan of gridlock, but I'm not at all convinced that we'll see as much of it as conventional wisdom would have us believe. We'll probably get an early indicator of how things are going to shake out during Pelosi's first 100 hours.
I guess that there are two different schools of thought here. On the one hand, Bush's hard-core base has stuck with him through thick and thin, even as the president (along with the GOP congress) has destroyed Republican credibility and lost control of the legislative branch. The least Bush could do in return, it's argued, is wear out the veto pen.
Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Take the minimum wage hike, for example. This is exactly the kind of thing I can see Bush signing as a sop to this whole ridiculous "compassionate conservatism" BS. And why the hell not? It's a popular measure, and the Republicans have squandered any and all fiscal or small-government bona fides that would be necessary to mount an effective campaign against it. Congressional Republicans are already on record as supporting a minimum wage hike if the pot is sweet enough. Objection as a matter of principle is no longer feasible. After all the wide-open profligacy of the past six years, I can't see Bush exercising the second veto of his presidency on a bill to marginally raise the hourly wage of part-time teenagers.
The minimum wage debate is almost entirely symbolic, but it may prove to be an interesting bellwether as to how much gridlock we can actually allow ourselves to expect.
Comments
Bush may have to sign the fiscal reforms, too. He might object to Pay As You Go, because the Republicans are already screaming that it means tax hikes (one of the screamers is Rodney Frelinghuysen, whom I have met and for whom I do not have a high regard). But Bush is on-record VERY recently saying that earmarks should be ended, and that is part of the fiscal legislation.
Posted by: DBK | January 5, 2007 03:55 PM
> Bush may have to sign the fiscal reforms, too.
There are a number of items on Pelosi's agenda that I hope he *does* sign off on, earmarking and lobbying reforms chief among them.
Posted by: BNJ | January 5, 2007 04:11 PM
I'm surprised how everyone hits at W for not being conservative enough. To this day Reagan is still the president to obtain the highest deficit during his presidential tenure (6% of GDP according to Annenburg fact check), then LBJ, then W. In fact, I would argue that NO Republican has ever been "Republican" enough. The only exception would be the Rep. Congress during Clinton's time, and that was mostly oppositional friction to me ('I can say day, you'd say night...tell me it's black when I know that it's white')
Posted by: Rachel | January 7, 2007 08:29 PM
I'm surprised how everyone hits at W for not being conservative enough. To this day Reagan is still the president to obtain the highest deficit during his presidential tenure (6% of GDP according to Annenburg fact check), then LBJ, then W. In fact, I would argue that NO Republican has ever been "Republican" enough. The only exception would be the Rep. Congress during Clinton's time, and that was mostly oppositional friction to me ('I can say day, you'd say night...tell me it's black when I know that it's white')
Posted by: Rachel | January 7, 2007 08:29 PM
"that NO Republican has ever been "Republican" enough. The only exception would be the Rep. Congress during Clinton's time..." (Rachel)
(Rachel)
That is certainly true Rachel...most Republicans haven't been "Conservative enough" for most Conservatives, nor "Libertarian enough" for most Libertarians."
Of course Reagan dealt with a Democratic Congress for most of his two terms (and at least a Democratic House for all of it).
I guess more was expected from G W Bush because of his having a GOP Congress.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the massive Homeland Security build-up domestically were a huge part of the spending increases, but the prescription drug boondoggle (yes, the Dems supported an even more fically irresponsible one) and the NCLB Act were huge expenditures...and he seemed (and still seems) to have a blind-spot on the border issue (yes, again, so do the Dems), but I think the expectations were higher here.
Posted by: JMK | January 8, 2007 07:12 AM
I agree JMK. I just laugh (or look confused) when people talk about the deficit today under W versus it under Reagan. The Debt Clock was ticking away then too and everyone I knew was complaining back then.
Posted by: Rachel | January 8, 2007 01:39 PM
We've had a government that's engaged in deficit spending (the cause of the debt) for a very long time.
Our national debt has increased, but so has our GDP and as a result, our national debt as a percentage of GDP is still managable (appx 66% of GDP with an annual servicng cost of about 5%).
Few industrialized nations have a national debt under 50% of GDP.
England has one at 43% of GDP, Denmark's stands at 37% of GDP, Finland's 39.6% and Australia has the lowest of any industrial nation I've found, at 16.1% of GDP.
On the other hand Sweden and Norway both slightly over 50% of GDP, Switzerland is at 52% of GDP, Germany, Austria and France are all at about 67% of GDP, Canada at 69.6% of GDP, Italy and Israel are both hovering near 100% of GDP and Japan is at 160% of GDP.
Currently our annual debt servicing is relatively low (5% of GDP), but the DEBT (and debt servicing) is not the CAUSE of the national debt, our deficit spending is.
Our current debt level is neither reckless, or irresponsible, nor at all out-of-whack when compared to other industrial nations.
Posted by: JMK | January 9, 2007 05:42 PM