Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 10, 2023

Farm Bill and Debt Limit

 The cynic in me applauds President Biden's tactic of inviting a bipartisan delegation to the White House to discuss the new farm bill.  Why am I cynical?  While negotiations over farm bill provisions got White House attention in the 1960's and 70's, they haven't gotten that much in recent decades.  

But this year the current farm bill is expiring just as the issue of raising the debt limit and cutting spending is at the forefront.  One of the things the House Republicans want to cut is food stamps (SNAP) which is a title in the farm bill.  IIRC if the bill the House passed were actually implemented, USDA would see its spending reduced to 83 percent of current. But farm state Republican senators, which likely includes them all, listen to their farmers so Biden is putting the squeeze on.  In effect he's saying two things: 

  1. you need to help resolve the impasse over debt limit so we can move on to the farm bill, and
  2. you need to oppose the provisions in the House bill to make cuts, particularly in SNAP, in order to get the Democratic votes you will need to pass the farm bill.
Well played, it seems, at least at this moment.

Friday, November 25, 2022

Passing of an Era--1980?

 Currently reading Sen. Leahy's memoir. He entered the Senate in 1974 and was barely re-elected in 1980. It's an easy read, anecdotal and more about persons than policy or procedure.

One point--Reagan's victory in 1980 swept out a bunch of Democratic senators; only Leahy and Gary Hart of the 1974 Watergate class survived in the Senate.  Was this the turning point to partisanship?  He mentions Carter's farewell address, which included a warning against single-interest organizations. I think the reality is that organizations trying to influence Congress have become more and more specialized over the years.  For example, we used to have the "farm lobby", composed of three big national organizations--Farm Bureau, Grange, National Farmers Union. But over time single commodity groups have become more important and more wide-spread.

I've got a couple books in my library queue about the growth of partisan politices; both of which I think go back to the 1990's, but not before.

Tuesday, November 08, 2022

Election Day

 My wife, my cousin and I are all uptight about the results of today's election. Of the three of us I may be the most relaxed.  As I see it, we've survived Nixon, Reagan, and Trump so far, so we can survive a possible Republican control of Congress for 2 years.

What happens in 2024? Who knows. I wouldn't bet on Biden, Harris, or Trump winning the presidency, although I would bet on the Republicans winning the Senate in 2024 (the map really really favors them--so much so Mr. Thiessen in the Post speculates that if the Republicans pick up 4 Senate seats this year, they'll have a good chance at 60 in 2024--that's disastrous). 

But predictions tend to extrapolate the current situation into the future, which may not be true down the road.  People will get tired of Trump, and Trump-like pols.  I've already seen a post at Powerline blog, the most conservative one I follow, hoping Trum isn't the nominee in 2024.  

It's all very interesting. 

Saturday, May 29, 2021

Memories of the Filibuster and House Rules

 Yesterdays failure in the Senate to take up the Jan 6 commission bill has evoked renewed discussion of the filibuster.

My memory of politics in the 1950's and 1960's was that the filibuster became an issue only in connection with a "civil rights bill".  There might have been other uses, but civil rights was the key, meaning the liberals were perpetually frustrated.  That's very unlike today, where the filibuster becomes a factor in most partisan issues. In the 1950's and early 60's the big obstacle to liberal proposals on issues other than civil rights was Rep. Howard Smith and the House Rules Committee. It took years of work by both JFK and, I think, LBJ to change the House rules to get more liberals added tot he committee. 

Back in those days breaking a filibuster required 67 votes, an almost impossible hurdle. But because party ideology was less important, national media in state elections of senators not important at all, LBJ was able to nickel and dime enough members to pass the civil rights bills, one reason why I regard him as a great flawed president.

Tuesday, November 17, 2020

Deadlocked Senate?--a Prediction

 I strongly doubt the Democrats will be able to win two Senate seats in Georgia in January, thereby deadlocking the Senate at 50/50.

But that's not my real prediction.  My real prediction is, if the Senate is deadlocked, it won't stay that way for the next 2 years.  In other words I'm predicting one of the oldtimers in the Senate will die.  I think the odds are with me--there are a few over 80:  including Feinstein, Grassley, Shelby, Inhofe--Sanders and McConnell will become 80 in the time period, and we know McConnell has balance problems.

Monday, August 12, 2019

What Dems Are Stupid About

Politico has this:

THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF IDEAS in this Democratic primary. But there is almost no discussion by the two dozen candidates running for president about how they would get a Republican Senate to pass their policies. (Saying you’d end the filibuster doesn’t count, since presidents don’t control Senate rules.)