Congress, Government shutdown and Healthcare in USA

There is a possibility that the current budget crisis in the USA will lead to a government shut-down. The Economist has a long piece about it, here (although this may not be available to all). The issue is the Republicans are refusing to sign a new budget for the year ahead with funding for Obamacare. The Democrats are refusing to pay ball and, because both parties control a chamber of Congress, there is gridlock on the issue.

The BBC's Mark Mardell discusses it here.

One of the oddest recent parts of the debate was a 21-hour speech in the Senate by Ted Cruz (R) who was trying to stop a vote. For various technical reasons it was not a filibuster, but is a great example of the genre for G & P students studying Congress for Unit 4C. The highlight (if that's the right word) was the few moments the Senator devoted to reading Dr Seuss's "Green Eggs and Ham".



The BBC has a Q & A about the issue here.

If the issue hasn't been resolved by 1st October, the US government will shut down until a budget is agreed. We'll see what happens.

Tea Party and God

An interesting post here by the BBC's Mark Mardell about the Tea Party Movement and religion; interesting analysis about the movement's relationship with the Christian right. Also, he highlights the problem that the Tea Party doesn't have a centre or much cohesiveness.

Useful stuff for G&P students contemplating the impact of pressure groups or popular movements on political parties.

Marriage and the 14th Amendment

In a previous post I wrote about the overturning of California's Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, by the US District Court. I thought it was interesting to note Schwarzenegger's position in this given that he is socially quite liberal; his name is on the case because he is California's Governor and while he opposes the ban he felt it was an important constitutional issue which needed to be decided in court.

The Democracy in America blog from the Economist has linked to a couple of video clips which show two of the lawyers involved in the overturning of the ban defending their position against the best that the Republican Party can throw at them: Essentially the right to marriage is a fundamental right under the constitution as decided in a number of previous Supreme Court judgements. The 14th Amendment which ensures equal treatment under the law includes the right of all Americans to get married to the person of their choice, irrespective of race or sexual orientation. Fundamental rights are ones which cannot be taken away by the states through laws or through public vote (as happened with Proposition 8):





Interestingly, the Republicans' argument in favour of a ban on gay marriage are shown in both clips to be very weak indeed. The second clip was initially found here.

Obama's popularity, Immigration and the Supreme Court

Surprising for casual observers of US politics is the news that President Obama's approval has fallen to a very low level, which is surely worrying for his administration as they come closer to the mid-terms in November (rating graph courtesy of Gallop):

It is in stark contrast to Obama's success at getting health-care reform bills through Congress earlier in the year, and his success at passing reform of the US banking system.

I think another graph from Gallop is instructive here:

While support from Republicans has remained low, his support among independents has fallen, as has his support among Democrat supporters. Information from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in June unemployment was 9.5% at 14.6m. Further discussion of the US economic situation cane be found here and here. A graph which summarises the key problem is here:

Ultimately Obama is paying the price for a sluggish recovery in the US after a very nasty recession despite all the money which has been spent by his government and others in preventing a depression. Useful stuff for anyone contemplating Presidential power and its limits; people are worried about the price which future generations will have to pay for health-care refom, banking reform and the credit crunch.

Immigration reform is on the agenda; good stuff here from the Economist's Lexington column. Essentially while there should be reform along the lines President Obama proposed in a recent speech, he is playing to the gallery hoping to pick up support in time for the mid-terms.

And on another note, while Supreme Court justice nominee Elena Kagan is being probed by Congress, this piece in the Guardian discusses the hearings process. Very useful for anyone contemplating the Supreme Court and it's hearings process in an essay. To quote the final paragraph of the article:

... Kagan's criticism of the process will yet remain. It was vapid, pointless and did little to illuminate anything about the nominee, while doing a lot to illuminate the already well-known political biases of the Senators doing the questioning.

Tea Party and Social Conservatives

The Democracy in America blog highlights some controversy about social conservatism in the US, with particular reference to libertarian Ron Paul, and to the Tea Party movement.

Essentially like all political groups there are differences of opinion, and abortion in the US is a key area of controvery. Social conservatives are not simply identifiable by their support for pro-life policies, but acceptance of this idea is an important test of whether they will get the following they need. "[While] I wouldn't use the terms interchangeably, I think a staunch pro-life stance makes a candidate eligible for the social conservative vote."

The tea-party movement is pretty fractious, and many of them are pro-life and all the rest of it, but the core principles of the movement are: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. Not exactly the Moral Majority.

Further information about the Tea Party movement can be found here at their web-site.

Republicans and the Tea Party

As noted in a previous post, the Tea Party movement is having an effect on Republican nominees and their policies; they are lurching to the right. Specifically Meg Whitman the billionaire former boss of eBay has become the GOP nominee for the governor's race in California, and the multi-millionaire former boss of HP Carly Fiorina has become the GOP nominee for the California Senate seat.

In addition, the Nevada Republican Senate candidate, Sharron Angle, is the Tea Party movement's favourite, and defeated the moderate candidate to be the challenger for the seat belonging to Harry Reid, the incumbent Democrat and Senate majority leader. As noted in this article here (one which also briefly covers a successful Democrat in Arkansas) the Sharron Angle is the Obama team's favoured Republican candidate too as it will make Harry Reid's chance of keeping his seat higher:

Ms Angle’s controversial policies include privatising Social Security (pensions) and closing the federal departments of energy and education, among others.

.

The key problem, as noted here in the "Democracy in America" blog is that they have moved to the right to avoid being outflanked by other candidates in the race and to get the support from the Tea Party movement types of the Republican party. California is generally a "Blue" state, and is more liberal than most places in the US. It'll be interesting to see how they fare in this year's mid-terms, and particularly whether they can move back to the middle to get the independent voters and at the same time avoid being called a "Republican in Name Only" or RINO.

In other US-related news, Congress is likely yet again not to be able to pass a bill to take action on climate change. Scathing stuff from another post from Democracy in America, especially since over two-thirds of US citizens support action (although they don't want to increase taxes, just spending). In other analysis here, Senator Graham who originally helped write the bill he is now objecting to is now saying that there is not enough provision for further off-shore drilling (of the kind which is spilling thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico).

More significantly for G&P students is the analysis of the Grist article linked to above which says that the Republican party has moved away from anything which smacks of limiting big-business (actually they say it much less kindly than that). In their analysis and in the this article here Senator Graham has been trying to find a way out of supporting the bill, and has finally found it.

Whether the Republican party and the actions of politicians will continue to be driven by the Tea Party movement away from anything resembling the centre ground will be interesting to see, especially in the impact on the mid-terms in November.

It is also a useful illustration of how Congress does (or doesn't) work as a key part of the legislative process. A bi-partisan approach to some of the key issues in American politics today (health-care reform, climate change) is just not possible it would seem.

Obama, banks and Republicans

Fascinating stuff related to President Obama's reform of the banking system; a long but very worthwhile article by New York Magazine about the relationship between Obama, the banks and the Republican party. Paul Krugman in the New York Times has a very much shorter article about the same subject here. The Democracy in America column in the Economist covers both articles here.

In essence, the Obama administration prevented the collapse of the global banking system in 2008-9 by bailing them out to the tune of billions of dollars through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The administration resisted calls for radical change from the left, and have proposed changes which are significant, in that it is designed to prevent a repeat of the 2008 experience, but not revolutionary. This has annoyed large numbers of the American people who are bitter because of massive unemployment and a weak recovery, and has also annoyed the banks who wanted to return to business as usual.

After supporting candidate Obama in the 2008 election to the tune of millions of dollars, they have turned to support the Republicans again, to the tune of millions. To quote Krugman:

So far this year, according to The Washington Post, 63 percent of spending by banks’ corporate PACs has gone to Republicans, up from 53 percent last year. Securities and investment firms, traditionally Democratic-leaning, are now giving more money to Republicans. And oil and gas companies, always Republican-leaning, have gone all out, bestowing 76 percent of their largess on the G.O.P.

These are extraordinary numbers given the normal tendency of corporate money to flow to the party in power. Corporate America, however, really, truly hates the current administration.

This is a problem for the GOP because Obama's reforms will be supported by a large number of Americans because the new law will be seen as punishing the banks for their past misdemeanours. The Republicans have a problem because they are traditionally in favour of big business not being stymied by too much government oversight, and are being tarred as being in the pockets of the big banks.

This is why the party discipline that was so much in evidence on the right over Obamacare, and which narrowly came to bring the administration's momentum to a halt at the end of last year, has wilted under the pressure. Populist movements are "anti-socialist" medicine and anti-bank. The GOP has a problem as the November mid-terms, and the 2012-race approach.

I'll quote the last paragraph of the NY magazine article:

...Wall Street, too, is engaged in some seriously perilous (and mildly deranged) thinking, which reflects not just its political naïveté but its all-distorting insularity from … reality. The populism now stirring in America is bipartisan, ecumenical. No politician of any stripe can afford to ignore it. The Republicans running in 2012 will be contending with or catering to it, too; they’re unlikely to offer Wall Street any safer harbor than Obama has. Yet the best barricade against the pitchfork platoons is an improving economy. And if it comes, not only will Obama stand a good chance of reelection, Wall Street’s amnesia may well kick in—just in time to fall in love all over again.

In Krugman's analysis there is also a problem for the Democrats in November too; populist sentiment against them thanks to health-care reform, balanced against the left's annoyance that a revolutionary change in Wall Street hasn't happened. In his analysis Obama has to occupy the middle ground between Wall Street and populist reformers. Fascinating stuff as the mid-term elections approach.

Useful background for anyone contemplating decline or renewal of parties (both are being buffeted by the populist left and right, which are in fact the "base" of both parties, and this has an effect on the policies of both), party discipline in health-care reform and bank reform votes, and in Presidential power.

Obama and healthcare reform - opinions

There were extraordinary scenes when Obama finally succeeded in getting his health-care reform bill through Congress on 21st March this year, and subsequently signed it into law; a major plank of his domestic agenda had successfully been implemented. The vote itself was interesting; as previously noted, the final vote in the House was 219 to 212 – Republicans voting against along party lines, with 34 Democrats voting against too. In the Senate the previous Christmas Eve the vote went 60-39, with Democrats and Independents voting for and Republicans voting against.

All of which demonstrates very clearly how party discipline is a funny thing – on this issue it is strong for the Republicans, but weak for the Democrats in the House. Possibly, it also shows how divided Americans as a whole are about health-care. This is the major issue which is exciting the Tea Party movement. It may just reflect how worried some Democrats in the House are about their chances in the mid-terms in November.

Useful stuff for any question about Congress, party discipline, Presidential power and the like.

In terms of the points of view, two opinions are striking – that of the Democrats who argue that it is only a thorough reform of the health-care system by government that the poor and uninsured will be covered. For Republicans, health-care reform is too expensive and smacks of socialist government (although the latter is possibly a rather extreme casting of the policy).
A useful summary of the two view points here in the Guardian, which characterises the vote as a “monumental achievement”:

… at its heart the story is about the tension in American society between the individual and the community – whether we are just a loose confederation of individuals who should be left alone to pursue self interest, or something more than that, a community of citizens with mutual ties and obligations.

More about the opinions of the two main parties soon.

Obama and Bank reform

So, Obama has managed to get through his reform of the Banking industry through the Senate, and this bill will go through the reconciliation service following on from a similar, but different, bill passed by the House in December. Ultimately, he has managed a remarkable thing; getting some very radical changes to fundamental parts of American life through Congress in the first few years of his presidency.

Great analysis of the core parts of the bill from Robert Peston here. Interestingly, the Senate vote largely went along party lines, except for 3 Republicans who jumped ship (the vote was 59 to 39). It was close – a vote to decide to end debate and vote on the bill only passed by 60-40. There will be plenty of haggling yet to come, but the most useful part for G&P students will be the points-of-view from the two main sides in the debate – Republicans, largely on the side of the Banks, and the Democrats who claim largely to be on the side of the American public (“main street, not wall street”).

Of course, there is the argument that what benefits the banks, and what give them the ability to make money and grow will benefit the American public in the long-run. Set against that is the problem that these banks have been bailed out to the tune of billions of not trillions of dollars thanks to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which was made necessary by the credit crunch.

Banks have been doing their best to prevent the bill from coming in to being effectively (according to this piece in the left-leaning Observer), and Republicans have been saying that Obama’s plan will severely hit bank’s ability to make money in creative ways because government oversight will limit it. This piece by the Wall Street Journal suggests that it’s all a piece of political theatre by the Democrats to shore up their vote in November’s mid-terms, and not really valuable as an exercise in banking reform. Although, arguably, it’s just another strand in the stop-the-bill movement. The extraordinary right-wing commentator Rush Limbaugh claims here that it will drive business out of the country, and also gives regulatory power to the executive from the legislature.

Essentially, big business = good, big government = bad.

By contrast, Democrat Senator for Montana writes in the left-leaning Huffington Post that the Bill is a win for “main street” against the banks too big to fail. He trumpets the benefits of the Bill, and also reveals that he was against the bailouts of the banks (“because I don’t believe in bailouts”) despite the fact that this action possibly saved the global banking system from collapse.

In short, big government = good, big business=bad.

Elsewhere, the NY Times writes that some on Wall Street are phlegmatic about the whole thing, happy that the reform won’t be too punitive and can be softened, while accepting that some reform was inevitable.
All of which is useful for G&P students when answering a question on the opinions of the two different parties, on Congress and the passage of law, and on the power of the Presidency.

US political parties - ignoring the centre

Recent news that the Tea Party movement has made definite in-roads into the mainstream Republican party with the selection of Rand Paul as the Republican candidate for the Kentucky Senate seat.
Very good analysis of Dr Paul's policies here and an interesting piece about the implications of the Tea Party movement here by the "Democracy in America" blogger in the Economist.

For G&P students this is all useful stuff because it emphasises how political parties are increasingly relying on very vocal groups and excluding the large number of "independent" and moderate voters. The Tea Party movement may have won the primary, but this does not necessarily translate into a win for the Republican party:

Last year's New York state by-election comes to mind. A conservative populist ousted a moderate Republican, and subsequently lost the Republican seat to a Democrat... All this said, it remains likely that the Democrats will take a whacking in November. But an organised and disciplined Republican Party offering a viable set of alternative policies—think 1994's "Contract With America"—would whack them a lot harder. Instead, populist anger has enraged people against Democrats, with few tangible benefits to Republicans so far.

The Tea-party does not have an organisational centre or a clear set of policies, all of which encourage a wide-range of anti-government types to support it, but does not lead to success against a clear set of policies which could be supported by a significant number of independent voters.

There is a very interesting (if very long) analysis of the state of the parties in the New York Review of Books. A couple of things struck me:

The ideological polarization between Republicans and Democrats that surveys pick up is owing almost entirely to the radicalization of those belonging to the shrunken Republican base. (As of 2009, only a quarter of Americans identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest figure since the post-Watergate years.)

Democrats have edged slightly more left on political and economic issues, whereas the views of independents, the largest and fastest-growing group of voters, have not changed much over the years. While well over half of Republicans say that they would like their party to move further to the right, just as many independents wish it was less conservative or would stay where it is.

All of which is useful for any question asking about the importance of political parties in the US - the decline / renewal argument which we can add into the established information.

Republicans and Democrats

US political blog The Daily Beast has posted three very useful pages detailing the top 25 high-profile journalists and bloggers from across the three main parts of the US political spectrum. They're worth going through to help with any essay question which requires political opinion of the topic (that is, all of them).

The Left's list is here, the Right's list is here and the Centrist list is here.

I'm going to have a very quick scamper through the main ones, specifically with a view to finding articles on the course key topics I've taught. What I find won't be exhaustive, or complete, but hopefully may lead to other pages to help your research. Some, like the right-leaning Drudge Report, are well-known on the Internet, but I must admit I found the web-site hard to navigate, so I'll merely link to it here.

Right-leaning places to look & people to read: Andrew Breitbart, Laura Ingraham, the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News
The Right on:

Healthcare Reform: Andrew Breitbart at a Tea Party meeting; this about costs of the reform; this from "Reason" magazine about State-based reforms; the extraordinary Rush Limbaugh

Supreme Court:
This about the SC's decision to overturn the "McCain-Feingold" campaign finance reform bill; this about the forthcoming battle to replace Justice Stevens

President Obama in general:
This from Laura Ingraham about taxes and Obama
This from "Hot Air" about a recent Obama memorandum; Obama is a socialist.

General pages:
The Mission statement of the Tea Party Movement; a very long article about Right-leaning media from the WSJ.

The Left:

Depending on how complex you want to make it, the left can be sub-divided viciously. Key places to look:

The Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The New Republic, New York Times (esp Paul Krugman)

Centrists:
According to a recent poll, 42% of the US electorate consider themselves centrist and not part of the traditional left / right split.

Start with: The Moderate Voice web-site; Andrew Sullivan (Sunday Times etc); Kathleen Parker is a widely-syndicated journalist who has been Conservative, but recently declared herself as an independent; the Christian Science Monitor