One of the novel developments in conservative thought during the Obama years is a burgeoning hatred not merely for government but for lawmaking. Before the Obama era, the ends of crafting laws divided the parties, but the means did not. The process of corralling votes, placating hold-outs, and hammering out compromises was not something either side especially loved — you’ve heard the classic line about watching the sausage get made — but also not something that one side disliked more than the other. But a hatred for lawmaking has emerged in the Obama years, first as a Republican tactic, and then as an apparently genuine belief system.
The distrust for lawmaking is the main argument — wait, “argument” is too strong; maybe premise? — of a rare joint op-ed [ http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kill-bill_738781.html?nopager=1 ] by Rich Lowry and William Kristol, editors of the National Review and the Weekly Standard. Lowry and Kristol urge House Republicans to kill immigration reform, because passing it would involve legislating, and legislating is bad.
They don’t put it exactly like that, of course. What they say is that the Senate immigration bill is “a stew of deals, payoffs, waivers, and special-interest breaks.” And, yes, that’s true, in the sense that every piece of major legislation is a stew of deals, payoffs, waivers, and special-interest breaks. The 1964 Civil Rights Act certainly was. So were the Reagan tax cuts. So was the Constitution! It’s a big country with lots of people and organizations with different points of view, and cobbling together major support for any far-reaching change is going to involve some wheeling and dealing.
Now, if there are particular side deals or special interests that so offend Kristol and Lowry, they could recommend that House Republicans demand their removal in return for passing a bill. They don’t recommend that, or even name any particular pay-offs. It is, apparently, the idea of special bargaining that vexes them.
The revolt against legislating has its roots in the Republican campaign to oppose President Obama’s major legislation in his first two years. Attacking the stimulus or health-care reform for their legislative trade-offs was a smart rhetorical tactic for the party. It made sense as a tactic because Republicans really wanted to kill the stimulus, health-care reform, and financial reform entirely. “No bill” was the best potential scenario for them.
What is the Republican strategy on immigration? Lowry and Kristol complain that the Senate bill would reduce illegal immigration “by as little as a third or by half at most.” It is true: even the massive “border surge” and adoption of a worker verification system would not eliminate illegal immigration. I’d say this is because, as advocates of reform have always argued, ending illegal immigration is impossible. Perhaps Lowry and Kristol have in mind alternative reforms that would do more to reduce illegal immigration.
But they don’t propose any such alternative methods, other than insisting that illegal immigration be stopped before opening a path to citizenship (without saying how they could accomplish it). The alternative they propose is to Kill the Bill. But this is a puzzle. The Senate bill might reduce illegal immigration by a third to a half compared with the status quo, but the Kill the Bill plan reduces illegal immigration by zero percent relative to the status quo.
Nor do Lowry and Kristol offer a plausible story as to how a better bill will emerge. They have one hand-waving reference to the 2014 midterm elections, which may give Republicans more Senators, but won’t give them a president. In the long run, the proportion of Latino and Asian-American voters will rise and rise.
A rational legislative strategy would consider the relative benefits of a law to maintaining the status quo, and weigh the possibilities of a better bill emerging over time. But tea-party logic simply regards the existence of compromise as disqualifying. The moral purity of opposition has become untethered from any political or policy objective, and appears to have sprouted into an actual freestanding principle.
It’s not such a strongly held principle that it would survive if and when Republicans regain control of government. Lowry, Kristol, and the entire tea party will surely forget their hatred of side deals when they are needed to pass the next tax cuts. But the hatred for legislating has gained a strong enough hold over the conservative mind as to render them unable to consider the merits of any bill at all.
We ALWAYS said (before Obama and for years and years before that ) .. that republicans do NOT know how to govern ... and that is most certainly true. Here they are again in control of the House and They STILL don't know how to govern! .... Will this ever end? Or are they just perpetually going to be children in their Father's suits? ...
Reid Files Cloture on McCarthy Nomination, Setting Up Likely July 16 Confirmation Vote
By Ari Natter Friday, July 12, 2013
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed a cloture motion July 11 for Gina McCarthy, President Obama's nominee for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, setting up a confirmation vote that probably will occur July 16.
The move by Reid to file cloture on McCarthy as well as six other stalled nominees comes as Reid threatened to move forward with the so-called nuclear option, changing Senate rules to allow nominees to be confirmed with just 51 votes if Republicans try to block the nominations.
In addition to McCarthy, Reid also filed cloture on the nominations of Richard Cordray, Obama's nominee for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; labor secretary nominee Thomas Perez; Fred P. Hochberg to serve a second term as head of the Export-Import Bank; and three members of the National Labor Relations Board.
“We want to break gridlock and make Washington work for America,” Reid said after a closed-door meeting with the Democratic caucus. “The Senate needs to change from a place of constant constant gridlock.”
Reid's announcement came after he took to the Senate floor earlier in the day to complain that Republican obstructionism has been holding up nominees, including McCarthy, who he said was nominated more than four months ago.
“Although she has a proven track record of public service that will help her bring environmentalists and business groups together to tackle the serious environmental challenges facing our nation, her nomination lingers,” Reid said, according to a copy of his prepared remarks.
“Republicans fundamentally oppose the mission of the agency she will lead: to keep the air we breathe and the water we drink safe from dangerous pollution,” Reid said.
The prospects for McCarthy appear to be favorable as Republicans focus more on opposing more controversial nominees, such as Obama recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, who Republicans argue were appointed illegally in 2011.
McConnell: McCarthy Has 60 Votes
Speaking in opposition to the nuclear option on the Senate floor earlier in the day, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the nominations of McCarthy as well as Perez “already have enough votes to clear a 60-vote hurdle.”
McConnell's remarks followed an announcement by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that EPA agreed to a series of measures aimed at addressing transparency concerns from Senate Republicans.
According to Vitter, EPA has agreed to retrain employees and issue guidance on proper record maintenance and use of personal email in conducting agency business following the completion of an audit by the inspector general.
Under the agreement, EPA also has begun the process of obtaining requested scientific information that should allow Senate Republicans to determine “if there is any way of independently re-analyzing the science and benefits claims for a suite of major air regulations,” Vitter said in a statement. EPA also is convening an independent panel of economic experts that will examine how the agency measures economic benefits of regulations and whether it is possible to measure the full benefits of those rulemakings.
Boxer called Vitter's pledge not to filibuster the McCarthy nomination “great news” and said she was “really happy.”
“She should get a huge number of votes,” Boxer told reporters. “Who could be more suited for this job?”
McCarthy was nominated by President Obama for the post of EPA administrator in March and has served as assistant EPA administrator for air and radiation since 2009.
While Reid earlier noted he had the votes necessary to proceed with the nuclear option, he agreed to a request by McConnell to have a joint caucus meeting between Senate Democrats and Republicans the evening of July 15, although he expressed doubt a compromise would be reached.
“If nothing is resolved there, which with the way things have been going today likely it won't be, we'll have a vote sometime early Tuesday morning on these nominees,” Reid said.
Television Ads Back McCarthy
The Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund have launched television ads in multiple states supporting Gina McCarthy's nomination to head the Environmental Protection Agency aimed at Republican senators they believe would be open to supporting the nomination.
Melinda Pierce, public policy director for the Sierra Club, told BNA July 3.
The Environmental Defense Fund has extended an existing advertising campaign in New Hampshire, Maine, and Illinois, according to Keith Gaby, climate communications director for EDF.
The advertisements target Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Susan Collins (Maine), John McCain (Ariz.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), and Rob Portman (Ohio).
----- .. so what of the "three members of the National Labor Relations Board." .. ok, this must be up to date on them all ..
Senate Calls Ceasefire in Nomination Battle
Photo: REUTERS/Jose Luis Magana
By JOSH BOAK and ERIC PIANIN, The Fiscal Times
July 17, 2013
Phew. The latest Senate soap opera over presidential nominees ended with a bunch of floor speeches, votes and back-slapping.
Until Tuesday morning, it looked like another partisan disaster was brewing on Capitol Hill. The Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) appeared ready to resort to desperate measures to get seven nominees by President Obama confirmed, tweaking the rules of the chamber that GOP lawmakers had used to derail the process.
The eventual compromise should manage to get all seven jobs filled, without Reid and his Democratic colleagues having to resort to the “nuclear option” to neuter the power of his GOP rivals by eliminating the filibuster on presidential nominees.
But in the context of the larger partisan warfare over taxes, the budget deficit, Obamacare, and other issues, this agreement is a ceasefire, not a peace treaty.
“The crisis is past—it will be past for a period of time,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told The Fiscal Times. “Now it depends on how we get along, how we address issues and other nominations. Then we’ll see how long it lasts.”
Senate Republicans had threatened to filibuster seven Obama nominees. Their embargo looked unbreakable, since Senate rules require a 60-vote supermajority to stop a filibuster. With Democrats controlling only 54 of the 100 seats in the Senate, Republicans typically can make good on their threats.
Hanging in the balance was the proposed leadership for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Labor Department, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Export-Import Bank.
So Reid put forth the “nuclear option” of changing the rules so that a simple majority of the chamber—just 51 senators—would be needed to end filibusters on executive agency nominees.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) howled about the injustice of that tactic, which he claimed would undermine the deliberative character of the Senate. He also warned that if the Republicans regain control of the Senate next year, they would change plenty of other rules that would make it easier to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and other signature accomplishments of the Obama administration.
A closed three-and-a-half hour session on Monday night provided a dose of group therapy for senators, but not a solution.
“It helped us to exchange views and ideas,” said McCain, an architect of the eventual agreement. “But the key to it was finally we got to the abyss, staring into the abyss” and deciding to pull back.
The agreement will preserve the supermajority rule and guarantee that these vacant slots are filled, but almost nothing else. Part of the deal hinged on Obama ditching two controversial nominees for the NLRB, which the White House did. Here is what the agreement means:
The CFPB Gets a Foothold
The GOP blockade against Richard Cordray as the permanent director of the consumer watchdog lasted 723 days—and then suddenly vaporized without any of the Republicans’ demands to change the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau being met.
It once looked so hopeless that—at the start of last year—Obama named the former Ohio attorney general as the CFPB head in a controversial recess appointment.
When the new congressional session began this year, Cordray again needed Senate approval and faced a Republican gauntlet that was determined to gut the new agency established by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reforms.
[ VIDEO: Harry Reid takes 53s to say the four hour meeting was a joy to all, "everyone got what they wanted." ]
In a February letter, 43 Senate Republicans demanded that the CFPB be funded through congressional appropriations, instead of the Federal Reserve. They also required that the CFPB be led by a bipartisan board, rather than a sole director.
They retreated from those demands on Tuesday, as Cordray cruised toward confirmation with a procedural vote of 71 to 29. By the end of the work day, he received confirmation by a solid 66 to 34. Veteran Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said that Republicans never had a personal problem with Cordray, just the way that he bypassed the Senate.
“Tomorrow there is no longer a question about the legitimacy and future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). “Up until now, for two years, since it has been formed, there has been a battle over whether it really would be fully formed and become a part of the executive branch landscape, defending the rights of Americans against predatory practices.”
Cordray should now have a full five-year term to lead the CFPB—keeping him in the post until 2018 as the agency vets the transparency of mortgages, loans, and other forms of credit.
This allows him to exercise greater autonomy, the kind that enabled the CFPB last year to charge three credit card firms (Capital One, Discover and American Express) with $425 million in customer refunds, in addition to $111.5 million in civil penalties.
Bart Naylor, a former investigator for the Senate Banking Committee and a financial policy analyst for the advocacy group Public Citizen, described himself as “giddy.
“The win is this big: I'm holding my arms out as far as they go--5 feet 11 and two-thirds inches,” Naylor said, adding that he hopes the CFPB continues to be “the hyper energetic teenager it is today.”
The Government Gets To Function
A big consequence of congressional gridlock has been executive branch chaos. Major agencies lack permanent leadership, including such critical entities as Customs and Border Protection.
The deal relieves this dilemma for the EPA, Labor Department, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Export-Import Bank.
The EPA is finalizing major regulations on power plant emissions to address climate change—a contentious decision that Gina McCarthy (Obama’s nominee) will have to manage.
The NLRB is the subject of a legal battle that will reach the Supreme Court over Obama’s method last year of recess appointments to make an end-run around Senate Republicans. The High Court challenge could undermine more than 1,000 rulings issued by the labor board in the past 18 months.
Unless the Senate acts soon, the five-member NLRB will be rendered virtually inoperable, because it would lack the quorum necessary to hear labor and management cases. NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce’s term will expire on August 27, which would leave the board with only two sitting members – one short of the three-member quorum needed to operate.
Not a Good Day for the NLRB Nominees
Tough break for Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, two of the three sitting members of the National Labor Relations Board. As a condition of the agreement with Republicans, the White House agreed to drop them as nominees for the agency that investigates employment and union practices.
The White House announced on Tuesday two alternative nominees: Nancy Schiffer, an AFL-CIO lawyer, and Kent Hirozawa, who is the chief counsel for the NLRB chairman.
As of Tuesday afternoon, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka’s Twitter feed was silent about the switch.
Future Hazy for Next Slate of Presidential Picks
There will be future nomination battles—including one over what is probably the toughest post in the global economy: Federal Reserve chairman.
The Tuesday deal applies to only seven government positions, a point stressed to reporters by Reid and McConnell.
“We still will be dealing with controversial nominees in the way that controversial nominees inevitably produce,” McConnell said.
So Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC) will likely remain in limbo as to whether the Senate will approve him to oversee the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As Obama’s pick to run the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 10-term House Democrat is unlikely to get the 60-vote supermajority.
Judicial nominees also face an uphill battle.
Then there is the question of who inherits Ben Bernanke’s seat at the Fed, an inherently controversial job that will involve the winding down of the QE3 stimulus.
Dan Clifton, head of policy research for the brokerage firm Strategas, told The Fiscal Times that this means any Fed nominee will likely have to clear that 60-vote threshold, unless Reid eyes the nuclear option for a second time.
“I am not sure a floor fight over the Fed nominee is great for financial markets,” Clifton said. “Which begs the question – has Majority Leader Reid quietly created a new precedent with his actions today? Let a new string of nominees build up and threaten to change the rules again to force Republican action? Should be interesting to see.”
No Guarantee of a New Era of Cooperation
Whether the two sides can build on their agreement and find other areas of cooperation or will be back at each other’s throats in six months is hard to gauge.
Democrats and Republicans agreed that the Monday night closed door meeting of all senators in the Old Senate Chamber provided a much needed venue for venting their differences, and pledged to find other ways to hammer out their differences.
McConnell noted that – histrionics aside – the Senate has passed three major bills this year on a bipartisan basis, including a renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, a farm bill and immigration reform. “Put this down as progress in the right direction . . . when we have much tougher issues to deal with down the road,” McConnell said. But it’s no secret that Reid and McConnell despise one another. And if the two parties hope to patch up their many disputes, it will take others such as McCain.
Merkely said he was his hope that the deal over the nominations would serve as a model for future agreements, but that “there is no assurance” of future cooperation and compromises. “The value of [the deal] is that both sides understand that if the process is abused, we will be back to the same place again,” he said.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
