Gerson: Beware of Radical Democrats!

Gerson:

Following an electoral victory, Obama is likely to face a massive challenge: The least responsible, least respected, least popular political institution in America -- the Democratic-led Congress -- would also be the most emboldened. Democratic leaders with large majorities would be pushed by conviction and hubris, and pressured by Democratic constituencies, toward divisive measures that punish and alienate businesses, seek backward-looking political vengeance and impose cultural liberalism. This predictable story of overreach, backlash and bitterness easily could destroy Obama's presidency, even before his first achievements -- unless he can suddenly find the ability to shape, tame, even fight, the self-destructive tendencies of his own party.

We're talking about a Democratic Party that's still afraid of its own shadow. If the Dems wake up two weeks from now with a dozen new Democratic Senators, and 40 new Dems in the House, they'd still not have the instinct for boldness; they'd still be worried about moving too far, too fast, and offending the voters that elected them, or the pundit class, or someone.

There's no Lyndon Johnson here, ready to arm-twist extensive legislation through the Senate. There's only Harry Reid. There's no lefty equivalent of Newt Gingrich in the House, only Nancy Pelosi - constrained by Steny Hoyer (D-K Street) and his Blue Dogs.

If we were to see the total collapse of the GOP as we know it in the next few years, it would still take five years afterwards for the Dems to realize they had a clear field ahead of them, and get up the gumption to pass the sorts of programs they'd like.

Lay off the hallucinogens, Mike. For your own good.

My Email to Steny Hoyer

Yep, Steny's my Congresscritter. I sent him this email this morning:

Dear Rep. Hoyer,
The EESA has failed. Time to forget bipartisanship, and pass a strictly Democratic alternative.

If you try to compromise with the GOP, all you get is a bad bill (like the EESA in its present form) that will spend hundreds of billions, but may not actually fix the problem. (How WAS it supposed to work, anyway?) And they may not vote for it anyway, as you found out Monday.

Not to mention, the American people will see it as a bailout for Wall Street, but not a bailout for THEM.

So get the Dem caucus together, and see if everyone can agree on a bill that (a) will work, in the sense of keeping credit from freezing up, and (b) helps the American people directly as well.

Bush can't veto a bill like that, because he says we need a bailout NOW. A veto would make a liar of him. And I bet this is one time when the Senate Republicans don't dare filibuster. So a strictly Dem bailout bill can be enacted. You've got the leverage - USE it!

a) A bill that would work: the 'Swedish plan.' They faced a similar situation in 1992, and it worked. Ask Brad DeLong or Paul Krugman or a host of other economists for details.

b) Helping the American people: extended unemployment benefits, expanded food stamps, spending on infrastructure, maybe even include the SCHIP expansion.

Then pay for it all with a tax on the super-rich - e.g. a 45% bracket on incomes above $10 million.

Think you and your fellow Congresscritters can sell that to the American people? It should be a much easier sell than the current EESA. And I can't see why any actual Dems would be against it. This should be doable. So do it!

Cheers,
[low-tech cyclist]

Just putting in my 2¢ worth. I've sent variations on this to Sens. Cardin and Mikulski.

Yeah, I know - I'm bailout-obsessed. But right now, it seems more important than dissecting WaPo op-eds.

No Bailout, For Now

It looks like there may not be a bailout until after the election:

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) just told The Post's Paul Kane there will be no more votes today on the $700 billion Wall Street bailout rejected earlier this afternoon by the House.

The members have left the House and headed to the airports for a scheduled recess. Boehner said he had no idea when there could be a new vote.

The House is now supposed to be adjourned until at least after the elections.

It's hard to bring the Congresscritters back, once they're gone.

Roll call tally here.

Today's Broder: Celebrating a Molehill, Missing the Obvious

Let's just quote Broder's introductory grafs:

If you were to ask Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd -- the principal architects of the massive housing bill signed yesterday by President Bush -- which of its many features pleases them most, the answer would surprise you.

It is not the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the embattled mortgage giants, or the aid the bill provides for thousands of homeowners struggling to afford their subprime loans in a faltering real estate market.

Instead, it is the section creating the National Housing Trust Fund, a creative way of meeting the chronic shortage of affordable low-income rental units -- a huge problem in cities and rural areas across the country.

Broder goes on to laud this modest achievement, one that raises far more questions than it answers. Let me list some of them.

1. Isn't averting a major financial meltdown that could lead to a potentially deep recession, throwing millions out of work for years, more important than this modest program?

I don't know that that's what the Fannie/Freddie bailout does, but if that isn't the potential downside of inaction, presumably we wouldn't be bailing them out at all.

2. I'm not Mr. Free-Market Booster, but isn't the best way to make housing more affordable to remove restrictions in the way of building more housing where people want to live?

As people like Matt Yglesias and Ryan Avent regularly mention, there could be a lot more housing in most cities other than NYC if zoning restrictions blocking or throwing barriers (e.g. parking requirements) in the way of higher-density housing were to be repealed. This would bring down urban housing costs, by increasing the ratio of supply to demand. This would also make our urban areas more compact, saving on transportation costs and reducing our carbon footprint - which also need doing. Why not just condition Federal transit aid on easing such restrictions?

3. This program would be funded through a guaranteed income stream via a tax on Fannie and Freddie's mortgage lending profits. That's nice for this program, but why does this program get a dedicated funding stream when so many worthwhile programs don't? Is there any rhyme or reason to which programs do or don't have dedicated funding?

And finally:

4. Broder titles his column, "When Congress Works," noting that "the bill had to survive several cloture votes and the threat of a presidential veto, later withdrawn." Seems there's a lesson in here about why Congress doesn't work most of the time. Like, say, the GOP's willingness to filibuster anything remotely important.

During the 2001-06 period, I don't recall a lot of talk about how the GOP needed 60 votes to pass most legislation - because they didn't. The Dems blocked cloture on a number of high-profile bills (e.g. estate tax repeal), but never turned 60 votes into anything resembling an iron rule.

But the GOP has pretty much done that, now that the Dems are in the majority. You think Broder might abandon his faux-evenhandedness of "both parties do it" and note the disparity in the extent to which they do it? Will elephants flap their ears and learn to fly?

It would be good if Congress routinely worked, and blocking cloture was a tool employed only to block the majority party's more egregious legislation. But if people aren't tuned in to why Congress usually doesn't work, because the people they rely on to explain this stuff to them don't bother doing so, then people won't know how to get Congress to work more often than it does.