It's Called 'Governing'

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016361.php


IT'S CALLED 'GOVERNING'.... The business of passing major legislation can be messy and frustrating, but this really is how it's supposed to work.

President-elect Barack Obama's economic recovery plan ran into crossfire from his own party in Congress on Thursday, suggesting that quick passage of spending programs and tax cuts could require more time and negotiation than Democrats once hoped.

Senate Democrats complained that major components of his plan were not bold enough and urged more focus on creating jobs and rebuilding the nation's energy infrastructure rather than cutting taxes.

{T}he broad support {Obama} has enjoyed so far for the basic concept is now being tested as the specifics become clearer. While conservatives criticize the high spending, and moderate Democrats express concern about the swelling deficit, liberals are pushing for even more money devoted to social programs, alternative-energy development and road, bridge and school construction.

Harkin and Conrad want to see changes to the infrastructure investments. Kerry wants to alter the employment tax credits. Other Democratic senators expressed other competing concerns to transition team officials.

And that's fine. David Axelrod told the NYT, "Obviously, it's a big answer to a big problem and there are a lot of component parts to it. These folks are not potted plants. They're elected officials, and they're doing their jobs."

Exactly. It's important for policy makers to act as quickly and effectively as possible, but there's nothing wrong with a collaborative process in which an administration and leading lawmakers engage in some back-and-forth. If senators hoped to alter the Obama rescue plan out of pettiness or spite, with some ideological axe to grind, or out of a desire to protect their personal, parochial concerns, this might start to look like a circular firing squad. But as far as I can tell, yesterday's concerns were not only sincere, they were also legitimate. It's called "governing." We're not accustomed to seeing them, but genuine policy debates are not a bad thing, just so long as they remain productive and work towards an improved result.

John Cole had a good item on this, explaining that's it's "healthy" for an administration and lawmakers to "debate actual ideas." Cole added that the minority party might even want to join in: "Maybe the Republicans will pull their heads out of their collective asses and decide that in the wake of the DOW dropping 80,000 points and massive unemployment and five quarters of negative growth there is something more important than capital gains tax cuts, Elian Gonzalez, Terri Schiavo, and the fairness doctrine, and join in the debate and act for once in good faith and with the best interests of the country in mind."

That John, he's such a dreamer.

—Steve Benen

[Captain Hilts]

1. It's one thing to want changes, it's another to publicly challenge a new Dem prez before he takes...

the oath. It stinks. This is the same shit that Dem congressional leaders did to Clinton in '93. They stopped gays in the military and didn't vote for his budget, which passed by ONE vote-Gore's.

Style counts and R's already see us picking on our own.

Did Republican leaders come out and say "I don't work for GWBush"? No. Even those who hated him, like Dick Armey, didn't say that.

That said, I agree with the substance of their concerns, but disagree with the style.

[babylonsister]

2. This is a massive amount of money. I don't blame any senator

for voicing their opinions; that's what they're there for last I heard.

If they were marching in lockstep, that too would be criticized.

[Captain Hilts]

3. We should give our new prez a break for a week or two.

I agree with the criticisms, but not the "I don't work for him" kind of crap that Reid is doing.

In these first few weeks this kind of thing contributes to the image that the Democratic party can't get its act together to govern.

[gblady]

6. I imagine....

they're a bit shell-shocked after being basically ramrodded into
the bailout to "save the country"...only to have half of it
evaporate without a trace.

[phleshdef]

4. I think the media is playing up the concerns for way more than they are worth...

There isn't even a bill on the table yet. And I think we all know that Obama is clearly open to making adjustments and working with people. Thats what he does and what I expect he will do.

I doubt the Obama team is bothered by alternative suggestions and I doubt allies in the Congress and Senate are intending to upset Obama's plans. The media needs drama though and they are pushing this story to seem like its way more drama than it actually is.

[babylonsister]

5. I think you're right. As long as criticisms are valid, I see nothing

wrong with them, and this plan begs for tweaking by those in the know. I heard Obama sent his budget geeks down to the Hill to listen to these concerns. It's all good.