Building the case for a brand new jobs-creation bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says most Americans would not mind inflating the already-gaping deficit in exchange for more jobs.
The California Democrat said on a conference call Tuesday that Americans could “absorb” the hit to the federal budget, and she argued that their biggest complaint is not that the deficit is big — it’s that they’re not seeing any benefit in return for increasing the U.S. debt load.
Despite the $787 billion stimulus package passed in February, unemployment climbed to 10.2 percent in October. While critics cite the jobless rate as a sign that the stimulus has failed, Pelosi argues that the federal government is just not trying hard enough.
“We have to shed any weakness that anybody may have about not wanting to be confrontational on this subject for fear that we’d be labeled not sensitive to the deficit,” Pelosi said, in a recording posted by Think Progress.
“The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they’re not getting anything for it.”
So now they want to do it all over again.
Let's face it, this is shaping up as George W. Bush's best month in years. The last time the 43rd president enjoyed this kind of vindication was when a bedraggled Saddam Hussein was pulled from a hole in the ground by American soldiers in 2003. All of Barack Obama's efforts to cast the Bush administration as an immoral stain on American history have not merely collapsed, but collapsed on the heads of Bush's most public and vocal critics.
Here's a non-stammering Nancy Pelosi talking about Bush last July: "God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States -- a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject."
Don't mind if I do. How about national security? It turns out that support for a criminal investigation of Bush policies yielded an important finding after all: Pelosi's own long-standing agreement with the Bush administration's toughest measures. On that point she's in sync with the rest of the country. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll found that Americans approve of the interrogation methods Bush okayed by a margin of 50% to 46%. In other words, she didn't have to go through the condemnation charade to begin with.
Then there's Iraq. That July interview with Pelosi is quite a goldmine. When faced with a 14% approval rating for Congress, she counters: "Everything I see says this is about ending the war. . . " Well, that's not happening anytime soon. Everything I see says "ending the war" was as phony as Nancy Pelosi's outrage. Hillary Clinton went to Baghdad three weeks ago to reassure the Maliki government that the Obama administration will not abandon Iraq. On top of that, Gen. Ray Odierno said the U.S. might "maintain a presence" in some Iraqi cities beyond the scheduled draw-down date if the Iraqis request it. Did Pelosi mean the other war, in Afghanistan? Obama has done an outstanding job of taking that challenge seriously, and for those keeping score, his pick of Gen. Stanley McChrystal (the man who hunted down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq) has met with the gushing approval of Dick Cheney.
And speaking of Dick Cheney: Not only has he proved to be an important and articulate defender of the Bush administration's national-security policy; his repeated interviews and statements have done Bush the service of drawing fire away from the former president. Bush not only looks wise these days; he looks modest and thoughtful as well. And Cheney's (denied) request to declassify more CIA interrogation memos explodes the myth of the "most secretive administration in American history."
Let us not forget the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility. For years adduced as a monument to the Bush administration's disdain for due process and human rights, Gitmo was slated to be shut down by Barack Obama as a first order of business. Today, the posture without a plan has come up against a bi-partisan roadblock. Thursday, the House denied the Obama administration a requested $80 million to close the facility. The Senate's version of the bill in question contains $50 million for the Pentagon to shutter the place, but the money can only be tapped 30 days after Robert Gates devises a plan to relocate detainees outside the U.S. -- so far France will take one. To top it all off, on Friday Obama announced the revival of Guantanamo military tribunals.
On Iran, the Obama administration is veering from its stance of bottomless "respect" and "perseverance." This week Obama set early October as a "target" to determine whether Iran is really deserving of all that extended goodwill. Additionally, the administration has drawn up benchmarks to gauge Tehran's cooperation in halting their march toward a nuclear weapon. As Robert Kagan put it, "[Obama's] policy toward Iran makes sense, so long as he is ready with a serious Plan B if the negotiating track with Tehran fails." The October non-surprise will be the revelation that Bush wasn't merely neglecting to smile at the mullahs and to ask nicely.
Finally, there's the strange and frankly unsettling image makeover of the Saudi royals. The Bush family's alleged intimacy with an extremist monarchy formed the very backbone of the anti-Bush industry. Yet, upon taking office Barack Obama commented on the bravery of King Abdullah and went on to virtually adopt the Saudi Peace Initiative as American policy. The administration is also seriously considering sending released Guantanamo detainees through the Saudi "jihad rehab" program. A week ago, "60 Minutes" aired a prime-time broadcast praising the same absurdity. The free pass Barack Obama gets on his all-encompassing embrace of Riyadh leaves the score of anti-Bush best sellers and documentaries looking a little less than credible.
President Obama, and the country at large, is finding out that George W. Bush's most controversial policies were not born of ideological delusion, American arrogance, or missionary zeal. They were imperfect but sound (with the exception of our ties to Riyadh) responses to complicated threats. But the validation of the last president runs a very distant second to the most compelling aspect of all this: the drama over CIA interrogations and Guantanamo will hopefully serve to set the administration on a more serious national security course. And it would be helpful if the American public finally dropped moral outrage as the preferred mode of political argumentation.
The Wall Street Journal reported recently that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel recently invited a small number of House Republicans to a White House ‘tea’ of sorts, to encourage their participation in the takeover of America’s Health Care system. Even Democrats can do the math though. Not one Republican vote is required to pass any legislation –no matter how liberal - in the US House. The Senate is very nearly filibuster proof.
So why the real interest in ‘bipartisanship?’ Democrats aren’t just being nice. Democrats are in totally new territory now as they are able to govern without GOP influence or contribution. Total control however, means total responsibility. Democrats love to hold others accountable for undesirable consequences but run like roaches from a light when they have caused the problems. With nearly complete liberal control of government, there isn’t anyone around to blame should something go wrong. The dome light has come on in the liberal limousines; now, Democrats are vulnerable because they are completely responsible for their own disasters and even CNN won’t be able to cover for them.
Most House Democrats seem to reject the idea of bipartisanship. Believing like Hugo Chavez that George W. Bush was in fact the devil and that Dick Cheney should be imprisoned for protecting the US homeland, Democrats are pushing a hard left agenda using the recession as proof of conservatism’s failure. This will only work until their policies bring the inevitable double-digit inflation and interest rates when Stimulus spending begins in 2010. Some of the more insightful lefties on Capitol Hill understand this and also understand they will be held completely accountable.
What happens in 2010 could be doubly entertaining. Liberals have no problem throwing an ally under the bus should that ally lose her usefulness. Nancy Pelosi should be (figuratively speaking of course) seeing the underside of a people-mover fairly soon. She is now a distraction and an embarrassment. Should – as even Barack Obama himself has foreseen- elevated inflation and interest rates occur as the result of Stimulus spending, Democrats will need someone besides themselves (as a group) to hold accountable. Perhaps it will be Barack Obama himself, but more likely it will be an individual like Pelosi, Reid, or Bawney Fwank.
A fratricidal, inner-party war would doom Democrat ambitions to take over the country for good. Accordingly, Democrats believe this must be avoided and the best way to avoid dissention is to bring some gullible Republicans into the mix. Since Arlen Specter sold out, there aren’t any remaining Republicans in the Senate –possibly excepting the two Senators from Maine - foolish enough to fall for this tactic, but there may be some in the House. Being able to say to the public “but he voted for it too” is a childish but proven Democrat tactic for avoiding responsibility at election time.
Democrats are madly fishing about for political cover on several key issues and are seeking bipartisanship to protect their re-election prospects in several areas- including the following Top Ten issues:
10. Health Care – the most talked about policy of recent weeks, the Obama takeover of the US Health Care industry would be handled in the same fashion as the Guantanamo closure or the Auto Industry takeover. Democrats saw how early these issues blew up on them and are seeking some Republican participation. A few GOPers in the pool would help distribute blame. Perhaps the leftists should just roll out Hillary for another round of verbal flogging about health care.
9. Energy – Cap and Trade are sure to drive prices up. Republicans should say to Democrats, go ahead, we’ll figure out a way to repeal it once you all lose the next election. The GOP must stay out of this and keep saying ‘no’ to energy tax increases. Democrats need Republicans on board to blame them when prices for home heating oil exceed consumers’ ability to pay. Lefties should plan to have Obama can journey to Vermont each weekend net winter to help cut firewood.
8. Spending – The Stimulus bill culled out a few Republicans who were hiding in the weeds when Obama proposed his outrageous spending bill. Arlen Specter heard the outrage and quickly defected to the Democrats. Snowe and Collins remain the only two Republicans in DC to support the bill. When Obama and the US Treasury are unable to reasonably borrow this much money, inflation will rise, spurring a significant voter backlash. Inflation will be the Democrat’s middle class tax increase. The GOP must say ‘no’ to more spending and must keep hammering the message about inflation being the Democrats tax increase. Democrats may find it difficult to add Republicans to additional spending bills as conservatives up for re election have begun working hard against the likes of Specter, Dodd and others. On the positive side, Specter has proven himself a superb fund raiser – for Republicans.
7. Education Reform – The abysmal state of public education is crying out for reform – not money. Now that Dems are in complete control, one should expect educational performance to improve. Of course under control of the Teachers Unions, performance will continue to decline. Without GOP approval, school failure and dropout rates will become the Democrat’s albatross. Bipartisanship here only gets the GOP blamed for existing failures. It won’t get ‘em invited to Prom.
1. Courting Radical Regimes – President Obama believes that talking solves problems. Occasionally He is correct. The naïve view that countries will help the US combat terrorism if they liked us more is childish and dangerous. Nations – like people- act in their self interest regardless of what nations they like. Iran and other despotic regimes are counting on Obama to want to talk with them. The longer they talk, the more time they have to build their nuclear arsenal. Talking with the US may also prevent an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In the end, Obama believes the US has been an international bully. The President is quite happy to hand that role over to the Iranians.
Well before Barack Obama brought hope to the White House, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was adamant that something new and different and wonderful had arrived. In 2006, the incoming Speaker pledged that hers would be the "most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history."
At the time, we were skeptical -- to say the least. Our refusal to accept her rhetoric was roundly vindicated last week. That was when Madam-Speaker used every dirty trick at her disposal to coldly ram a 1,500 page global warming bill through the House of Representatives.
The Speaker chose to stifle the usual observances of deliberative democracy because open, honest debate would have attracted unwelcome scrutiny to her massive new energy tax.
Pelosi's legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, would raise the price of hydrocarbon energy sources like coal and oil thought to cause global warming, but which power 85 percent -- 85 percent! -- of the economic production in America.
A large energy tax during a deep recession is a political cyanide pill that 44 of Pelosi's Democratic colleagues refused to swallow. That almost doomed the bill and in fact would have killed it outright Friday night if eight Republicans hadn't voted with the majority of Democrats. (The final vote was 219 to 212.)
Likely there would have been many more Democratic "no" votes if Madame-Speaker and Energy & Commerce chairman Henry Waxman didn't find creative ways to shorten or skip every step of that "How a Bill Becomes a Law" song.
When fighting between the Energy & Commerce and Agriculture committees over the bill grew too intense, the farm lobby was bought off as were a lot of other Democrats. In exchange for votes, Pelosi and Waxman wrote countless paybacks, favors, and concessions into the legislation -- all without serious debate.
Indeed, House leadership crafted much of the ACES Act in secret behind closed doors. In the week before the final vote, it grew by a whopping 600 pages. Even that figure doesn't stress the urgent, secretive nature of the process. At 3:09 Friday morning, Waxman et al. introduced a 309-page "manager's amendment" to the legislation that was set for a vote later in the day.
Representatives would have had all of nine hours to study the text, assuming they went without sleep. The manager's amendment made even that impossible, because you had roughly 1,200 pages of text -- containing, at last count, 397 new government regulations and 1,090 new economic mandates -- followed by over 300 pages of text with no index that amended the previous legislation on paragraph by paragraph basis.
It would take a team of lawyers several days to sort out a mess like that.
We have to hand it to Oregon Republican Greg Waldren for his superb sense of understatement when he said he couldn't "imagine that anyone on this floor has read every word" of the ACES Act. That was the whole point of introducing the legislation under an extremely limited rule and only allowing three hours for debate on something that may take a good bite out of every American's pocketbook.
Pelosi and company had complained, rightly, that Republicans rushed some legislation through Congress. But her approach has been even less open to any kind of dissent than former Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
The "open" Congress that Pelosi promised back in 2006 would have allowed members of the House to voice their ideas about how to improve legislation. Fat chance. House leadership discarded all but one -- that's right, one -- of the 220 amendments submitted by House Republicans on the ACES Act, and allowed next to no time for debate. Georgia's Phil Gingrey complained on the House floor, "The Speaker and the Rules Committee have silenced the opposition."
They certainly tried to. If there's any silver lining to this, it's that congressional Republicans were incensed and unlikely to forget, or shut up about it. John Boehner used his privilege as Minority Leader to insist, over the befuddled objection of Waxman, on going past normal debate time limits and reading large chunks of the 11th hour amendment on the House floor.
And afterward, when Waxman requested unanimous consent to say a few celebratory words about his historic bill's passage, some Republican uttered those two magical words: "I object."
