1
   

Democrats To Start Without GOP Input

 
 
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 09:35 am
Democrats To Start Without GOP Input
Quick Passage of First Bills Sought

Tuesday, January 2, 2007; A01

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.

The episode illustrates the dilemma facing the new party in power. The Democrats must demonstrate that they can break legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th Congress a civil era in which Democrats and Republicans work together to solve the nation's problems. Yet in attempting to pass laws key to their prospects for winning reelection and expanding their majority, the Democrats may have to resort to some of the same tough tactics Republicans used the past several years.

Democratic leaders say they are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing Democratic bills.

"There is a going to be a tension there," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "My sense is there's going to be a testing period to gauge to what extent the Republicans want to join us in a constructive effort or whether they intend to be disruptive. It's going to be a work in progress."

House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively. They are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats.

Democrats intend to introduce their first bills within hours of taking the oath of office on Thursday. The first legislation will focus on the behavior of lawmakers, banning travel on corporate jets and gifts from lobbyists and requiring lawmakers to attach their names to special spending directives and to certify that such earmarks would not financially benefit the lawmaker or the lawmaker's spouse. That bill is aimed at bringing legislative transparency that Democrats said was lacking under Republican rule.

Democratic leaders said they are not going to allow Republican input into the ethics package and other early legislation, because several of the bills have already been debated and dissected, including the proposal to raise the minimum wage, which passed the House Appropriations Committee in the 109th Congress, said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi.

"We've talked about these things for more than a year," he said. "The members and the public know what we're voting on. So in the first 100 hours, we're going to pass these bills."

But because the details of the Democratic proposals have not been released, some language could be new. Daly said Democrats are still committed to sharing power with the minority down the line. "The test is not the first 100 hours," he said. "The test is the first six months or the first year. We will do what we promised to do."

For clues about how the Democrats will operate, the spotlight is on the House, where the new 16-seat majority will hold absolute power over the way the chamber operates. Most of the early legislative action is expected to stem from the House.

"It's in the nature of the House of Representatives for the majority party to be dominant and control the agenda and limit as much as possible the influence of the minority," said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. "It's almost counter to the essence of the place for the majority and minority to share responsibility for legislation."

In the Senate, by contrast, the Democrats will have less control over business because of their razor-thin 51-to-49-seat margin and because individual senators wield substantial power. Senate Democrats will allow Republicans to make amendments to all their initiatives, starting with the first measure -- ethics and lobbying reform, said Jim Manley, spokesman for the incoming majority leader, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Those same Democrats, who campaigned on a pledge of more openness in government, will kick off the new Congress with a closed meeting of all senators in the Capitol. Manley said the point of the meeting is to figure out ways both parties can work together.

In the House, Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who will chair the Rules Committee, said she intends to bring openness to a committee that used to meet in the middle of the night. In the new Congress, the panel -- which sets the terms of debate on the House floor -- will convene at 10 a.m. before a roomful of reporters.

"It's going to be open," Slaughter said of the process. "Everybody will have an opportunity to participate."

At the same time, she added, the majority would grant Republicans every possible chance to alter legislation once it reaches the floor. "We intend to allow some of their amendments, not all of them," Slaughter said.

For several reasons, House Democrats are assiduously trying to avoid some of the heavy-handed tactics they resented under GOP rule. They say they want to prove to voters they are setting a new tone on Capitol Hill. But they are also convinced that Republicans lost the midterms in part because they were perceived as arrogant and divisive.

"We're going to make an impression one way or the other," said one Democratic leadership aide. "If it's not positive, we'll be out in two years."

House Republicans say their strategy will be to offer alternative bills that would be attractive to the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, with an eye toward fracturing the Democratic coalition. They hope to force some tough votes for Democrats from conservative districts who will soon begin campaigning for 2008 reelection and will have to defend their records.

"We'll capitalize on every opportunity we have," said one GOP leadership aide, adding that Republicans were preparing alternatives to the Democrats' plans to raise the minimum wage, reduce the interest on student loans, and reduce the profits of big oil and energy companies.

Several Blue Dog Democrats said they do not think Republicans can pick up much support from their group.

"If they've got ideas that will make our legislation better, we ought to consider that," said Rep. Allen Boyd Jr. (D-Fla.), leader of the Blue Dogs. "But if their idea is to try to split a group off to gain power, that's what they've been doing for the past six years, and it's all wrong."

To keep her sometimes-fractious coalition together, Pelosi has been distributing the spoils of victory across the ideological spectrum, trying to make sure that no group within the Democratic Party feels alienated.

Blue Dogs picked up some plum committee assignments, with Jim Matheson (Utah) landing a spot on Energy and Commerce and A.B. "Ben" Chandler (Ky.) getting an Appropriations seat. At the same time, members of Black and Hispanic caucuses obtained spots on these panels, as Ciro Rodriguez (Tex.) was given a seat on Appropriations and Artur Davis (Ala.) took the place of Democrat William J. Jefferson (La.) on Ways and Means.

Democrats acknowledge that if they appear too extreme in blocking the opposing party, their party is sure to come under fire from the Republicans, who are already charging they are being left out of the legislative process.

"If you're talking about 100 hours, you're talking about no obstruction whatsoever, no amendments offered other than those approved by the majority," said Rutgers's Baker. "I would like to think after 100 hours are over, the Democrats will adhere to their promise to make the system a little more equitable. But experience tells me it's really going to be casting against type."

"The temptations to rule the roost with an iron hand are very, very strong," he added. "It would take a majority party of uncommon sensitivity and a firm sense of its own agenda to open up the process in any significant degree to minority. But hope springs eternal."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,080 • Replies: 33
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 09:47 am
Re: Democrats To Start Without GOP Input
McGentrix's source wrote:
As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.


Is this supposed to be news?

Does the author suggest that this differs in any significant way from the behavior of the Republicans in 1994? Or at any time since 1994?

Please . . . bait thread, circle-jerk thread.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:00 am
As a reminder...

Quote:
Democrats will not disappoint
We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.
By Nancy Pelosi

WASHINGTON - The morning after the election, I received a powerful reminder of why so many of us choose public service as our life's work. While walking into my office, I ran into a group of schoolchildren who had come to visit the Capitol.

Talking with them reminded me of the solemn responsibility each generation has to the ones that follow. Their enthusiasm and energy spoke more powerfully than any words could that they are inheritors of the future we choose to build today.

This year, voters elected Democratic candidates from every region of America, giving Democrats the majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and entrusting us with a great deal of responsibility for building that future.

With their votes, the American people asked for change. They cast their ballots in favor of a New Direction.

They called for greater integrity in Washington, and Democrats pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.

The American people called for greater civility in how Congress conducts its work, and Democrats pledge to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship, and to act in partnership - not partisanship - with the president and Republicans in Congress.

I met with President Bush at the White House two days after the election, and we both extended the hand of friendship. We recognized that we have our differences, and we will debate them as our Founding Fathers intended, but we will do so in a way that gets results for the American people.

The American people called for greater economic fairness, and we pledge to work for an economy that enables all Americans to participate in the economic success of our country.

Nowhere was the call for a New Direction clearer than in the war in Iraq. The strategy of "stay the course" is not working, has not made our country safer, has not honored our commitment to our troops, and has not brought stability to the region.

The president's acceptance of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation on Wednesday is an encouraging step. It's an opportunity for a fresh start in Iraq, and I hope it's a precursor to a change in policy.

With integrity, civility, and fiscal responsibility as our guide, Democrats intend to move forward with the agenda for change on which we were elected. We will:

• Make America safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

• Make our economy fairer by raising the minimum wage and ending taxpayer subsidies for sending jobs overseas.

• Make college more affordable by cutting the interest rates on student loans.

• Improve healthcare by allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices and promoting stem-cell research.

• Achieve energy independence within 10 years by investing America's energy dollars in the Midwest instead of the Middle East.

• Guarantee a dignified retirement by improving Medicare, protecting Social Security, and making it easier to save for retirement.

These items are not just the Democratic agenda; all of them enjoy broad bipartisan support. Democrats will work with members of both parties to secure their passage, because progress will not be victory for any one party, but for all of the American people.

Democrats do not see our congressional majorities as the end point in a long and hard-fought campaign, but rather the starting point - an opportunity to work on behalf of all Americans.

The American people - many Republican and independent voters among them - entrusted Democrats with their hopes and aspirations for themselves, their families, and their future. We are prepared to lead and ready to govern. We will honor that trust, and we will not disappoint.


Set, if you believe this to be a bait thread, please feel free not to participate.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:03 am
Shocking. "tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans. The noive.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:05 am
Why should i stay out of this thread? At any event, you can't stop me from posting here and pointing out the stupidity of your pout.

To make this a little more clear for the dull-witted--this is business as usual.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:05 am
Setanta wrote:
Why should i stay out of this thread? At any event, you can't stop me from posting here and pointing out the stupidity of your pout.

To make this a little more clear for the dull-witted--this is business as usual.


Sorry, didn't realize you enjoyed circle jerks so.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:10 am
Yes, you did realize that. Now back to the topic -

The Republicans in the House will be given a greater voice once they show a little proof they can handle the responsibility.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:24 am
Hey McG! Happy New Year.

You seem to be thinking that Nancy Pelosi is being hypocritical for saying that she intends to work with the Republicans in congress…yet seems to be marginalizing them.

I suspect that is because you are missing the point.

Pelosi is, in effect, telling the Republicans to help with the legislation the Democrats have planned for this session…by just watching how it is done. She is saying…(correctly so, in my opinion)…"you wanna help???…don't help!!!"

I think the best assistance the Republicans in congress can give to the agenda the Democrats seem to have planned….is to get the hell out of the way so they don't get run over.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:29 am
Happy new year Frank, good to see you are still kicking around.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:38 am
I voted yes.
Quote:
Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures


Any idea which House rules they will use and how those rules came about?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:38 am
Another article of similar stripe as the thread starter. I don't expect the Democrats to be any more bipartisan now than they have ever been and prior to 1994, except for a block of about 30 or so conservative Democrats, they were not bipartisan on much then.

The best we can hope for is that the Democrats were serious about some of the good stuff they have promised. One would be a rule that pork couldn't be tucked into appropriations bills without full disclosure. I'm not holding my breath, however.

Jan 1, 6:42 PM (ET)
Dems Eager to Put Stamp on New CongressBy JIM ABRAMS

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats savoring a return from political wilderness are ready to move quickly this week to take the levers of power in a Congress that has been run by Republicans the last 12 years.

On Thursday, Nancy Pelosi will take the gavel as the first woman speaker in the history of the House, and immediately launch a 100 legislative-hour march to quickly put the Democratic stamp on the new Congress.

Before President Bush arrives on Capitol Hill on Jan. 23 for his State of the Union address, House Democrats intend to update ethics rules, raise the minimum wage, implement 9/11 Commission recommendations, cut subsidies to the oil industry, promote stem cell research and make college educations and prescription drugs more affordable.

"Democrats are prepared to govern and ready to lead," said Pelosi, a Californian.

On the first day back, Democrats plan to change House rules on what members can accept from lobbyists. On the second day they'll vote on other rules changes requiring that new spending or tax cuts be paid for and that pet projects tucked into larger bills be publicly disclosed.

The new Democratic Senate, under Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, will take a parallel if somewhat more leisurely track.

The first week or week-and-a-half of business will be devoted to ethics and lobbying reform that stalled in the last Congress, including a proposal to ban lawmakers from accepting gifts and travel from lobbyists and one making it more difficult for former members who become lobbyists to solicit their former colleagues.

All of this is reminiscent of January 1995, when Republicans kept the House in past midnight on their first day in power after 40 years of Democratic rule. "This will be the busiest day on opening day in congressional history," new Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., boasted at the time.

Like the 100 hours of the Democratic agenda, Gingrich gave the House 100 days to vote on the far-broader Contract with America. In the end, Republicans did achieve some of the goals of that political treatise, such as cutting taxes, reforming welfare and fighting crime. Others, such as product liability bills and constitutional amendments to limit the terms of lawmakers and balance the budget ultimately failed.

Democrats may have more success because they have taken a less ambitious approach, said Sarah Binder, a political scientist at George Washington University and analyst for the liberal-oriented Brookings Institution think tank. They realize that their newfound majority is not so much a demand for liberal policy as a referendum on the Bush administration, she said. "I'm really struck by how pragmatic the new Democratic majority appears to be with such a limited agenda," Binder said.

Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College, said that while some of the Democratic proposals could face a tough sell in the Senate, "what the Democrats have done is quite reasonably recognize that they need some centrist positions that have fairly broad appeal."

Pelosi, like her GOP colleagues a dozen years ago, is also promising a more benevolent majority, saying the new House rules will state plainly that the minority will get a chance to offer amendments, read legislation before it gets voted on and participate in House-Senate negotiations. She is working with new minority leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, on the idea of setting up an independent panel to investigate ethics issues.

In the Senate, where Democrats hold a fragile 51-49 majority, Reid and Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have agreed to open the session with a joint caucus, a gesture aimed at establishing "a new tone" and an attempt to "produce real results next year," said Reid.

It's not clear how long this bipartisan spirit will last. Boehner has already complained that Democrats, in hustling through their 100-hour agenda, are backtracking on their promise of a more open Congress.

And while Bush has given qualified support to the Democratic push for an increase in the minimum wage and applauded their efforts to curtail pet projects or earmarks, a vote to boost federal support of stem cell research could provoke an early showdown with the White House. Similar legislation passed by the GOP-led Congress led to the only veto of the Bush presidency.

Democrats are also certain to hit hard on a new Iraq policy, expected to be announced by Bush in January, that may increase U.S. forces in Iraq.

The House and Senate Armed Services committees, under Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., respectively, are gearing up for hearings at which new Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others will likely face tough questions on the conduct of the war, contracting practices and a soon-to-be-announced request for $100 billion in new money to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070101/D8MCPP500.html
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:42 am
It's right to not hold your breath; not that the Dems don't mean well (I'm sure most of them do) but that things have a way of getting muddied up in Washington before they get done.

Also, Bush has to actually sign bills... it will be interesting to see where the veto pen comes out this year.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:43 am
It is interesting to recall that Pappy Bush, facing a Democrat-controlled Congress, vetoed more bills in a single term than any other President (or so said the media pundits).
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:43 am
FreeDuck wrote:
I voted yes.
Quote:
Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures


Any idea which House rules they will use and how those rules came about?
H.RES. 1102
Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.


Pretty neat rule, I guess.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:47 am
Call me dense, but is that basically a rule that provides for the suspension of the rules? Holy cirularity.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:53 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Call me dense, but is that basically a rule that provides for the suspension of the rules? Holy cirularity.
Yeah, pretty neat rule, I guess. Laughing
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 10:56 am
The GOP and bipartisanship? Remember you're either with Bushie or your with the terrorists. Not only is "God a Republican": Failure to Vote Republican Threatens Divine Retribution! http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/10/1/2007/43372
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 11:49 am
I personally think this decision to sideline the republicans is a mistake that I hope that they change their minds about. All of those bills they hope to pass are popular bills supported by most of the electorate, if republicans attempt to derail it in endless maneuvers then they should consider those rules which suspend rules, but I think the democrats should at least give the republicans a chance to prove themselves. Otherwise we will be no better than we have been accusing the republicans of being.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 12:25 pm
I'd honestly rather we go on and bulldog through those issues that they've held up for so long, first (mimimum wage, stemcell research, altermative energy legislation, student loan interest rates, etc.). Then we can let them "prove themselves".
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jan, 2007 12:27 pm
revel wrote:
I personally think this decision to sideline the republicans is a mistake that I hope that they change their minds about. All of those bills they hope to pass are popular bills supported by most of the electorate, if republicans attempt to derail it in endless maneuvers then they should consider those rules which suspend rules, but I think the democrats should at least give the republicans a chance to prove themselves. Otherwise we will be no better than we have been accusing the republicans of being.


I think there has been ample evidence shown that these are all issues which Republicans would really prefer to vote against, and therefore it won't really be too productive to mire these issues in committtee. I understand that it would prove a political point to have the Republicans be holding up all these bills, but it really would be better to have them actually passed.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Democrats To Start Without GOP Input
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 09:35:45