“First 100” votes: Congress’ conflict continues

Political life is often marked by milestones.  A president’s first 100 days are often regarded as a forecast of his ultimate success in office.

This year, the Republicans took control of Congress with solid majorities in both the House and Senate.  During January, they were in charge for one month out of the 24 months in this Congress, and there had been 99 votes in the two houses combined, close enough to the “first 100” milestone.

And these votes may signal how Congress behaves through its term.  They offer little reason to hope for bipartisan compromise.

In its 49 votes, the Senate has dealt almost exclusively with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.  After an initial failure to cut off debate, the bill faced a myriad of amendments.  The Keystone votes provide a good picture of how the Senate is working.

The GOP wants to force approval of the pipeline to run from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, because President Obama has failed to take any action either way.

In the previous Senate, controlled by Democrats, Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked the consideration of amendments to bills.  He feared the GOP would propose amendments to embarrass any Democrat who opposed them in an effort to prevent the bill from being watered down.

Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised he would take a different course and allow amendments, and he has kept much of that promise.  The Democrats could offer amendments and to try to embarrass Republicans, who wanted no changes to the bill.

The Democratic strategy seems not to have worked, suggesting that Reid was wrong in the first place.  Amendments ranged from protecting funding for home heating assistance to mandating that use of Keystone oil reduce dependence on Middle East supplies to requiring only American-made materials in the pipeline.  They were defeated.

Only rarely would a Republican senator break ranks.  On the home heating amendment, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire voted with the Democrats, because of the heavy reliance on home heating oil in their states.

On the final Keystone vote, nine Democrats lined up with the GOP.  Almost all came from states where they could be vulnerable to a GOP challenger.  They would not risk their seats out of loyalty to the president. 

Only in a couple of cases did two senators from the same state and party split – all Democrats.  In states where the senators were from different parties, like Maine (independent Angus King votes with the Democrats) and New Hampshire, senators predictably split on the final vote.

The Democrats’ defection is not unusual.  Their party has a long history of members freely departing from the party position, unlike the far better disciplined GOP.

Does the Keystone XL vote suggest the development of greater bipartisanship?  Probably not, because Democratic support likely resulted from pressures caused Obama’s failure to act more quickly.  And their resistance to amendments shows the GOP is unwilling to compromise when it sees no need.

But Obama still gets the last word.  The Keystone majority lacked the two-thirds vote necessary to override his promised veto.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives, which easily limits debate on bills, churned out 50 votes on several issues.  On Keystone, 28 Democrats joined the Republicans in support, but no Republican defected to the opposition.

The truly symbolic bill so far was to ban federal government funding for abortions, which is already part of the law.  Only three Democrats and one Republican among the 435 representatives, voted against their party.  It’s uncertain if and when this bill will be considered in the Senate.

In bill after bill, a few Democrats might defect, but the Republicans held remarkably firm.  The expectation that new GOP House members, elected from swing or Democratic districts, would be forced to depart from strongly conservative positions has not been realized.  Maine’s two representatives always voted along party lines.

The House GOP, just as it did in the last Congress, continued to pass bills that have no chance of becoming law.  These proposals might not make it through the Senate and almost certainly could not withstand Obama’s veto. 

Instead of trying to prove it can govern by passing compromise bills, the House seems to be determined to continue as the conservative stronghold.  That could sustain continued partisan wars through the 2016 elections.

Bipartisan compromise would depend on some Republicans breaking ranks, but GOP majorities make deals unnecessary and compromise unappealing.  The new Congress’s first month suggests only more of the same partisan conflict.

Partisans mistakenly seek constitutional reform

The American system of government, enshrined in the federal and state constitutions that are two centuries old, is challenged.

 

Is change needed?  Do Americans want a stronger legislature or more powerful executive?

The federal system, with Congress and the president elected separately, is unlike the British parliamentary system where the prime minister is a member of the legislature.

At the time of the American Revolution, King George III shared political power with parliament.  The United States rebelled against the British system.

The Founding Fathers wanted a chief who was not a legislator, yet not one with royal powers.  Congress, which predated the Declaration of Independence, was meant to play a major role.

Because the trusted George Washington was to be in charge, the new Constitution gave the president some real authority but often subject to congressional oversight – the famous checks and balances.

In the years since then, the president has gained powers, often given by Congress or the courts.  Congress is an equal branch, but usually lacking the party discipline characteristic of the parliamentary system.

Newt Gingrich, when he was GOP Speaker of the House in the 1990s, came the closest to changing the system to a parliamentary regime.  He induced his party to accept a unified and disciplined approach with leaders doling out penalties for non-compliance.  That made Congress a stronger negotiating partner with Bill Clinton, a Democratic president.

What has held the Republicans together in recent years is their common conservatism.  Now, political pragmatism is undermining the GOP try for a parliamentary system.

Ever since the Gingrich quasi-parliamentary system was installed, the popularity of Congress has declined.  Strict partisanship has brought fewer and fewer results, though many voters want results more than ideological purity.

The big GOP win in the 2014 congressional elections brought to Washington many Republican representatives elected from districts that would usually be expected to choose Democrats.  To keep their seats in 2016, some newcomers and even some old-timers will need to become more moderate.

Strict discipline is already slipping.  The GOP House leadership wanted to pass a bill, sure to be vetoed and thus only a political gesture, to outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.  But GOP women representatives balked, forcing the leadership to back off in a single day.

It is now possible that the all-but-invisible moderate group in Congress will return.  Composed of Republicans from states that could elect Democrats and Democrats from states that could swing to the GOP, this group might be large enough to force Congress to compromise and deal with President Obama.

All of this may reflect the political will of the electorate and not be caused by any constitutional reform.  The country’s most sacred document is general and flexible enough to accommodate the changing political system.  It could be better, though different definitions of what’s “better” would be sure to arise, but it continues to work as the country evolves.

Meanwhile, Maine Gov. Paul LePage would like to move the state constitution away from a parliamentary influence more toward the federal, presidential system. 

The drafters of the Maine Constitution limited the governor’s power and sought to buttress checks and balances.  Gov. LePage does not like living with constitutional officers – Secretary of State, Treasurer and Attorney General – elected by the Legislature, a system involving real sharing of political power.

Because of his frustration in dealing with an attorney general elected by legislative Democrats, he would prefer either to appoint the occupant of that office, removable like any department head, or have the person popularly elected.  An elected attorney general could produce the same conflicts LePage dislikes.

Over the years, there have been many political party splits between Maine governors and attorneys general.  They found ways to work together and rarely required the governor to hire his own lawyer using taxpayer money.   

LePage is also worried that, if a state chief executive left office early, his or her replacement, now the Senate president, could be of a different party, rejecting the elected governor’s program.  He wants a governor to pick his own lieutenant governor.

In 1959, a Democratic governor, who died after less than a year in office, was replaced by a Republican.  Back then, the governor had a two-year term, so the voters soon chose again.  

If LePage’s worry merits concern, Maine could go back to two-year terms, like New Hampshire and Vermont.  Or it could require a new special election for the rest of the governor’s term.

Still, the current system, nationally or in Maine, really isn’t broken, so why fix it?

U.S. “exceptionalism” requires better focus, symbolism

Recently, a French television program, featuring political humor, called on its viewers to inundate Fox News with emails about its obviously false reports, made since 2006, that there were “no-go zones” in Britain and France, where Muslims controlled.

Thousand of emails flooded Fox, and the station apologized, admitting that such zones do not exist.

Meanwhile, the French government took steps to ban the publication on “racist” commentary, a form of government censorship.

All of this came in the wake of the terrorist killing of French cartoonists, whose drawings of the Prophet Mohammed offended Muslims.

The American government cannot censor Fox News if it makes false reports, and virtually nobody believes it should.  But Fox can and, in this case, did react to pressure from thousands of people in the United States, France and Britain, finally retracting and apologizing for its phony news.

The “no-go zone” story proves a point about the U.S.  When it comes to freedom of expression, probably no country in the world comes close to the broad protection against government power provided in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Of course, there are limits, like “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater,” as the Supreme Court once said.

At home and in many places around the world, people believe in American “exceptionalism” – the special place occupied by the U.S. in the world.  The First Amendment provides support for that belief.

The Obama administration has been criticized, though not by France, for failing to send a high-ranking representative to Paris to march with other world leaders in support of free expression in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.  On the scene, that representative would have had to link arms with hypocrites on free speech issues.

But, because of America’s special role, it should have been in the line of march.  Given America’s special standing, the presence of a U.S. representative would have elevated and emphasized the value of free speech.

While the United States continues to play the leading role in the world, it has lost influence because of a lack of understanding of the symbolism of leadership.

President Obama recognizes that limits exist to American power and that the United States does not always live up to its own values.  His beliefs on these points and his laid-back personal style undermine the symbolic role that gives hope and encouragement to people both in the United States and abroad.

Of course, belief in American exceptionalism can go too far.  Sen. John McCain, Obama’s GOP rival for the White House in 2008, seems to propose U.S. military involvement to resolve conflicts just as soon as they pop up.

That suggests the United States is the world’s policeman, responsible to impose order and democratic government, whenever a repressive regime is challenged by some of its own people.

It is true that, almost alone, the United States has the ability to project its power anywhere in the world on short notice.  The American dollar remains the standard world currency, a sign of its economic strength and reliability.  That makes it a powerful symbol.

But limited finances and incomplete understanding of situations on the ground can lead the United States to attempt more than it can reasonably accomplish.

For example, the American response to Al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack was appropriate.  Going into Afghanistan to punish Al Qaeda, its leadership and Taliban supporters made sense.  But trying to impose a unified, democratic government in Afghanistan, a country with no real history as a nation and with a tradition of warlord rule, led to America’s longest war without a clear result.

Invading Iraq and intervening in Libya may have seemed to some as an appropriate use of American power, but, as in Afghanistan, the U.S. had little sense of where events would lead.

These conclusions do not mean the U.S. should abandon its leadership role in the world.  That’s not desirable or practical.  But in projecting its power, it could better define its objectives, ones that would stand a reasonable chance of success.

Instead of attempting to bring about wholesale change abroad, usually by trying to turn every rebellion into revolution, the U.S. might focus more on fixing problems rather than on complete political reform.

For example, in Syria, by jumping to take sides in a conflict in which it could not project much force, the U.S. lost the ability to bring an early halt to bloodshed and destruction.

Defining American goals better plus a more forceful assertion of our values could be the best ways to reflect the country’s exceptional role.

Don't mix tax cuts into tax reform

Tax reform is in the air.

Republicans now have the opportunity, through their legislative control and governors’ chairs, to propose alternatives to a tax system created in 1986 and patched and amended ever since.

In Washington, the talk about comprehensive tax reform is just that – talk – but some changes are possible.  Most of the focus appears to be on the corporate tax rate.

In theory, the federal tax on corporations is 35 percent, a rate higher than in many other industrialized countries.  In fact, loopholes and special interest features lower the effective rate for large corporations to a more competitive level of 12.6 percent.

One of the key purposes of tax reform is to make rates fairer without raising revenues.  That should mean that if the federal rate is cut, some loopholes ought to be closed.

But, if the objective is to reduce government revenues or boost to corporations, the Republican proposal may be limited to cutting the rate.  That could give rise to a battle between President Obama, who would accept corporate tax changes, and the GOP-dominated Congress.

One other area in the corporate tax system is ripe for change.  Right now, corporations find it attractive to move their headquarters abroad, often more in theory than in terms of actual operations, but allowing them to avoid U.S. taxes.  That could be fixed by law with some bipartisan effort.

The federal “tax extender” law will once again have to be reviewed.  Usually left to the last minute and then not changed, this law contains a raft of tax breaks for various industries.  At this stage, it is difficult to know if Congress, taking advantage of a non-election year, will have the courage to cut some of these loopholes.

Finally, the Republicans can be expected to try to repeal the inheritance tax, which they call the “death tax.”  It is intended to make sure that the wealth of the wealthy, who may have evaded taxes, can finally be taxed.  The GOP is unlikely to succeed.

States often simply duplicate the federal tax system, though at lower rates.  But there is room for reform at the state level.

Maine provides a good example.  Gov. Paul LePage has made proposals that, in key respects, are more closely in line with past Democratic ideas than with his own GOP.  But he goes too far.

Maine’s top income tax rate of 7.95 percent is among the highest in the country.  LePage wants it cut to 5.75 percent, but would really like to see it go away entirely.  The cut makes sense; elimination does not.

The income tax requires those with higher incomes to pay higher rates than others down the income scale.  If it were eliminated, the burden would fall almost entirely on sales and property taxes that hit middle-income people more heavily than the wealthy.

A national study published this week supports the point that wealthier people pay a smaller portion of their income in state and local taxes than the rest of the people.

LePage sees the income tax as outmoded.  But government, even if slashed, costs money.  Roads and bridges urgently need repair.  Eliminating the income tax would make it more difficult to meet basic needs. 

To pay for his income tax reduction, LePage properly proposes sales tax increases.  Maine taxes fewer goods and services than most other states, and the governor would expand the list.  He would also raise the rate to 6.5 percent, keeping it well below rates in other states.

The principal obstacles are the need to limit the impact of the sales tax increase on lower-income people and resistance by businesses whose owners believe that the sales tax will keep customers away.

Yet, there is no evidence that sales taxes stifle sales.  Lawmakers need to ask themselves if they have ever refrained from making a purchase because of the tax.

LePage also wants to eliminate the estate tax, which mainly affects the wealthy.  While the federal inheritance tax should be retained, a good case can be made for ending its state counterpart.  The high income tax rate combined with the estate tax drive people from the state who otherwise could continue to contribute to its economy.

LePage’s proposals are not revenue neutral.  He wants to cut state taxes, so the burden would shift to the property tax and to hospitals, schools and other entities now tax-exempt.  By tying reasonable changes to controversial cuts, LePage endangers his own tax reform.

If the GOP will compromise and stick to real reform, this could be the year for change.