Everyday Politics Blog

OBAMA AND THE COURTS II: THE STATE OF THE UNION CALL-OUT

By Scott Lemieux

I recently wrote about the possibility that Obama, facing a Supreme Court with a majority appointed by the previous Republican regime, might ultimately be embroiled in public conflict with the Court. I did not necessarily it expect to happen this quickly, but at last week's State of the Union Address President Obama expressed disagreement with the Court's recent Citizens United decision:

There is some disagreement about how unusual Obama's actions were. Certainly, there's nothing unusual about a President criticizing a Supreme Court opinion, and nor is it unprecedented for the President to engage in criticism of the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address. Other commentators have argued that the context of modern media -- having the Supreme Court in attendance on a live national television broadcast -- makes Obama's criticism of the Court new (and potentially disturbing.) The appropriateness of Obama's actions is, of course, a question of judgment. What will be more interesting to students of American government is whether or not conflicts with the Court will be a recurring pattern. It will also be interesting to see if Congress takes up Obama's suggestion to pass new campaign finance regulations to at least partially replace the legislation the Court struck down. But it's not surprising that some friction has emerged.

Reconciliation?

By David Watkins    

In his State of the Union address yesterday, Barack Obama said the following: "And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well." This has become all the more true since the election of Republican Scott Brown in a special election to fill out the remainder of Ted Kennedy's term in the Massachusetts. This gives the Republican party the 41st vote necessary to sustain a filibuster in the Senate. The good news, for Obama and the Democrats, is that the Senate already passed a health care reform bill. the bad news is the House hasn't, and many members of the Democratic coalition in the house are unlikely to vote for the Senate's bill. (Prior to Brown's election, the path forward had been for the house to pass its own bill, and go through the reconciliation process to produce a compromise bill. Now, with going back to the Senate no longer a viable option due to a likely Republican filibuster, the House must pass the exact same bill as the Senate to avoid that final step).

If you've been following the news, however, you've probably heard people talk about another option--the house passes the Senate bill, and certain features of the Senate bill objectionable to house members are "fixed" in reconciliation. Reconciliation is the process by which congress "reconciles" (that is, changes, adds, or eliminates) parts of the law in order to conform with the budget. Since a significant portion of the current health care reform legislation has an impact on the budget, this could, in theory, work. Why can't republicans just filibuster the reconciliation changes? Political Scientist Sarah Binder provides the answer in her thorough post on reconciliation:

The Congressional Budget Act limits Senate consideration of reconciliation to 20 hours of debate and to 10 hours of debate on a reconciliation conference report. With a time certain for a vote, that means a minority cannot filibuster the effort to get to a vote. Why did senators create a fast-track for reconciliation in 1974? Chalk this one up to unanticipated consequences. Reconciliation was originally intended as a cleaning up mechanism to make the two congressional budget resolutions consistent with one another. When the Budget Act was revised and the second resolution dropped, reconciliation came to be used more aggressively for securing controversial policy changes.   

Be sure to click through and read the post for more details about the history and details of reconciliation. Is this likely to happen with health care reform? It's very hard to see. It would require, at a minimum, 50 out of 59 Democratic Senators willing to go along with this plan. Why wouldn't they? One reason might not is that they are nervous about setting a precedent--that major legislation can avoid the Senate's 60 vote requirement potentially weakens their power to effect legislation in the future. Some might object because they genuinely value the Senate's unique set of rules. Others might not be willing to go along with the plan because they strongly oppose the changes the House might demand in reconciliation. Whether the Democrats can get 50 votes in the Senate for reconciliation or 218 votes in the house for the Senate bill, will determine whether health care reform succeeds.

As a more general observation, as Scott noted in his most recent post, the current status quo in congress--strong party discipline (especially for the minority party) and polarization, coupled with the routine, everyday use of the filibuster--is not conducive to successful governing. Eventually, it will probably change. That change might come through the routinization of reconciliation, a change to the usage patterns or rules governing the filibuster, or less party polarization and discipline. Until those changes occur, expect Presidents to have an ever harder time enacting their domestic policy agenda.

Philanthropy and American Political Culture

by Laura McKenna

On January 12th, a massive 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti. Most of you watched the devastation on TV or read about the news on the Internet. We saw dead bodies on the street. We heard heart-wrenching tales of children trapped under the rubble crying for help. We saw people lying on stretchers with hacksaw amputations of their limbs.

And we responded. Fueled by social media, including Twitter, people called the Red Cross at 90999 and texted "haiti." To date, the Red Cross was able to bring in $8 million dollars through that effort. Overall, individual Americans donated $150 million in four days. That number marks a record for individual donations responding to a particular crisis, and social media no doubt played a large role in gathering funds.

With the ease of online donation forms and text donations, people are able to give easier than in the past with a checkbook,letter and stamp. Also, traditional donors are able to reach out to their less eager donor friends on Facebook and Twitter and urge them to give. 

While we have set new records for philanthropy, philanthropy is not that unusual for Americans. In fact, giving to others has long been considered a facet of American political culture.

Political culture is a set of widespread beliefs or values that are shared by a community. These values are passed down from parent to child and are taken on by immigrants as they assimilate.

American political culture is often defined as a commitment to individualism, capitalism, and freedom. Some have said that America's political culture is unique or exceptional, due to the common belief in Lockean liberalism among America's founders. Some scholars believe that American's exceptional political culture helps to explain why we have never had a strong Marxist or socialist party in our country. It may also explain why the United States has been so reluctant to establish a national health care system, while European nations have one for years.

Others have pointed to our roots as a Puritan nation and noted how that early religiosity helped shape our nation's history.

Another aspect of American political culture is our historic commitment to philanthropy. Alexis de Tocqueville noted the large number of charitable organizations in our country in the 1820s. According to the National Philanthropic Trust, 86% of American give to various charities and the average annual contribution was $1,620.

In a time where public morale may be at a low point, due to well publicized indiscretions of public figures, a flagging economy, and protracted wars abroad, Americans should take great pride in our willingness to open our pockets to help out a people on an island to our south.