Must-read: John Stoehr: Thomas Frank and the Illusion of Presidential Omnipotence

Must-Read: John Stoehr: Thomas Frank and the Illusion of Presidential Omnipotence: “In Listen, Liberal, Frank describes President-elect Barack Obama, as the financial crisis is beginning to unfold, as…

…a ‘living, breathing evidence that our sclerotic system could still function, that we could rise to the challenge, that could change course. It was the perfect opportunity for transformation.’ Yet, Frank says, that transformation didn’t happen. So Obama and the Democrats failed. But what could they have been done differently? While he excels at calling the Democrats to account, Frank falls short in offering policy recommendations, even rough sketches of policy. There are none. Populists don’t take such questions seriously, because such questions assume that knowledge, method, and procedure are more important than believing in the righteousness of the cause. Frank is no exception….

Frank and Sanders are right in one very big way—inequities of wealth, income, and power threaten our lives, livelihoods, and republican democracy. All of us need big bold ideas and the political courage to see them realized. Being right in one very big way is the primary strength of populism. Progressives do the work, but populists are the voices of conscience, the moral scolds, the screaming Jeremiahs. But they are wrong too. The current president has done more with more resistance in the name of progress than any president since nobody knows. Along with flawed-but-good health care reform, financial regulation, and sustainable energy policy, Obama has achieved: gender-equity laws; minimum wage rules for government contractors; a labor relations board that serves labor; and a tax rule barring corporate ‘inversions.’ And he formally ended two wars…

Well, Obama could have pushed the paper on appointments–a head of FHFA willing to use the GSEs as tools of macro policy should that become necessary, and a filled up-Federal Reserve Board to counteract the baneful influence of too-many regional bank presidents who did not understand the situation and would not learn. He could have used bank reliance on TARP money to take equity–and then shut down their lobbying efforts in opposition to Dodd-Frank. Given that Republican obstructionism was very predictable, the right move was to pass a very large Reconciliation package in January 2009: a carbon tax to deal with global warming, Medicare-for-all, a first Recovery Act and the path greased for a second Recovery Act to be passed by a bare majority should it become necessary, plus an infrastructure bank. Then you could bargain back to the cap-and-trade policies you really wanted from a position in which failure to come to the table was much more painful for the Republicans than coming to the negotiating table. There were lots of things that could have been done.

But in some ways what I have just written confirms Stoehr’s overall point: there were things that Obama could have done, or tried to do. But Sanders and Frank appear ignorant of them…

Must-read: Paul Ryan: “To Tea Party: You Are the Problem”

Must-Read: It is very good to see Speaker of the House Paul Ryan call for legislatin’ rather than speechifyin’. Prospects for substantive dialogue are vastly increased when it is legislatin’ that is on the table, as are prospects for win-win technocratic governance.

Now if we could only get him into the policy-consequences-estimatin’ business as well…

Paul Ryan: To Tea Party: You Are the Problem: “My theory of the case is this…

…We win when we have an ideas contest. We lose when we have a personality contest. We can’t fall into the progressives’ trap of acting like angry reactionaries. The Left would love nothing more than for a fragmented conservative movement to stand in a circular firing squad, so the progressives can win by default. This president is struggling to remain relevant in an election year when he’s not on the ballot. He is going to do all he can to elect another progressive by distracting the American people. So he’s going to try to get us talking about guns or some other hot-button issue and not about his failures on ISIS or the economy or national security. He’s going to try to knock us off our game. We have to understand his distractions for what they are. Otherwise, we’re going to have a distraction this week, next week, and the week after that. And that’s going to be the Obama playbook all year long….

And so what I want to say to you today is this: Don’t take the bait. Don’t fight over tactics. And don’t impugn people’s motives. It’s fine if you disagree. And there’s a lot that’s rotten in Washington. There’s no doubt about that. But we can’t let how you vote on an amendment to an appropriations bill define what it means to be a conservative. Because, it’s setting our sights too low. Frankly, that’s letting the president define us. That’s what he wants us to do. That’s defining ourselves as an opposition party, instead of a proposition party.

So we have to be straight with each other, and more importantly, we have to be straight with the American people. We can’t promise that we can repeal Obamacare when a guy with the last name Obama is president. All that does is set us up for failure… and disappointment… and recriminations.

When voices in the conservative movement demand things that they know we can’t achieve with a Democrat in the White House, all that does is depress our base and in turn help Democrats stay in the White House. We can’t do that anymore.


The extremely-sharp Paul Waldman comments:

Yes, the party of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, cares not for ‘personality.’ And look, nobody ‘trapped’ Republicans into ‘acting like angry reactionaries.’ They did that all on their own. But it’s interesting that Ryan cites guns as a distracting hot-button issue that is important only because Barack Obama is forcing conservatives to talk about it against their will…. It’s hard to tell where Ryan draws the line between real issues and distractions, but every time you define an issue as the latter, you’re telling some major Republican constituency to shut its mouth….

Look at all the things Ryan is criticizing here. First: ‘Don’t fight over tactics.’ That’s just about all Republicans have been fighting about for years…. The tea partier and the squish both want to repeal Obamacare; the only difference between them is that the tea partier thinks shutting down the government is an appropriate tactic to make it happen. They both want to reduce the size of government, but the tea partier thinks forcing the United States of America to default on its debts is a good tactic to bring that about. They both want to defund Planned Parenthood; the only difference is whether they think it’s a fight worth having right now.

Ryan also says: ‘we can’t let how you vote on an amendment to an appropriations bill define what it means to be a conservative.’ This, too, is a direct shot at the Tea Party. The argument they’ve made over and over is that things like how you vote on an amendment do indeed define what it means to be a conservative…. Did you vote against Obamacare 50 times, or only 49 times? Did you knuckle under and vote to keep the government open? Have you opposed ‘amnesty’ 100 percent of the time, or only for the last few years? These are the distinctions that have defined the tea party’s conception of conservatism.

And perhaps most shockingly, Ryan says…. ‘When voices in the conservative movement demand things that they know we can’t achieve with a Democrat in the White House, all that does is depress our base and in turn help Democrats stay in the White House.’ This is the very heart of the battle that has consumed the party and fed the rebellion playing out in the presidential race. Republican base voters are fed up with a congressional leadership that told them that if those voters helped take back the House and then the Senate, that they’d stop Barack Obama in his tracks–but then failed to deliver.

Ryan is correctly arguing that it was stupid to make promises that couldn’t possibly be kept, but he’s arguing that it was making the promise that was the problem, while tea partiers and the base still believe it was the not keeping the promise that was the far greater sin. They see Mitch McConnell and Ryan’s predecessor John Boehner as feckless and weak, lacking the courage to stand up to Barack Obama. In their view, McConnell and Boehner are contemptible not because they lied to them about what could be achieved but because they didn’t achieve the impossible.

Near the end of the speech, Ryan gives an implicit critique of his party’s presidential candidates…. ‘We should not follow the Democrats and play identity politics. Let’s talk to people in ways that unite us and that are unique to America’s founding. That’s what I think people are hungry for.’ In case you didn’t notice, the GOP presidential candidates are also playing identity politics right now. The frontrunner for the Republican nomination has proposed banning Muslims from the United States and building a wall across our southern border, called Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers, and questioned one of his opponents’ standing as an American. Another candidate said that no Muslim should be elected president…. Identity politics has been central to Republican campaigns for the White House for the last half-century…. In any case, if you had to come up with two words to describe the current GOP presidential campaign, ‘inspirational’ and ‘inclusive’ would be pretty far down the list. And if Republican primary voters are hungry for national unity, they’ve done a good job of keeping it a secret.

So in this speech, Ryan has essentially repudiated the entire last seven years of Republican politics, up to and including what’s happening right now…

Must-read: Matthew Yglesias: “2015: The Year Congress Started Working Again”

Matthew Yglesias: 2015: The Year Congress Started Working Again: “The story of the 2015 legislating boom…

…is that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan decided to care less about presidential politics…. Making Obama look bad has stopped being a legislative priority…. None of the leading GOP contenders are particularly well-liked by the party’s congressional leaders, so there’s less interest in helping them out…. While competition for political office is zero-sum, actual public policy isn’t…

Must-Read: Stephen Breyer (2010): NLRB v. Canning

Must-Read: Stephen Breyer (2014): NLRB v. Canning: “Ordinarily the President must obtain “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”…

…before appointing an “Office[r] of the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 2. But the Recess Appointments Clause creates an exception. It gives the President alone the power “to fill up all Vacan cies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” Art. II, §2, cl. 3. We here consider three questions about the application of this Clause.

The first concerns the scope of the words “recess of the Senate.” Does that phrase refer only to an inter-session recess (i.e., a break between formal sessions of Congress), or does it also include an intra-session recess, such as a summer recess in the midst of a session? We conclude that the Clause applies to both kinds of recess.
The second question concerns the scope of the words “vacancies that may happen.” Does that phrase refer only to vacancies that first come into existence during a recess, or does it also include vacancies that arise prior to a recess but continue to exist during the recess? We conclude that the Clause applies to both kinds of vacancy.

The third question concerns calculation of the length of a “recess.” The President made the appointments here at issue on January 4, 2012. At that time the Senate was in recess pursuant to a December 17, 2011, resolution providing for a series of brief recesses punctuated by “pro forma session[s],” with “no business… transacted,” every Tuesday and Friday through January 20, 2012. S. J., 112th Cong., 1st Sess., 923 (2011) (hereinafter 2011 S. J.). In calculating the length of a recess are we to ignore the pro forma sessions, thereby treating the series of brief recesses as a single, month-long recess? We conclude that we cannot ignore these pro forma sessions.

Our answer to the third question means that, when the appointments before us took place, the Senate was in the midst of a 3-day recess. Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause. Thus we conclude that the President lacked the power to make the recess appointments here at issue…

An intersession recess on January 3, 2016, no? Seems to me that there should be some hard bargaining going on right now between Obama and McConnell on getting appointments done under threat of inter-session recess appointments at noon next January 3. For example, Obama should be offering McConnell a Romer-Clarida deal on Fed Governors, under threat of inter-session recess Romer-Gagnon…

Must-Read: Greg Sargent: Freedom Frauds

Must-Read: Greg Sargent: Freedom Frauds: “David Brooks is getting a lot of positive attention today for this column…

…in which he dissolves into despair and anxiety over what has become of today’s ‘radical’ and ‘ungovernable’ Republican Party…. All of this is well and good as far as it goes. But I think it neglects one of the most plausible explanations for what’s happening: A lot of what we’re seeing today may not be the result of the radicalized faction’s ‘incompetence,’ but rather the result of its fraudulence and hucksterism…. It isn’t that [the Tea Party are] too incompetent to realize that these [shutdown-threatening] tactics [will] fail. Rather… they [keep] alive the charade for far too long that these tactics would ultimately force Democrats to surrender… not… frauds… getting… to continue telling the story they want to tell.