The new congress, what to watch for

[Gob]

a guide for us foreigners, from Aunty.

112th US Congress is being sworn in in Washington, two months after mid-term elections which saw President Obama's Democratic Party suffer heavy losses at the hands of the Republicans. Republicans now control the House of Representatives for the first time in more than four years, while the Democrats have only a slim lead in the Senate.

Congressional sessions are rarely predictable - in January 2009, few anticipated that the Democrats, with significant majorities in both houses and a president with favourability ratings in the 70s, would have such a challenging time getting legislation passed.

We do know one thing though: Republicans will be focused on the budget, taxes and spending - and the stage is set for an ideological battle. Here are a few tips on what to watch for.

The man to watch: Darrell Issa

Mr Issa is poised to become one of the most powerful players on Capitol Hill

Darrell Issa's face is one Americans should get accustomed to seeing in 2011. The conservative Californian millionaire, who made his fortune selling car alarms, will assume the chairmanship of the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

What does that mean? Mostly, that he has the power to run probing investigations into almost anything the Obama administration does, and to call senior administration officials to testify before him.

Republicans used this committee to great effect during the Clinton administration, issuing more than 1,500 subpoenas in their investigations of alleged Democratic misconduct.

Mr Issa's tenure promises to be just as active. "I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks," he told news website Politico. He's already called the Obama administration "one of the most corrupt".

A list of his targets in his first three months has already surfaced - Wikileaks, corruption in Afghanistan, the financial crisis and links between government regulation and job creation are included. He is also soliciting ideas from big business about what he should investigate.

The investigations are bound to be high profile and broad-ranging, forcing key Obama administration officials to play defence.

It's unclear whether he will uncover anything that damages the White House, but having Mr Issa consume time and news cycles will no doubt be frustrating for the Obama administration.

The big assault: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The two big mortgage backers will come under the microscope in 2011

These names are barely known outside the US, but in conservative circles here - particularly in the Tea Party movement - they are synonymous with the financial crisis. Like the financial crisis itself, their role is complex.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government-backed institutions which purchase mortgages in the secondary mortgage market (that is, from lenders like banks), which they then either hold or securitize.

Prompted by the policy priorities of the Clinton administration, Fannie and Freddie began to expand their acquisition of loans in low income areas. This policy of increasing America's home ownership rates continued through the Bush administration.

Then the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit, fuelled in part by people who could not afford their mortgages.

Mr Issa plans to investigate the two mortgage giants. Many Republicans want to see government support for them withdrawn entirely, forcing their collapse.

Politically, attacking Fannie and Freddie will help sate the angry conservative base, which will continue to use them as examples of the folly of government intervention.

Get used to hearing these names.

The headline-grabbing fizzer: healthcare repeal

The White House fought hard for healthcare reform, and will fight harder to keep it

Republicans across the country made repealing "Obamacare" a central part of their mid-term election platform. This week they intend to deliver.

Unfortunately for them, success will probably be elusive. Although they have the numbers to repeal the legislation in the House - where the first vote will take place - they are still in the minority in the Senate.

It is unclear whether a repeal bill would make it to the Senate floor, and even then, Democrats seem poised to hold firm in their support of it.

Even those who were skittish about initially supporting the bill will find it very difficult to oppose it this time around, especially as its popularity with the Democratic base grows.

But even if the Senate voted for repeal, Mr Obama would veto it.

In short, the repeal is theatre - the repeal bill even refers to the healthcare reform as the "job-killing" bill.

For Republicans, though, it's important theatre, showing that they are following through on promises.

They will probably later attempt to repeal segments of the bill or to deny it necessary funding. Both endeavours have dubious prospects of success.

Also, whether Republicans are prepared to lose more time battling over healthcare is not a certainty, especially when most Americans want government to focus on the economy and job creation.

The question mark: the Tea Party

The Tea Party movement is hard to define, making it an unpredictable political force

After bursting onto the political scene in 2009, Tea Party backed candidates won numerous seats in the house and several in the Senate in the mid-term elections.

It is already clear that they will have at least a symbolic impact on congressional Republicans. The vote on repealing healthcare reform, the reading of the Constitution aloud in Congress and a requirement that each new bill cite the constitutional provision that would allow it to be enacted are early signs of the Tea Party's influence.

But will it be able to meaningfully shape policy or will it be co-opted by the party's powerbrokers? Do members of the nascent Tea Party caucus even agree with each other? Will it force Republicans further to the right, focusing on issues that alienate mainstream conservatives?

This is the new movement's first taste of Washington power. Watching what it does with it could be fascinating. But it could just as easily peter out, melting into DC's overcrowded stage.

The thing making Democrats nervous: 2012

Senate Democrats had a rough time in the mid-terms, losing six seats and failing to win any that had looked like easy pick-ups in 2009. And all that happened with 19 mostly safe Democratic seats up for re-election.

The 2012 landscape looks very different - and deeply troubling - for Senate Democrats. They have 23 sitting senators, many of whom are vulnerable, up for re-election, as well as three sometimes sympathetic Republicans - Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown and Richard Lugar.

The possibility of another blood-letting will shape the Democratic caucus in interesting and pivotal ways.

Some Democrats - particularly those in vulnerable seats such as Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Jim Webb in Virginia, Jon Tester in Montana, Ben Nelson in Nebraska and Bill Nelson in Florida - may push for a centrist tack, reflecting the anti-Washington mood of the country.

Others, like Sherrod Brown in Ohio, might be hoping for Democratic legislative wins to fire up their base.

Almost all of these incumbents will hope that the president's massive fundraising and voter turnout apparatus is used in their favour come November 2012, and will be thus disinclined to stand up to the White House.

These competing interests pull Senate Democrats in different ways, and may end up making for a very cautious caucus. Regardless, those 23 nervous Democrats will spend most of this term with their eyes on 2012, and will be an important influence.

The word to know: Filibuster

Democrats saw many of their legislative hopes in 2010 thwarted by the filibuster, a procedural tactic that essentially prevents the Senate from voting on legislation until 60 out of 100 senators have agreed to allow the vote.

Republicans became masters of the filibuster in the last session, basically ensuring that every significant bill needed 60 votes to pass.

The filibuster has raised the ire of majority parties for years. Its rules have been relaxed over time, and now Democrats are seriously considering attempting to alter them again to make passing bills easier.

The general public is rarely interested in such arcane procedural discussions, but filibuster reform will provoke a feisty debate in Washington circles and could significantly alter the delicate power balance on Capitol Hill.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12116209

[dgs49]

One additional point. The filibuster rule can be changed by a simple majority, but only on the "first day" of a legislative session. Thus, the Dems could theoretically create a rule that filibusters could be defeated by a simple majority vote, rather than the current 60 votes.

Perversely, the PPT (Harry Reid) can extend the "first day" by closing each session with a recess rather than an adjournment, until he has the votes to change the rule.

Dems are being cautious, however, anticipating the very real possibility that they will be in the minority come 2013.

Regardless, the practice of secret holds on legislation must be ended.

[Gob]

This whole "filibuster" thing seems to reduce your politics to a meaninglessness, why not just get rid of it entirely.

[liberty]

What is this I hear about communists in the Democrat party being opposed to the reading of Constitution in the House of representative? What in the hell is wrong with that?

[Big RR]

While congress can convene and chose to read whatever the body chooses to, is there a point to this? Listening to a document as long as complex as the Constitution be read aloud seems to have very little value in and of itself. About as useful as reading a scientific textbook aloud.

[dgs49]

The Constitution is not all that long or complex. A diligent reader could do it in an hour.

The symbolic point is that these assholes take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, then they pass law after law that contradicts it, figuring the federal courts will sort it out.

Every hour that Congress wastes is another hour when they are not picking our pockets.

[Lord Jim]

BTW, in the interest of fairness, it should be pointed that most of the Democrats, (including Nancy Pelosi) were involved in this.

And I can sure think of a lot worse things that Congress could spend it's time doing....

[Big RR]

The Constitution is not all that long or complex. A diligent reader could do it in an hour.

The symbolic point is that these assholes take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, then they pass law after law that contradicts it, figuring the federal courts will sort it out.

Every hour that Congress wastes is another hour when they are not picking our pockets.

There are many things that can be read in an hour, but few that can be understood. Documents over 200 years old can be particularly troublesome, as could many other old things. Hell, the 10 commandments can be read in a few minutes, but you tell me what is meant by, say, "Thou shalt not kill"--can one fight in a war and kill the "enemy"? I think a lot of questions can be raised about each one.

As for picking our pockets, I guess you'd just as well disband the entire legislative branch of the federal government?

BTW, in the interest of fairness, it should be pointed that most of the Democrats, (including Nancy Pelosi) were involved in this.

And I can sure think of a lot worse things that Congress could spend it's time doing....

Jim--I'm not pointing fingers, just saying that I see very little in this other than a gimmick--not bad, but really worth all that much. As for worse things Congress could do, I agree there are many--but there are many, many better things it could do as well. And we need these better things to be done.

[Sue U]

When exactly will the ethics probe of Sessions and Fitzpatrick begin, Mr. Speaker? When will Darrell Issa issue subpoenas for them?

OH JEEZ NOW THE CONSTITUTION IS CRYING TOO
Constitution Was Violated By Those Who Read It Yesterday, Of Course

by Jack Stuef
10:04 am January 7, 2011 20 Comments 264 Views

Two House Republicans weren’t around to strategically hand tissues to John Boehner on Wednesday as the House session opened. That wasn’t a problem, because our new speaker was able to compose himself, remembering he had to deliver a full short speech before he could hit the red wine/bronzer celebration cocktails. Unfortunately, this meant these bros, Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick, weren’t actually sworn in yesterday and were pretending to be members of Congress, in violation of the Constitution they so importantly read. Usually that sort of thing will get you shot by the Capitol Police, but they have a good excuse: When the swearing-in was going on, they were holding a fundraiser in the Capitol Visitors Center. Which is also illegal.

The pair watched the swearing-in on television from the Capitol Visitors Center with their hands raised

Didn’t we all? Yeah, that doesn’t count.

On Thursday, the Rules Committee adjourned because Sessions had made a motion to open proceedings to begin considering the GOP bill to repeal health care reform – an action that can only be taken by an official member of Congress.

On his way out, he was likely high-fived by Code Pink. They hadn’t thought of pretending to be a member of Congress before!

A document outlining official allowable uses of Capitol Visitor Center space confirms that fundraisers are off limits. “Visitor Center space may not be used for any fund-raising purpose,” it reads on page four, with the underlining in the original. The title of the event — “Mike Fitzpatrick’s Swearing In Celebration” — makes it clear that the event in question is the celebration of the swearing-in at the Capitol, not the bus trip. The invitation asks for a minimum of $30 but allows the contributor to give more. “Federal Law requires us to report the name, mailing address, occupation, and name of employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in an election cycle,” reads the invite, indicating that it was indeed a campaign event.

It’s really rather quaint that the Constitution requires members of Congress to be present for everything nowadays. We have modern technology now. But more importantly, that stuck-up asshole Constitution should realize each member of Congress needs to spend approximately 16 hours a day fundraising for their continued election to their office, even when the day when their term in that office is just starting for the first time.

That is what democracy is all about. Not this “making laws” stuff that preppy-ass elitist Constitution won’t shut up about. OOH, LOOK AT YOU AND YOUR ORNATE, RANDOMLY CAPITALIZED LANGUAGE. DID YOU GET THAT AT J. PRESS? [HuffPo]

From my favorite news commentators.

[dgs49]

Please advise: Where in the Constitution does it say that duly-elected Members cannot vote until sworn in?

It might be in there but I missed it.

It appears to me that the terms of the senators and representatives begin immediately upon the expiration of the terms of their predecessors, at noon on the Third Day of January. It is not delayed - at least under the Constitution - for swearing in.

Like I say, I might have missed it, but I don't see anything in the Constitution on swearing in.

[dgs49]

Ooops, found it:

VI, Paragraph 3: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."