Half Changed World

Photo by Subhankar Banerjee from his Arctic Refuge Series.

I’m too tired and frustrated to write much about the end of year craziness in Congress (six hours after the reconciliation bill passed the House, we were still trying to figure out what exactly was in it), but I will encourage you to email or call your Senators asking them to oppose adding the ANWR drilling provision to the Defense bill.  This is a pure political move — its supporters know the bill couldn’t pass on its own, so are trying to attach it to a must-pass bill.

Here’s some background from the Sierra Club, and the link to an action alert from the Religious Action Center and one from the National Wildlife Federation.

I was absolutely flabbergasted yesterday afternoon when I heard that the House had voted down the conference agreement on the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill.  This is just unheard of — apparently it is the first time the Republican leadership has lost a floor vote since they took over control of Congress in 1994.

This doesn’t mean that they win on every issue (althoug they often do), but that they usually have counted votes well enough to know whether a bill will pass, and don’t bring it up for a floor vote until they know that it will get through.  (That’s why the big budget reconciliation bill wasn’t brought up last week– they negotiated behind the scenes until they had made enough changes to get the 217 votes they needed.)  And since they control the Rules committee, they can prevent Democrats from offering amendments that might peel Republicans away.  So this was pretty shocking.

It’s hard to know what made 21 Republicans finally stand up and oppose the appropriations bill.  There seem to be three main explanations flying around:

• The Republican leadership is arguing that it’s because they didn’t include any earmarks in the bill, funds reserved for projects in individual members’ districts.  They’ve long been used as a way to sweeten the pot for a waivering representative.
• Another story is that it’s because Tom Delay isn’t the Majority leader, and that Blunt isn’t as successful at keeping the party members in line as he was.  It’s certainly hard to imagine that Delay wouldn’t have counted votes more accurately.
• The version that has Democrats humming under their breath is the possibility that it’s because of the President’s growing unpopularity.  TAPPED points to a post from Mark Schmitt at The Decembrist, written last Friday:

"A great deal of Bush/Rove/DeLay’s success over the past five years has come from pushing through party-line votes as if they were confidence votes in a parliamentary system. Many of the votes pushed through with massive arm-twisting and unprecedented procedures, such as the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2003 tax bill, were sold on the basis that the president needs the victory. You may not think this is good policy, wavering Republicans were told, but if the president wins, he gets reelected and we all win; we lose, and our whole edifice of power collapses.

"And just as in a parliamentary system, that works until it stops working. And when it stops working, the government is finished. After reelection, the confidence vote argument lost some steam. Seeing Bush as a burden in 2006 rather than an asset for reelection, it loses still more."

• A final possibility is simply that, in politics as in baseball, no team is ever as good as it looks when it’s winning, or as bad as it looks when it’s losing.

It’s not clear what happens next on the appropriations bill.  The federal fiscal year started in October, so all of the programs for which appropriations haven’t been passed have been running under a "continuing resolution."  The last one expired today, but Congress passed another one to get us into December, and someone was flying it out to the President last night to get it signed. 

The catch is that the continuing resolution funded all programs at the lowest of the FY 2005 level, or the levels proposed by the House and the Senate, which means significant cuts for some programs.  The one that I’ve been paying most attention to is the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), which the House proposed to cut nearly in half.  (The conference report provided for full funding.)  Some House Republicans yesterday were threatening that they would push for a year long continuing resolution at those levels.  More likely is that Labor-HHS-Ed will get attached to the defense appropriations bill.

I’ve signed up with several organizations, so I get multiple "action alerts" in my inbox every week, urging me to email or call elected officials about some issue or another.  After a while, in spite of my good intentions, I find myself tuning them out, tired of the constant alarmism and feeling like my input isn’t going to matter anyway.  I suspect many of you feel the same way.

But I just sent off an email to my Representative, and I’m going to urge anyone reading this to do so as well.  Congress is in the middle of considering a massive budget reconciliation bill that has all sorts of nasty surprises tucked away in it.  Some of these are purely designed to save money by cutting programs that mostly serve the poor (Food Stamps, Child Support Enforcement, Medicaid), while others are included because the reconciliation act is a "must-pass" bill and can’t be filibustered in the Senate, so it’s a good way to force through things that couldn’t pass as stand-alone proposals (like drilling in ANWR). 

The House was supposed to vote on it today, but the Republican leadership postponed the vote because they didn’t think they had enough votes to win.  They’re going to spend the weekend trying to cut deals and twist the arms of moderate Republicans to get them to go along.  (For once, the Dems are standing united.)  So it’s critically important that Representatives, especially those moderate Republicans, hear from their constituents about this bill.

So here’s a bunch of useful links:

• For the nitty-gritty about the budget proposal and how it would hurt the poor, the best source of information is the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
• For a progressively-slanted guide to the politics of the budget process, try Moving Ideas.
• Here’s a link for the "Emergency Campaign for America’s Priorities" which is a coalition of many of the major progressive advocacy organizations.
• And here’s an action alert from Reform Judaism’s Religious Action Center.

Thanks.

I’m too distracted watching election results to write a book review, so I’m going to skip it for tonight.  Maybe tomorrow.

So far (it’s 9:11 as I write this), things are looking pretty good for Tim Kaine.  With 74.4% of the precincts reporting, he’s ahead by 2.5% of the vote, or about 50,000 votes.   The data I’m looking at (from Virginia Interactive, which is having some trouble loading, but seems to have significantly more recent results than the Post) suggest that the Republicans are leading on the other two races.  We shall see.

I’m also interested in seeing how the set of Ohio initiatives proposed by Reform Ohio Now does.  The Ohio state website has live results, but doesn’t seem to say anywhere what percentage of precincts are reporting, so I don’t know how significant the returns so far are.  It looks like they’re all going down by large margins.  That’s a shame — I think the partisan gerrymandering of districts is the single factor that has been most destructive of American democracy in recent years.

The Texas anti-same-sex marriage proposal passed easily.  I’m shocked.

I’m not planning on staying up late enough to watch the California results come in. 

So, I finally got the chance to watch the premiere of Commander in Chief that I recorded last week.  (And yes, I am inordinately proud of having finally figured out how to program a recording using the tv-input card in my computer, since it was scheduled against the new Amazing Race.)  Not planning on watching it again.

Overall the show mostly served as an excellent illustration of Anna Fels’ point about how societally unacceptable it is for women to admit to ambition.  The scenario they spin is that Allen was invited to be VP out of pure tokenism, and everyone knows this, and expects her to step down when the President is incapacitated because her politics and the President’s don’t match.  Well, Kennedy and Johnson didn’t exactly see eye to eye on many issues, but no one ever suggested to LBJ that he not take up the post.  But Allen isn’t even offended that everyone sees her as a token, because she knows she is one.  Not exactly the role model I’m looking for.

Back in the real world, I wish I could summon up more enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate.  I do think she’s running, even though she’s not saying so yet.  After eight years of Bill’s triangulation strategy, and her (appropriate) focus on NY-specific concerns as a Senator, I don’t know what she stands for anymore.  And I’ve never heard her take any ownership of the fiasco that was her health care reform plan, or to discuss what lessons she learned from that experience.

I read last month that Gov. Mark Warner has officially said that he’s not going to run against George Allen for Senate, which leads some people to conclude that he’s running for President.  I think that’s a mistake.  I think he’s been a decent Governor, but he doesn’t have any signature accomplishments to point to, and no one outside of Virginia has ever heard of him.  And Allen is an awful Senator, but the Democratic party doesn’t seem to have anyone else to run against him.  (Yes, it’s an election year in Viriginia this year.  I haven’t been writing much about the race because it doesn’t really excite me that much.  I wish I could summon the enthusiasm about any of the Virginia candidates that my friend Kevin has for Mfume and O’Malley in Maryland.)

John Edwards is clearly running, and he’s saying a lot of things that I agree with.  But the potential candidate who makes my heart beat faster is Barack Obama.  But is he running?   He was just elected to the Senate last year, and after the election, seemed to close that door pretty strongly, saying:

"So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois."

But, as Eric Zorn argued back in January, political windows like Obama’s don’t stay open forever, and he might want to move while everyone still remembers his convention speech.  And getting down and dirty on Daily Kos strikes me as the actions of someone who is thinking larger than re-election.  (He has podcasts on his website too.)

I know, the election is still over 3 years away.  But it’s fun to speculate.

A week ago, if you had told me that we’d be paying over $3, edging towards $4, a gallon for gas, I’d have predicted riots.  But I’ve hardly heard a murmor of complaint.  People seem to be getting the idea that it’s unseemly to whine about our daily hassles in the face of the tragedy that others are facing. 

I think Landismom’s idea of writing her Senators to point out that now is not a reasonable time to cut the estate tax is a good one.  I’ll admit, I thought an estate tax cut was a bad idea in the first place.  But maybe the need for some shared sacrifice is an argument that even some Republican Senators will listen to.

I think the FDA’s non-decision on Emergency Contraception (EC, the morning-after pill) is bullshit.  All of their scientific advisory panels have recommended approving it.  They’re full of it for saying that an age-based decision is unenforceable; as Fred at Stone Court points out, if that were the case, tobacco shouldn’t be available.  This is a purely political decision.

So why wasn’t I more enthusiastic when got the following email from NOW and the FMF?

Dear DC Activist,

We wanted to make you aware of an important National Day of Action and rally for Emergency Contraception (EC). We hope to see you there!

WHO: National Organization for Women, along with other women’s rights organizations and activists WHAT: National Day of Action on Emergency Contraception WHERE: Outside U.S. Department of Health and Human Service 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. · Washington , D.C. 20201 WHEN: Tuesday, August 30 @ 12:00 pm. Come during your lunch break! WHY : To demand that emergency contraception (EC) be made available to all women, over the counter and without a prescription NOW! After more than two years of foot-dragging, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed women once again! In a report issued today, the FDA demanded more time before announcing a decision to broadening access to "the morning after pill". NOW activists and others who support the health and safety of girls and women will hold a rally outside the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service office to insist that the FDA allow the sale of Emergency Contraception without a prescription. Please come during your lunch break and bring signs!

Well, for one thing, I work at 200 Independence Avenue.  There’s something incongruous of walking out at my lunch hour to protest in front of my own building, then returning to my desk to put in an afternoon’s work.  But more generally, this seems like an incredibly ineffectual action.  The FDA isn’t even based downtown — all its staff are out in Rockville.    And I’m sure the scientists who work at FDA are even more pissed off about this than I am.  Waving signs in front of the HHS office building may make you feel like you’re doing something but is highly unlikely to change anything.

[Updated] So, if you’re angry about the EC decision, the first thing to do is to send in your opinion using the official comment form.

Then, if you’re up to it, write letters to:

1. Lester Crawford, FDA Commissioner
2. Mike Leavitt, HHS Secretary
3. Your Representative and Senator. 

Make a stink about politics affecting decisions that should be made based on science.

While you’re at it, if you’re female, the next time you’re at your OB/GYN, ask for a prescription for EC.  It’s a useful thing to have around the house, and the request also helps draw medical attention to the issue.

And if you need EC now, try your local Planned Parenthood, or getthepill.com or call 1-888-NOT-2-LATE.  (Thanks to Mary for the last.)  You may also be able to use a high dose of regular birth control pills for EC, if you happen to have access to a pack.

Further update:  Susan Wood, Assistant Commissioner for Women’s Health at the FDA, has resigned in protest.  Read her resignation letter here.

So, just in time for the 50th anniversary of the merger of the AFL and the CIO, it looks like the American labor movement is splitting apart again.  Four unions have announced that they are not going to attend the annual AFL-CIO convention this week, and two of them — SEIU and the Teamsters — have formally withdrawn from the Federation. 

I don’t know whether this is a good thing, and don’t think we’ll know for years, if ever.  With hindsight, I think everyone agrees that the original breakoff of the CIO — the Congress of Industrial Organizations — from the AFL was a good thing, bringing new life to a morabund labor movement.  But it’s not clear whether any amount of fresh energy and organizing techniques can revitalize the labor movement today.  All the growth in the economy is in jobs that are painfully difficult to organize under the best of circumstances, and the laws are increasingly stacked against unions.  Opponents of the split fear that it will just make unions weaker when they need every advantage that they can get.

(I had some good friends from college who trained as organizers through the Organizing Institute, and I considered doing it.  I ultimately decided that I didn’t have what it takes to encourage people to become union leaders, knowing full well that the odds were high that they’d be fired as result.  Yes, it’s illegal, but companies do it all the time — the worst penalty they can wind up owing is back wages, which doesn’t amount to much for low-income workers anyway.)

My understanding is that the unions in Change to Win think that the AFL-CIO spends too much of its money and energy fighting for legislative changes and not enough organizing new members — and that the political efforts will always be wasted until there are more union members.  The AFL-CIO leadership thinks that it needs to fight in Washington for policies that make organizing efforts productive; it’s also made steps towards increasing the focus on organizing, and thinks that the leaders of Change to Win are more interested in self-aggrandizement than anything else.

This split could have huge implications for American workers, but you couldn’t tell that from scanning the blogosphere.  According to the Annotated New York Times, as many bloggers have commented on Brooks’ fluff piece on flying with children as on the lead article about the split.  The only interesting discussion I’ve found is in the "House of Labor" section at TPM Cafe, led by Nathan Newman, formerly of LaborBlog.

The Style section of the Washington Post today has a profile of Jane Sullivan Roberts, who turns out to be a rather accomplished person in her own right.  Hugo Schwyzer writes about how he’s encouraged by her involvement in Feminists for Life, which has fought against discrimination against teen mothers and the "family cap" under welfare.  (However, some of his commenters argue that FFL isn’t really a pro-feminist organization.)  More broadly, I generally think it’s a positive sign when men choose to marry women who are their intellectual and professional peers.

The Post also has an article by fashion columnist Robin Givhan taking potshots at the  pastel outfits worn by Mrs. Roberts and their two young children.  Jack’s outfit — a pale blue suit with short pants — is admittedly a bit over the top, but how the heck are you supposed to dress a four-year-old boy for a White House photo op?  In the extremely improbably event that I was suddenly summoned to such an event, I’d have to rush out to the very expensive kids’ store near me and beg for their help in finding something appropriate.

This photo suggests that the photo op exceeded Jack’s standing still limits.  I love the look on Josephine’s face too.

By the time I checked my email this morning, I had already gotten messages from both NOW and MoveOn calling on me to urge my Senators to oppose Roberts’ nomination.  The messages I got later from Emily’s List and the Religious Action Center were more muted, saying only that they’ll be following the confirmation process closely and that it’s important to learn more about Roberts’ opinions.

I’m afraid I can’t get too motivated on this one.  First, while I disagree with many (most?) of Roberts’ positions, I see no evidence that he’s a wingnut.  And Bush simply isn’t going to nominate someone whose going to make me happy.  Within the universe of potential Justices that Bush might nominate, Roberts doesn’t strike me as egregious.  (Sorry Bitch, but in the infamous French Fry case, I think his ruling is probably right; not all really really stupid policies are unconstitutional.)

Second, unless the confirmation hearing turns up some dirty linen in Roberts’ closet (e.g an undocumented nanny, a speech in favor of segregation, photos of drug use — and I’ve not heard any rumors of such), it seems clear that he is going to be confirmed.  I’d guess he’ll get at least 70 votes, possibly more.  And it strikes me as a poor use of resources to go into a full mobilization for a lost cause.  Setting aside the money that’s being spent, which might be better saved for future battles (or to buy bus tickets for low-income women in need of abortions), I think you risk demoralizating your base and losing them to burnout.

(Sorry about the title; the reference popped into my head this morning and I haven’t been able to get it out.)