An Interesting Change Of Plans...

Kevin Drum reports the following:

"Democrats have been threatening to "bring the Senate to a halt" if Republicans go ahead with plans to eliminate the filibuster, but today the Senate Dems announced a plan to do just the opposite. Via email, Harry Reid's office announced this afternoon that "As a matter of comity, the Minority in the Senate traditionally defer to the Majority in the setting of the agenda. If Bill Frist pulls the nuclear trigger, Democrats will show deference no longer." "

What does this mean? Well, Kevin tells us, but I'm going to quote a press release from Sen. Reid instead, since it contains additional details:

"Invoking a little-known Senate procedure called Rule XIV, the Democrats put nine bills on the Senate calendar that seek to help America fulfill its promise.

“Across the country, people are worried about things that matter to their families – the health of their loved ones, their child’s performance in schools, and those sky high gas prices,” said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. “But what is the number one priority for Senate Republicans? Doing away with the last check on one-party rule in Washington to allow President Bush, Senator Frist and Tom Delay to stack the courts with radical judges. If Republicans proceed to pull the trigger on the nuclear option, Democrats will respond by employing existing Senate rules to push forward our agenda for America.”"

Below the fold are the nine bills, with Reid's descriptions; I have added their numbers, and links to the bills' text.

• Women's Health Care (S. 844). The Prevention First Act of 2005 will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions by increasing funding for family planning and ending health insurance discrimination against women.
• Veterans' Benefits (S. 845). The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2005 will assist disabled veterans who, under current law, must choose to either receive their retirement pay or disability compensation.
• Fiscal Responsibility (S. 851). Democrats will move to restore fiscal discipline to government spending and extend the pay-as-you-go requirement.
• Relief at the Pump (S. 847). Democrats plan to halt the diversion of oil from the markets to the strategic petroleum reserve. By releasing oil from the reserve through a swap program, the plan will bring down prices at the pump.
• Education (S. 848). Democrats have a bill that will: strengthen head start and child care programs, improve elementary and secondary education, provide a roadmap for first generation and low-income college students, provide college tuition relief for students and their families, address the need for math, science and special education teachers, and make college affordable for all students.
• Jobs (S. 846). Democrats will work in support of legislation that guarantees overtime pay for workers and sets a fair minimum wage.
• Energy Markets (S. 870). Democrats work to prevent Enron-style market manipulation of electricity.
• Corporate Taxation (S. 872). Democrats make sure companies pay their fair share of taxes to the U.S. government instead of keeping profits overseas.
• Standing with our troops (S. 11). Democrats believe that putting America's security first means standing up for our troops and their families.

So as far as I can tell, the plan is this: if the Republicans go ahead with their plan to remove the filibuster on judicial appointments, removing a traditional prerogative of minorities, the Democrats will stop going along with Republicans' setting the agenda, removing one of the traditional prerogatives of majorities, rather than just stopping business in the Senate altogether. I am not an expert on Senate Rules, but if they can get these bills to be debated, I would think the Republicans would have to either vote against these bills explicitly or filibuster them. In the first case, we win, since many of these bills are both good in their own right and popular. In the second, we win as well, since the spectacle of the Republicans filibustering against, say, allowing veterans to collect disability pay without sacrificing part of their pensions would be marvelous. And of course we win even more if these bills pass, since (with one exception) they are, I think, quite good.

Moreover, this might help to dispel the idea that the Democrats have no ideas. This is not true: the Democratic candidates for President had lots of interesting ideas, most of which were never mentioned by any news organization; John Kerry had some great ideas, most notably his health care plan, and the Democrats generally have proposed a lot of great things that have gotten no coverage at all.

Who, for instance, can forget that great day when Nancy Pelosi and other members of the House Leadership introduced the GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century? Practically no one, and the reason is not that it is seared into our collective memory, but that in order to forget something you have to have heard of it in the first place, and since this received no coverage at all, virtually no one did. And trust me on this: lots of other good ideas have similarly slipped unnoticed into oblivion. (And why should they have been covered, since virtually no Democratic bill has any chance at all of passing?)

These nine bills are some of our hitherto unnoticed ideas. With the exception of the fourth (stopping the diversion of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve), they all seem, on cursory inspection, to be quite good. PAYGO alone would be a huge and important improvement. If you're not up on arcane political terminology, PAYGO rules require that any proposal Congress adopts must be revenue-neutral: it must not add to the deficit. The PAYGO rule can be waived with sixty votes, so in case of some dire need apparent to more than a bare majority, Congress can add to the deficit. But it makes it a lot harder for Congress not to live within its means.

It also forces some honesty into the budgeting process. To quote Mark Schmitt:

"Few things are more arcane than congressional PAYGO rules. And yet, little is more important, especially right now. A few weeks ago, in writing about Goldwater, I noted that the genius of Rove and his followers was that they had figured out how to separate the ideological conservatism that Americans liked from the operational conservatism -- the real cuts in government -- that Americans did not. PAYGO rules are a way of forcing those two back together. If Republicans are serious about cutting taxes and making government smaller, they must be willing to come forward simultaneously with the cuts they are willing to make and bear the consequences. Or, if they do not want to make cuts but still want to cut taxes for the top 0.2% of the population, they must be willing to say whose taxes they are willing to raise to pay for those cuts."

The education bill, which includes increased funding for Head Start and Pell Grants, the two veterans' bills, the hike in the minimum wage and guarantee of overtime, and the family planning bill are also good. (The last makes it possible for states to expand family planning coverage in various ways, requires group health care plans to cover contraceptives, requires that hospitals receiving federal funds make emergency contraception available to rape victims, and provides new grants for teenage pregnancy prevention programs that are not abstinence-only programs.)

These are good bills, and for the Democrats to respond to the nuclear option by forcing Republicans to come out against them explicitly, rather than just allowing them to die quietly, is an excellent strategy.

Comments

[rilkefan]

Well, the list is ok (modulo the stinko gas bill), but it doesn't make my heart go pit-a-pat. Well, it would if was enacted (modulo the pandering pump bill), but this seems a bit safe and resposible (modulo - yeah, yeah).

Still, ok, a smart move - wonder if it will get any press.

[Anarch]

Moreover, this might help to dispel the idea that the Democrats have no ideas.

We live in hope.

[hilzoy]

Hey: PAYGO makes my heart go thunk-a-thunk-a-thunk. That, of course, is because I am strange, but really, it's huge. (Consider that all the extensions of the tax cuts would actually have to be paid for if PAYGO were in place.) But also: funding for head start, and investment for kids generally, is great. Raising the minimum wage is great. Personally, I would have liked a ban on extraordinary rendition, but you can't have everything.

[rilkefan]

What's the current scientific consensus on Head Start? Last I heard it was one of those has-to-be-wildly-cost-effective but at-best-difficult-to-measure-positive-outcomes programs.

Re the list - maybe it's that I don't want to entertain fantasies while mired in despair.

[hilzoy]

I think I read recently that for every dollar spent on Head Start, we save $17 down the road. And that's just money, not the added benefits of better lives.

[Jesurgislac]

Rilkefan, the benefits of ensuring small children get a decent nursery-school education are proven - the problem is that the benefits for society kick in years down the line. Adults who went to a nursery school are much more likely to do better in later life than adults who didn't. Some quite startling long-term results are available from nursery-school projects in low income areas from twenty or more years ago.

The problem is, however, that this requires the government of the day to expend significant amounts of money on a project that will pay off when that government is out of office.

Tony Blair's government has been doing a certain amount of this in its classic socialism-by-stealth manner, to avoid getting slammed by the almost-exclusively right-wing tabloids: but it is a classic example of how socialism fundamentally works better than capitalism for public projects. It is to the long-term good of the country that as many children as possible get at least a year, if not two years, of nursery-school. It can't be made into a profitable business without destroying the benefit it creates. And it doesn't really work as a charity, because for maximum benefit, all the children should get this pre-school education, not just those lucky enough to live within the right distance of the right charity.

[Laura]

Isn't pushing forward legislation that is in the interest of their constituents (and perhaps even Americans in general) what the Democrats are SUPPOSED TO BE DOING ON A DAILY BASIS? This "plan" sounds like a lame threat telling Republicans to take their collective fingers off the nuclear button before the Democrats stop pretending to be dead. What if the bluff is called?

[dmbeaster]

Laura:

The tradition in the Senate and the House has been to not tender to the floor countless bills that have no chance of passing. The legislature is really run out of the committees, for better or worse (and it does have big advantages). These types of bills go to committees first and would never get out to the floor. Comity has traditionally restrained what the Democrats are now proposing to do; i.e., in the spirit of getting along, they don't introduce directly to the floor numerous bills that have no chance of passing.

Maybe they should be doing this anyway; I like the idea of forcing the Republicans to expose their reactionary right selves. But over the long run, it just slows things down while increasing partisanship.

[Tad Brennan]

""But over the long run, it just slows things down while increasing partisanship."

Right--which is why neither party does it when the political process is working as intended. But when one party's leadership repeatedly threatens to derail the normal process by going "nuclear" (to use Trent Lott's phrase), then this response is justified.

In the long run, our best hope of getting back to a functioning multi-party democracy, instead of a one-party dictatorship, is for the minority party to realize that these are not normal times.

[votermom]

Reid's da man! :)

[Katherine]

I bet they can force a debate for a limited amount of time but after that time it ends automatically--if this were enough to force a vote or a filibuster of every bill we'd be idiots not to have used it before, and Reid and Durbin are not idiots. (nor was Daschle--totally ineffective, but not an idiot.)

Even so. Good plan, good bills. Naturally I wish they'd be bolder on anti-torture stuff & environmental stuff--CAFE standards or a carbon tax? I can dream. I'll have to bug Durbin about it when I move to Illinois.

It's amazing how much more bearable it all is when you feel like someone is actually representing you out there.

[Edward]

It's amazing how much more bearable it all is when you feel like someone is actually representing you out there.

Indeed!

[rilkefan]

"Some quite startling long-term results are available from nursery-school projects in low income areas from twenty or more years ago."

Had heard that recent studies indicated little effect - that the good outcome was the old conventional wisdom; then more recent research had found only a weak effect in the medium-term, which had become the default scientific position, though the state of research was not considered good; then there was a recent study finding some long-term benefits in a relatively small population.

Will poke around some - Wikipedia's page sucks.

[Opus]

It's amazing how much more bearable it all is when you feel like someone is actually representing you out there.

So true! I had my doubts about Reid and I was wrong. He has established something I thought long dead for the Dems on the Hill -- party discipline. The rapid response office he's set up has been great, the ideas are relatively creative, and he's using the usual voices while bringing some new ones to the fore.

[hilzoy]

rilkefan: no time to do this right, but here's one place to start:

"A remarkable convergence of results from several longitudinal studies indicates that investments in high-quality intervention for low-income children yield stunning rates of return. The longest term and most extensively analyzed data come from the Perry Preschool Project in Ypsilanti, Michigan, which provided a combination of center-based and home-visiting services to a high-risk group of children beginning at age 3 years, then followed both the program participants and control group through age 40. Over this extended period, the total benefit-cost ratio was calculated to be 17 to 1.

Of the $17 return for every dollar spent for Perry Preschool, $4 was realized by the program participants and $13 was returned to the public. The personal benefits were related largely to higher earned income. The public benefits included higher tax revenues and lower costs for special education, welfare support, and incarceration, with the latter accounting for the highest proportion of return.

University of Chicago economist and Nobel laureate James Heckman completed extensive analyses of data from multiple studies and concluded that “enriched pre-kindergarten programs available to disadvantaged children … are likely to generate substantial savings to society and to promote higher economic growth by improving the skills of the workforce.”"

[lily]

I think this will get coverage because it is part of an on-going story that has already started. Nancy Pelosi's proposal was ignored because it didn't fit into any current story line.
I really admire Reid. I would like to see this get played out. My disappointment is that there isn't much on the environment included on the list.

[carpeicthus]

Although there are important differences between the Perry pre-school and the Head Start program as an aggregate, that's a fantastic longituidinal study. (Full disclosure: I know the people who crunched the numbers this time around) If you include the benefits to the people as well as to society in general, it's more like $22 on the dollar or more. In general, we are nowhere near diminishing returns on a lot of preventative social or health programs, and it just costs us more in the long run to not act. Not even "us" as a collectivist concept, but you and me, right in the pocketbook.

[dmbeaster]

Brennan:

I agree and love this idea. I just hate to see it characterized as "why aren't Dems always doing this" if its such a good idea right now. There are very good reasons why this should not be the standard way of doing business, but its a great response to the current environment.

As for what's on the list, I would not worry about it too much (except for the goofy gas thing, although I understand it to be limited to ceasing purchases into the reserve rather than selling from the reserve, as has been proposed in the past. Don't know how much that decrease in demand will make a price difference -- I imagine not much). What's on the list is intended to be those items that will place best in commercials and in the 2006 races. Simple hot button items fill that bill.

[Achillea]

So, the Republicans threaten to blow up the fillibuster (a process whereby Congresscritters skip doing their job evaluating and making decisions). The Democrats respond by threatening to blow off 'comity' (a process whereby Congresscritters skip doing their job evaluating and making decisions).

Oh please, please don't throw me in that briar patch.

Only a couple of those bills get the hairy eyeball from me, but even if I hated them all (and the same goes for the judges), put 'em to a vote for crying out loud. Enough of this delicate little two-stepping (I'd call it fancy dancing, but I happen to like fancy dancing). Time for A Taste of Armageddon.

[votermom]

I'm glad to see that study. My husband & I have been "investing" in good preschools for the kids, so it's nice to see that it will probably pay off for them.
(It's so hard to judge this individually -- even when they do do well - as the older one seems to be right now -- how much impact did the preschool really have, etc).
Anyway, money well spent.

[bob mcmanus]

"As a matter of comity, the Minority in the Senate traditionally defer to the Majority in the setting of the agenda."

This is more important than it looks. As I understand it, any Senator can take the floor and can control it forever, or until a quorum suspends debate. "Deference to the majority" is a big deal. When bills come, how long debate will be, etc are all matters of courtesy and convenience.

It could mean that the Republicans could never "yield the floor" to a Democrat, for the Democrat would change the debate from Judge X to daycare, only yield to other Democrats, until a quorum hit the floor etc. Ugly.