Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

What Has the Record-Setting House Achieved?

The House this week surpassed the 1,000-vote mark for the first time in a single year, a milestone hailed by the Democrats as a sign of the new majority's hard-working commitment to reshaping the domestic and foreign policy agenda.

But House Republicans see it much differently, saying the record-setting roll call votes provide the perfect symbol of a Democratic leadership that has few strong accomplishments and that has largely spun its wheels, albeit at a faster voting rate than in previous congresses.

"They're measuring quantity, not quality," chirps Rep. Adam Putnam (Fla.), chairman of the House Republican Conference. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), Putnam's counterpart as chairman of the Democratic Caucus, retorts: "I don't care how many votes we have to take, as long as it improves people's lives."

That's the central dilemma that Capitol Briefing explored in a short story in the Washington Post about Wednesday's 1,000th roll-call vote of 2007. And it's going to be the central theme of the 2008 congressional elections that will decide whether to preserve - and possibly expand - Speaker Nancy Pelosi's majority, or force the San Francisco Democrat to surrender the gavel after just a two-year reign.

A do-nothing Congress? Or a do-everything Congress? (Everything but stopping the war, Democrats concede.)

There may be a third possibility that is closer to the mark: that Pelosi's Democrats have committed the sin of trying to do so much all at once that they have come nowhere near the expectation level of last November's tide-turning midterm elections.

Let's consider those two issues: the hefty agenda and the expectations that came with the majority.

Six for '06

Pelosi's leadership team set a furious pace trying to pass bills in all six of their agenda issues within the first 100 hours of January floor time, passing bills to raise the minimum wage, implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and expand access to student loans, among others. Most items, poll tested, passed with huge bipartisan majorities, as did an ethics reform package.

And Democrats continued pushing other key items this year at a pace mirroring that of a dozen years ago, after Newt Gingrich's House Republicans seized control of the chamber for the first time in more than 50 years. (For sheer vote totals, 1995 and 2007 were the busiest years since the 1970s.)

However, as the blizzard of legislation shifted to the Senate and into conference committees and the on to the White House, it's become difficult to keep track of which bills actually made it into law and which bills died by senatorial filibuster or presidential veto. And the incredible media focus on the Democrats failure to impose a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq detracted from most other issues and largely overshadowed other accomplishments.

Just before Memorial Day, for instance, President Bush signed into law the first minimum wage hike in 11 years, a MAJOR victory for Democrats and their big labor allies. Yet that accomplishment gained little attention because it was part of the broader spending package that gave Bush $100 billion for the Iraq war. Democrats didn't get around to celebrating the wage hike until many weeks later.

In this regard, Gingrich's Republicans had similar problems. Their serious achievements - a law rescinding billions of dollars in appropriations from the previous fiscal year, a new ethics package, welfare reform - were quickly forgotten after they shut down the federal government in a high stakes budget battle with President Bill Clinton. Gingrich lost that battle just as soundly as Pelosi's defeat on Iraq.

The Expectations Game

Once Gingrich retired, Republicans abandoned his hyperkinetic model and began to narrowly tailor their agenda, setting one or two achievable goals each year. Think of the way Bush won $1.3 trillion worth of tax cuts in early 2001 and then secured passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in late 2001, early 2002.

This spare agenda allowed the Republicans to exceed expectations each year, crowing about passing a Medicare-prescription drug bill in late 2003, for example, when little else was achieved on domestic issues. (This model ran aground in 2005, when Bush bit off more than he and Congress could chew politically by trying to reform Social Security.)

House Democrats have had difficulty keeping expectations in check all year long. Their first failure came with Iraq, which throughout the winter and spring led to major votes over imposing a withdrawal deadline. The build-up was dramatic and theatric, backed up by campaign-style ads run by outside allies such as Americans United for Change. The indelible impression was that Democrats were on the verge of ending the war. Yet the reality was they were nowhere near the two-thirds majority needed to override Bush's veto. By the summer anti-war liberals were crestfallen, bringing congressional approval ratings down with them.

Flash forward to this fall, and a similar war drum has been beating for weeks over Bush's veto of the $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Americans United ran more than $1 million in ads against key GOP lawmakers, yet not a single Republican vote was switched on the veto override roll call last week and then failed again late yesterday to pass a veto-proof bill.

Campaign strategists view the issue as a political win for House Democrats because some vulnerable Republicans opposed the popular SCHIP program. And Pelosi vowed to reporters that "we're certainly not leaving" for Thanksgiving break until the issue is resolved.

Raising the expectations bar again, if Democrats cannot craft a bill that gets signed into law, Pelosi will have once again inadvertently delivered another blow to the view of Democratic power in Congress.

By Paul Kane  |  October 26, 2007; 7:00 AM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dems Still Short of GOP Votes for Veto-Proof SCHIP Majority
Next: McCain Absent for Vote on Woodstock Earmark


Is it your view that Speaker Pelosi is not much more than an ordinary operative, without a vision for creative legislating?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 26, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Until there is a veto proof House, a 60 seat Democratic majority in the Senate, or a Democratic President and Congress I'll settle for stalemate with the boozo's we have now.

Posted by: r l sauer | October 26, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

You failed to mention that Congress has approved ALL the money for Bush/Cheney's war! Together the whole Government including Congress has committed our children, granchildren, and five generations more to servitude to China and other financing nations of the world. Going to be third rate you say....we are already fourth or more because of these commitments. At seventy five years I am a shamed Veteran who regards myself as a contributor to Genocide, Agression, Lying, cheating, and stomping the Constitution into the graves of our founders!

Posted by: olerb | October 26, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

sauer wrote:"Until there is a veto proof House, a 60 seat Democratic majority in the Senate, or a Democratic President and Congress I'll settle for stalemate with the boozo's we have now."

I'd settle for a stalemate too, if only that was on the table. The House Dems haven't forced a stalemate on key issues, they LOST on key issues. It appears the only constituency they are willing to fight the President for are long dead Armenians.(No disrespect meant to the Armenians)

Posted by: Patrick Huss | October 26, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I recall a period of time, I think it was early in FDR's tenure of a do-nothing Congress. What a great recycle. We need a whole lot more of that. Hang onto your wallets when the Democrat-Socialist Party holds enough to either over-ride a veto, or holds the Presidency as well. You'll see taxes like back in the 1960's, and a recession like the days of the 1970's oil shock. No nation ever taxed itself into prosperity.

Posted by: Scott Morehouse | October 28, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Democrats "tax and spend" and give the money to the middle class and poor.

Republicans "borrow and spend" and give the money to the rich.

The best hybrid would be no borrowing and no spending beyond their income. Meanwhile the rich don't need any more of my money, thank you very much.

Posted by: Carol, Long Valley | October 29, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I'd really like to see Congress "stalemate" the President by impeaching Cheney. My goal is to keep him occupied so that we can't invade another sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Posted by: Carol, Long Valley | October 29, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

s chip tie it to war spending bill very very easy. if he vetoes it its his fault you gave it to him he vetoes not your fault and then go to the public and explaine spend some money and get the word out why is this so hard

Posted by: jim | November 2, 2007 11:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company