AT: Non-Obama Push Thumpers

AT: Non-Obama Push Thumpers

Things Obama doesn’t push don’t come up before Congress

The reality is the opposite. The president acts, and Congress reacts. There are few exceptions in recent history -- the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reforms are one -- in which members of Congress autonomously began work on a high-profile issue, and the president was eventually forced to sign or veto the resulting law. The vastly more common path is for the president to ask Congress for legislation on health care or education or jobs or infrastructure and then for Congress to begin some sort of (usually unsuccessful) process. There’s a reason for this, of course. The Founders envisioned competition between the various branches of government, but the political system evolved to emphasize competition between the two major political parties across branches of government. As leader of one of those parties, the president is in close contact with his congressional allies, and they coordinate their efforts, just as the other party coordinates its efforts against the majority. But Wyden’s office is a small outpost where the natives imagine how Congress would behave in a parallel universe. In Wyden’s office, health-care reform began late in the Bush presidency and wasn’t associated with the leadership of either party. In Wyden’s office, tax reform isn’t a matter left to the presidential candidates, it’s a policy pursued as if, as senators and Congress members have said over and over, it’s something they actually want to achieve. To Wyden, this parallel universe is real. “Can you imagine telling voters that if you elect me, the first thing I’m going to do in Washington is wait for the president to make some decisions?” he said, laughing. But outside Wyden’s office, in the halls of the Capitol, that is the first thing new members of Congress do. Outside Wyden’s office, the bipartisan Healthy Americans Act remains a proposal, not a law. Outside Wyden’s office, tax reform is mired in seemingly intractable partisan conflict. Oregon’s wonkish senator might have comprehensive, bipartisan plans to fix America’s problems, but he doesn’t have a way to fix America’s politics.

Thumpers irrelevant if they aren’t bills that pass

Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political issues in general. The fact is that political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an active one. Opposition to Social Security privatization was pretty mild until 2005, when George Bush turned it into an active issue. Opposition to healthcare reform was mild until 2009, when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up because we often take a look at polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the most part, they don't.1 That is, they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and both sides have spent a couple of months filling the airwaves with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays in the military, for example, hasn't changed a lot over the past year or two, but once Congress takes up the issue in earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go out, the push polling starts, Rush Limbaugh picks it up, and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its saturation coverage — well, that's when the polling will tell you something. And it will probably tell you something different from what it tells you now. Immigration was bubbling along as sort of a background issue during the Bush administration too until 2007, when he tried to move an actual bill. Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will happen this time, and without even a John McCain to act as a conservative point man for a moderate solution. The political environment is worse now than it was in 2007, and I'll be very surprised if it's possible to make any serious progress on immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal immigrants "aren't at the forefront of people's minds." Maybe not. But they will be soon.

No political controversy outside of the bills themselves

"We are happy to work with Republicans where they are willing to put politics behind the issues that are important to the American people," Obama said. But, he said, "we're not going to wait around and play the usual political games in Washington, because the American people are desperate for some solutions right now. "We're not going to create a lot of theater that then results in them engaging in the usual political talking points but don't result in action. People want action."

AT: Law of the Sea Thumper

LOST won’t come up before the election and Obama isn’t pushing

Despite sending a marquee delegation to testify before Congress, the White House has not exactly championed the treaty, certainly not like the New Start arms reduction treaty with Russia, which was pushed ardently by President Obama. For his part, Mr. Kerry promised to keep the debate away from the “hurly-burly of presidential politics” by delaying a vote until after the election. Still, for Mr. Kerry, whose name is on the shortlist of candidates to succeed Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state in any second Obama term, ratifying the Law of the Sea would be “a huge feather in his cap,” said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who has argued against the treaty.

Won’t come up before the election

Nearly 200 of the most powerful U.S. business associations and companies, including the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Ford, and Citigroup, have been lobbying Congress heavily to repeal the amendment. Obama and many lawmakers support repeal, but election-year politics make it unlikely that Congress will consider the amendment before November.

Vote will be postponed

Politics Link – Transportation Spending Unpopular

Infrastructure spending is controversial

But, rather than embrace the Senate’s legislation, the House GOP responded by pushing its own, utterly unserious bill. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican member of Congress, has called it “the worst transportation bill I’ve ever seen during thirty-five years of public service.” He wasn’t exaggerating: The House bill slashes funding for Amtrak at a time when rapidly expanding ridership is putting even greater strain on the system’s resources. It exempts many transit projects from the standard environmental-impact analysis, changing the requirements that apply to projects near parks and historical sites and imposing a restrictive deadline on the review process. It tries to raise revenue from controversial oil and gas ventures—including the Keystone XL pipeline.

Even if it’s generally popular, GOP refuses to compromise on transportation funding now

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Wednesday blasted House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), telling him to "step up and show a little leadership" in the debate over a new federal highway bill. Appearing on Current TV's "Full Court Press" show Wednesday, LaHood chided Boehner for attempting to pass a short-term extension of the current funding for transportation projects instead of holding a vote on the Senate's two-year version of the highway measure. "Speaker Boehner can't get his troops together," said LaHood, who previously served in the House as a Republican lawmaker with Boehner before being appointed Transportation secretary by President Obama. "What he needs to do is step up and show a little leadership," LaHood said of Boehner. "He could put moderate Republicans — he could get them to vote for this bill — get a hundred Democrats who have agreed to vote it and pass the Senate bill. That would be good for America." The current funding for transportation is set to run out on March 31. The Senate has passed a $109 billion bill that would provide transportation funding for the next two years, but the House has struggled this week to approve a short-term extension of the current funding. LaHood said Boehner "doesn't want to pass a bill with Democrats because that would be embarrassing to him. "And he can't pass it as long as he's got these 40-50 intransigent conservatives who do not want to do anything," LaHood said of Boehner's plan to rely on Republican votes to pass the transportation measure.

Transportation bills empirically spark fights

But even if they get it out of the House, it looks to be dead on arrival in the Senate. Even Republicans in the upper chamber say Boehner and Mica’s approach is fatally flawed. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who often sides with Republicans on drilling and energy issues, said the bill is “dead on arrival in the Democratic Senate. So it’s not really going anywhere. Hopefully, we can get a transportation bill but we won’t have those offsets in it.” Republicans are wary, too. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has said Republicans should drop ANWR drilling — a revenue raiser that helps pay for the bill. And Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who is a major supporter of drilling in ANWR, is with Inhofe. “I’ve got to be pragmatic about it,” Murkowski said. “I look at it and I look at what I know of my colleagues here in the Senate … and I can see there’s some real hurdles there.”

Politics Link – Highway Funding Unpopular

Highway funding sparks fights, even if it’s popular

Highway funding empirically can’t pass because of controversy

Politics Links – Highway Funding Unpopular

Controversy over highway funding is intractable–

House Speaker John Boehner stands at a difficult crossroad. He has to do something about the transportation bill before the end of March, and the current menu of options laid out before him stink. Boehner has about five directions he could take, each with its own set of problems. He could stick with the original plan — a nearly five-year, $260 billion bill, which factions of his own party and pretty much the entire Democratic caucus dislike and have rejected. He could take up a truncated, 18-month version of the longer bill, which the GOP also has already rejected. He could take up the two-year, $109 billion bill the Senate passed Wednesday by a 74-22 vote, and modify it, but that would give Democrats a quiver full of arrows, both rhetorically and in an eventual conference committee. He could brew up some other mystery option, behind which support would have to be built in a short time frame. Or the problems before him might be so intractable that the only answer is to punt, possibly into next year. In that case, lawmakers would have to extend surface transportation programs that otherwise are to expire at the end of the month — and there’s no guarantee people would agree to that, either. That option would satisfy none of the various interests — including states, public agencies, planners, the business lobby — invested in the bill, but in some ways, it’s been the expected outcome since earlier this year, in part because of the difficulties of enacting major legislation during an election year. Privately, some Republicans are looking to punt past the elections, believing that they’ll end up with more of their wish list if the Senate — or the White House — changes hands next year.

Politics Link – High Speed Rail Unpopular

HSR is empirically unpopular with republicans

While high-speed trains have been zooming commuters across the continents of Europe and Asia for decades, the United States has yet to embrace the idea of the bullet train. President Obama, in his 2011 State of the Union speech, called for a high-speed rail system over the next 25 years. However, Mr. Obama’s proposal to spend $53 billion on high-speed rail over the next six years, part of his budget deal in April, hit a roadblock when Congressional Republicans eliminated money for that plan for the year.

GOP opposes HSR funding

The year before, newly elected Republican governors in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin turned down federal money their Democratic predecessors had won for new rail routes, lest their states have to cover most of the costs for trains that would draw few riders. The cuts will not halt the rail program since unspent money remains that can be used on new projects. But they leave the future of high-speed rail in the United States unclear. So far roughly $10 billion has been approved for high-speed rail, but it has been spread to dozens of projects around the country. If Congress does not approve more money, the net result of all that spending may possibly be better regular train service in many areas, and a small down payment on one bullet train, in California. California plans to build a 520-mile high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco. And they are doing it in the face of what might seem like insurmountable political and fiscal obstacles. A state report in November 2011 projected the cost of the bullet train tripling to $98 billion for a project that would not be finished until 2033. Republicans in Congress are close to eliminating federal high-speed rail financing this year. And there are questions about how much the state or private businesses will be able to contribute.

Federal HSR funding is controversial

Californians have a problem — a problem China tackled without a second thought, and Europe handled far more aggressively than the United States. Just about everyone agrees that bustling economies thrive with modern, efficient transportation like high-speed rail. The problem in the Golden State: who is going to pay for it? In the U.S., there is only one train that can travel at speeds above 150 miles-per-hour: Amtrak’s Acela Express, which runs daily between Boston and Washington, D.C. “We like to call it the hassle-free way to travel,” says Cliff Cole, a spokesman for Amtrak. Cole says the Acela is Amtrak’s most traveled and profitable route, with nearly 3.4 million riders in fiscal year 2011. Latitude News went to Boston’s South Station to ask Acela commuters to share their thoughts on fast rail expansion in the U.S. 00:0000:00 But Cliff Cole points to a fact about high-speed rail’s future in the U.S that makes it controversial. “There is no country in the world,” he says, “that operates a rail system without federal subsidies.”

Politics Link – Space Transportation Unpopular

Bipartisan opposition to space – your evidence is out-dated.

Broad Congressional opposition to financing space.

Yet, for all the considerable promise of private commercial space exploration, it is not at all clear that commercial rockets will be able to be “man-rated” by NASA to taxi astronauts any time soon. And, sadly, one of the very few recent examples of bipartisanship in Washington has been the utter bipartisan failure thus far to figure out what to do next in human space flight, how to make it work, and how to pay for it at a price our chosen leaders think we can afford.

No Congressional support for space – budget worries.

In today's world, public budgets and allocations are stretched in various ways, and different types of projects compete for funding. Most publicly funded projects have strong advocates behind them, both among the citizenry and in Congress, and many of these projects are deemed essential for many segments of the population. Just where funding allocations for a manned mission to Mars would fit into the budget is unknown, but to many people it is far more important to take care of our needs here on Earth than to worry about putting people on Mars. So far, funding has not been an issue because no credible plan for a manned mission to Mars has been put forward. Should such a plan come to fruition, however, it is going to face opposition from the politicians and the people unless reasons for undertaking the Mars mission are clearly explained and made available to everyone. The reasons and explanations must be compelling.

Political Capital Key To Jackson-Vanik

Capital is key, it’s an uphill battle

Obamas pushing – PC is key to JV repeal

JV is a tough sell – capital is key

DYK: The U.S. push for Russia to join the WTO was part of President Obama's reset with Moscow. Art Franczek, president of the American Institute of Business and Economics here, knows repealing Jackson-Vanik could be a tough sell.

AT: Winners Win

Winners win not true for Obama

Spending PC makes Obama reluctant to push on other issues

To date, the Obama Administration has largely presented Congress with legislative principles and worked behind the scenes as legislation is developed. There are surely many reasons for the Obama Administration’s approach to Congress. At the outset of his Administration, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. On health care, the memories of President Clinton’s assertive approach surely played a role. Moreover, the political capital expended to pass the Affordable Care Act clearly created some reluctance to push Congressional Democrats too hard on other issues. But it is hard to argue that the Administration received, much if any, political protection through its greater deference to Congress.

Fights bleed momentum

AT: Relations Resilient

No foundation means no resilience – small crises can spiral out of control

Both points of view need to be taken into account. Without going into the intricacies of this polemic, it is safe to say that the negativity in Russian-American relations is still running high. As a result, even the mini crises that have occurred recently in bilateral relations could well have developed into a serious confrontation. The situation today is even more complicated than during the Cold War. At least during that time, Moscow and Washington had a mechanism for bilateral negotiations and the relationship was based on principles understood by both sides. That foundation has now been destroyed, while, unfortunately, no new one has emerged. The attempts to create a new foundation for relations in the form of multi-functional intergovernmental structures such as the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission and the Medvedev-Obama presidential commission have hardly been a success. They have failed to create a multi-tiered foundation for relations. Russia accounts for less than 1 percent of the United States’ foreign trade, while the U.S. share of Russian foreign trade is less than 4 percent. With no economic foundation, bilateral relations still depend on fluctuations in the political situation. Even the New START treaty, the unquestioned achievement of the reset, is in jeopardy.

Maintaining forward momentum is key

As a practical matter, even a stalled relationship could be problematic. The United States and Russia are both motivated to improve relations largely on the basis of hopes for what a stronger relationship could produce. If the prospects for realizing those hopes become too remote, it is uncertain whether what has been accomplished so far is sufficient to prevent our substantial remaining differences from tearing the U.S.-Russian relationship apart.

AT: Relations Resilient

JV adds creates a critical mass of problems that destroys all relations

JV Bad – Relations

Escalating crises are inevitable – JV is the only thing that can diffuse tensions

JV Bad – Relations

It’s the major block to relations

But he then continued onto a more controversial issue. “It’s very good to be back in Russia. I am both a student of and a respecter of the great traditions of a great power. The first Russian leader I met with was Brezhnev. That’s how old I am. To further age myself, I knew both Jackson and Vanik. I think that’s why President Obama keeps me around,” Biden said, according to a transcript provided by the Kremlin. Biden was referring to former U.S. Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson and U.S. Congressman Charles Vanik, who in 1974 authored legislation that was intended to pressure the Soviet Union to allow more Jewish emigration by denying a so-called most favored nation trade status to countries that restrict emigration. The Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was signed into law by former U.S. President Gerald Ford, remains a major irritant and controversial issue in U.S.-Russian relations as the law remains in force, although it has been regularly waived in recent years. Medvedev immediately jumped in on Biden’s reference to the law. “I would just like to express hope that the next time you come to our nation – which I hope will happen soon – at least one of the topics you’ve mentioned will be left in the past,” he said. “I am referring to the Jackson-Vanik amendment, because this is an issue that always comes up during your visits. I hope that this will be the last time. After all, you cannot keep dealing with it throughout your entire career.”

Russian PNTR good – key to relations and Russian ascension to the WTO

Relations Good – Everything

Relations prevent nuke war – cooperation key to stability everywhere

First: Today, as before, the road to America's national security runs through Moscow. No other US bilateral relationship is more vital. The reasons should be known to every policymaker, though they seem not to be: - Russia's enormous stockpiles of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction make it the only country capable of destroying the United States as well as the only other government, along with our own, essential for preventing the proliferation of such weapons. - There is also Russia's disproportionate share of the world's essential resources, not only oil and natural gas but metals, fertile land, timber, fresh water and more, which give Moscow critical importance in the global economy. - In addition, Russia remains the world's largest territorial country. In particular, the geopolitical significance of its location on the Eurasian frontier of today's mounting conflicts between Western and Eastern civilizations, as well as its own millions of Islamic people, can hardly be overstated. - Not to be forgotten are Russia's talented and nationalistic people, even in bad times, and their state's traditions in international affairs. This too means that Russia will play a major role in the world. - And, largely as a result of these circumstances, there is Moscow's special capacity to abet or to thwart US interests in many regions of the world, from Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and China to Europe, the entire Middle East and Latin America.

Relations Good – Everything

Russia is key to everything

AT: Putin Dooms Relations

Putin puts relations on the brink – doesn’t kill them

The upshot is that Putin’s return could and probably will mean more bumpiness in the U.S.-Russia relationship. He will pursue his view of Russian interests. On certain issues, those will conflict with U.S. interests, and Washington and Moscow will disagree, perhaps heatedly. Putin’s style will differ markedly from Medvedev’s. But he is not likely to seek to turn the relationship upside down or take it back to the grim days of 2008. For all the rhetoric now, we should not rule out that the American president will be able to deal with Putin.

Putin’s anti-american stance will soft post election

At the same time, Putin-watchers claim that his surging anti-American rhetoric ­ with the help of the maniacal Dmitry Rogozin ­ is meant for a domestic, not a foreign audience. Consider in this connection Putin's assertion that Clinton has "inspired" the anti-government protestors; that McFaul's support for the "reset" is merely a fig leaf to hide his enmity toward Moscow; and that Obama, like George Bush, deems Russia an American "vassal." Such attacks win votes in Russia's heartland just like similar paranoia works in behalf of American candidates in Dixie. Nikolai Zlobin of the Washington-based World Security Institute has observed: "His foreign policy is not more anti-American than that of many international leaders that speak of America very positively." This view has many supporters among Russia-watchers who opine that once Putin is reelected president in March, he will dial-back his anti-Americanism and get about the important business of finding areas of cooperation with Washington.

Putin backs the reset – the US president is key

Do you expect that the relationships between the two countries will undergo drastic changes after 2012 elections in both countries? I do not think they will undergo drastic changes after the 2012 elections in Russia. I think, that president Medvedev and prime-minister Putin are basically in agreement about the advisability of the, so called “reset” of the Russian-US relations that has taken place over the last nearly three years. I think the much bigger question mark is: what is going to happen in the US elections? If Barak Obama is reelected, then, I think, we will see basically continuation of the policy. From my point of view, the “reset” has been successful. The relationship has been reset. We have now more normal and constructive relationship with Russia, as we should have. I think, we are not going to have that momentum of watershed agreements, (and one of them I forgot to mention, of course, the Civilian Nuclear-1, -2, -3 agreement, which was concluded at the end of last year). Still I think trying to build on the levels of cooperation that we have would be the case with the Obama administration. Republican administration is a much bigger question mark.