Lou Cannon: Obama has to worry about his friends
[Mr. Cannon is the author of a multi-volume biography of Ronald Reagan.]
“Defend me from friends, I can defend myself from my enemies,” is an old European saying, but it’s certainly applicable to many United States presidents. Rebellious conservative Democrats whom Franklin Roosevelt tried unsuccessfully to purge effectively called a halt to the New Deal in 1938. Loyal Republicans voted for Ronald Reagan’s budget in 1981 but joined Democrats in larding it with so much pork that it greatly expanded federal budget deficits. Now, there are signs that President Obama, for all his early success, could have difficulty keeping Democrats united on his budget proposal and other economic measures in the face of growing public unease with bank bailouts and the prospect of budgets unbalanced to an extent hitherto unimagined.
Like F.D.R. and Reagan, Obama is finding that a ‘friendly’ Congress can cause some headaches.
F.D.R. had a head of steam after he was re-elected in 1936 in one of the great presidential landslides in history. But he dissipated his broad bipartisan support with an ill-conceived attempt to enlarge the Supreme Court, which had struck down a number of New Deal measures. By 1938, conservative Democrats were in open revolt, and F.D.R. compounded his difficulties by trying to purge eight Democratic senators in the party primaries that year. He lost in seven of the eight races. As war clouds gathered in 1940, F.D.R. won re-election again, but the New Deal was over. As Mr. Roosevelt himself put it in 1943, “Old Doc New Deal” had become “Doctor Win The War.”
Ronald Reagan’s party united behind his economic program after he was elected in 1980 with coattails that helped Republicans win control of the Senate. In the Democratic-controlled House, Reagan cobbled together a majority for his tax and budget bills from Republicans and conservative Democrats. Although all Republicans (with one defection on the tax bill) backed Mr. Reagan, most of them also joined Democrats in transforming the budget bill into a Christmas tree laden with presents for all sorts of dubious projects in their districts. “Reagan was enthusiastic about financing defense and foreign aid, and Congress was enthusiastic about financing domestic spending,” said Willis Gradison, a G.O.P. representative from Ohio who had served as an assistant to the Treasury secretary in the Eisenhower administration. “They reached compromises only a politician could love.”
Similar compromises decorate the current $410 billion omnibus spending bill, a collection of nine spending measures left over from last year that was passed last week by Congress to keep the government funded until October. The omnibus bill contains nearly 8,000 earmarks — provisions for pet projects of members of Congress — totaling more than $7 billion, a type of spending that candidate Obama had vowed to oppose. President Obama nonetheless signed the bill, acknowledging that it was “imperfect,” but did so without a public ceremony. Republicans, following the dictum of “do what I say, not what I did,” denounced the omnibus bill as reckless and half-heartedly tried to block it, even though they are beneficiaries of an estimated 40 percent of the earmarks.
The measure passed on a voice vote, but with notable opposition from three staunch Democratic senators from the nation’s midland: Evan Bayh of Indiana, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. The latter two are the only Democratic senators without earmarks in the bill. Bayh and Feingold face re-election in 2010. When the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, defended Mr. Obama’s signing of the bill by saying this “is last year’s business,” Senator Bayh tartly observed that “it’s this year’s money.”
Earlier, almost unnoticed, 11 Democrats deserted the Obama administration when the House passed its version of what became a $787 billion stimulus bill. The opposition Democrats balked at several provisions, including a $500 tax cut for workers. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid these members no heed, but White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel eventually persuaded her to accept the Senate version of the legislation, which reduced the tax cut to $400.
Still, just past the midpoint of Mr. Obama’s 100 days in office, a pattern is developing. As with F.D.R. and Reagan in the early months of their presidencies, Mr. Obama is enjoying an extended honeymoon with the American people. But as with these prior presidents, the president is more popular than some of his policies. Polls show that a majority of Americans supported the stimulus bill but worry about the long-term debt it will create. A majority of Americans oppose additional bailout of the banks, which members of the Obama economic team have said may be necessary.
Mr. Obama has perhaps surpassed all his presidential predecessors in the astonishing number of environmental, health care, educational and other initiatives he has proposed in his first weeks in office. He realizes, as does his chief of staff, that a president’s power is greatest when he first takes office. But the political dynamics are different for Democratic House members who won in traditionally Republican or toss-up districts in 2008. Eight of the 11 Democrats who voted against the original House version of the stimulus came from such districts.
The Democrats have such an overwhelming majority in the House (254-178) that they can afford to lose a few seats. But the situation is different in the Senate, where anachronistic rules often require 60 votes to proceed expeditiously. This required Mr. Obama to go all out to win passage of his stimulus bill. Democratic holdouts on the omnibus spending bill delayed its passage and tied the Senate into knots for several days. It is not hard to envisage a gridlocked Senate if the Democrats lose a couple of seats in the 2010 elections.
Ronald Reagan had 68 percent approval in the Gallup Poll at the end of his 100 days in office; Mr. Obama’s ratings are now just over 60 percent. Yet Reagan’s approval rating plummeted to 35 percent during the recession of 1982-83. Still, his inherent popularity was so great that his ratings soared as the economy recovered. He won by a huge landslide in 1984.
With the Republicans in retreat nationally and no obvious opponent on the horizon, Mr. Obama may be able to duplicate this showing. His party has no similar guarantees. Congressional Democrats fared badly in the three national votes after F.D.R.’s 1936 re-election, and Republicans lost both mid-term elections during Reagan’s presidency. No wonder Mr. Obama is trying to put his entire agenda on the table while he and his party are at the height of their political powers.
Read entire article at NYT blog
“Defend me from friends, I can defend myself from my enemies,” is an old European saying, but it’s certainly applicable to many United States presidents. Rebellious conservative Democrats whom Franklin Roosevelt tried unsuccessfully to purge effectively called a halt to the New Deal in 1938. Loyal Republicans voted for Ronald Reagan’s budget in 1981 but joined Democrats in larding it with so much pork that it greatly expanded federal budget deficits. Now, there are signs that President Obama, for all his early success, could have difficulty keeping Democrats united on his budget proposal and other economic measures in the face of growing public unease with bank bailouts and the prospect of budgets unbalanced to an extent hitherto unimagined.
Like F.D.R. and Reagan, Obama is finding that a ‘friendly’ Congress can cause some headaches.
F.D.R. had a head of steam after he was re-elected in 1936 in one of the great presidential landslides in history. But he dissipated his broad bipartisan support with an ill-conceived attempt to enlarge the Supreme Court, which had struck down a number of New Deal measures. By 1938, conservative Democrats were in open revolt, and F.D.R. compounded his difficulties by trying to purge eight Democratic senators in the party primaries that year. He lost in seven of the eight races. As war clouds gathered in 1940, F.D.R. won re-election again, but the New Deal was over. As Mr. Roosevelt himself put it in 1943, “Old Doc New Deal” had become “Doctor Win The War.”
Ronald Reagan’s party united behind his economic program after he was elected in 1980 with coattails that helped Republicans win control of the Senate. In the Democratic-controlled House, Reagan cobbled together a majority for his tax and budget bills from Republicans and conservative Democrats. Although all Republicans (with one defection on the tax bill) backed Mr. Reagan, most of them also joined Democrats in transforming the budget bill into a Christmas tree laden with presents for all sorts of dubious projects in their districts. “Reagan was enthusiastic about financing defense and foreign aid, and Congress was enthusiastic about financing domestic spending,” said Willis Gradison, a G.O.P. representative from Ohio who had served as an assistant to the Treasury secretary in the Eisenhower administration. “They reached compromises only a politician could love.”
Similar compromises decorate the current $410 billion omnibus spending bill, a collection of nine spending measures left over from last year that was passed last week by Congress to keep the government funded until October. The omnibus bill contains nearly 8,000 earmarks — provisions for pet projects of members of Congress — totaling more than $7 billion, a type of spending that candidate Obama had vowed to oppose. President Obama nonetheless signed the bill, acknowledging that it was “imperfect,” but did so without a public ceremony. Republicans, following the dictum of “do what I say, not what I did,” denounced the omnibus bill as reckless and half-heartedly tried to block it, even though they are beneficiaries of an estimated 40 percent of the earmarks.
The measure passed on a voice vote, but with notable opposition from three staunch Democratic senators from the nation’s midland: Evan Bayh of Indiana, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. The latter two are the only Democratic senators without earmarks in the bill. Bayh and Feingold face re-election in 2010. When the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, defended Mr. Obama’s signing of the bill by saying this “is last year’s business,” Senator Bayh tartly observed that “it’s this year’s money.”
Earlier, almost unnoticed, 11 Democrats deserted the Obama administration when the House passed its version of what became a $787 billion stimulus bill. The opposition Democrats balked at several provisions, including a $500 tax cut for workers. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid these members no heed, but White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel eventually persuaded her to accept the Senate version of the legislation, which reduced the tax cut to $400.
Still, just past the midpoint of Mr. Obama’s 100 days in office, a pattern is developing. As with F.D.R. and Reagan in the early months of their presidencies, Mr. Obama is enjoying an extended honeymoon with the American people. But as with these prior presidents, the president is more popular than some of his policies. Polls show that a majority of Americans supported the stimulus bill but worry about the long-term debt it will create. A majority of Americans oppose additional bailout of the banks, which members of the Obama economic team have said may be necessary.
Mr. Obama has perhaps surpassed all his presidential predecessors in the astonishing number of environmental, health care, educational and other initiatives he has proposed in his first weeks in office. He realizes, as does his chief of staff, that a president’s power is greatest when he first takes office. But the political dynamics are different for Democratic House members who won in traditionally Republican or toss-up districts in 2008. Eight of the 11 Democrats who voted against the original House version of the stimulus came from such districts.
The Democrats have such an overwhelming majority in the House (254-178) that they can afford to lose a few seats. But the situation is different in the Senate, where anachronistic rules often require 60 votes to proceed expeditiously. This required Mr. Obama to go all out to win passage of his stimulus bill. Democratic holdouts on the omnibus spending bill delayed its passage and tied the Senate into knots for several days. It is not hard to envisage a gridlocked Senate if the Democrats lose a couple of seats in the 2010 elections.
Ronald Reagan had 68 percent approval in the Gallup Poll at the end of his 100 days in office; Mr. Obama’s ratings are now just over 60 percent. Yet Reagan’s approval rating plummeted to 35 percent during the recession of 1982-83. Still, his inherent popularity was so great that his ratings soared as the economy recovered. He won by a huge landslide in 1984.
With the Republicans in retreat nationally and no obvious opponent on the horizon, Mr. Obama may be able to duplicate this showing. His party has no similar guarantees. Congressional Democrats fared badly in the three national votes after F.D.R.’s 1936 re-election, and Republicans lost both mid-term elections during Reagan’s presidency. No wonder Mr. Obama is trying to put his entire agenda on the table while he and his party are at the height of their political powers.