Your 109th Congress

The Fruits of a Republican Majority

By Dan McLaughlin Posted in Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

With the re-election of the second-most-conservative Republican president of the past 75 years, the retention of a solid Republican majority in the House, and 55 Republican senators including a raft of new Republicans elected in 2002 and 2004, it was understandable that conservative hopes for the 109th Congress would be sky high. To hear some people talk, we were supposed to have the Big Rock Candy Mountain of Conservatism, where conservative judges hang from the trees, you can pick constitutional amendments on social issues right off the vine and bathe in pools of entitlement reform, where it rains tax cuts in the morning and spending cuts in the afternoon, and you can go to sleep on a bed of tort reform to the gentle hum of tough border enforcement off in the distance.

Congress, of course, doesn't work that way, never has. If you don't believe me, look at all the years over the past four decades when the Democrats held both Houses of Congress and the White House was in the hands of a Democrat or a politically weak and beleaguered Republican, and they still couldn't even get legislation on national health insurance to a floor vote.

That's not to say that conservatives lack for reasons to be disappointed in the fruits of the majority. But as disgruntled conservatives consider whether to come home and vote Republican again on November 7, they also have to remember that there have been reasons to be happy with the accomplishments of the 109th Congress (even aside from the mischief that the very fact of a Republican majority prevents a Democratic majority from doing). I present a short but significant list of areas in which the 109th Congress has gotten results for us. A number of these came with some or even significant bipartisan support, but in nearly all cases the results would have been very different under Speaker Pelosi, her team of arch-liberal committee chairs, and a Senate run by Harry Reid and Dick Durbin with key committees chaired by Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy and Carl Levin.

This list focuses only on accomplishments that actually got passed into law, although some good bills passed the House but not the Senate. And the GOP caucus also in one case (federal funding for embryonic stem cell research) provided the votes to sustain a presidential veto. Also, for those who are focused on the charge of a "do nothing" Congress (an oldie from the 40s! old slogans never die!), I haven't mentioned here other legislation whose merits for conservatives are more debatable, like the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, the SAFE Port Act, and the Pension Protection Act.

Read On...

1. The Courts.

In two short years we have seen the Senate confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Roberts' ascension to Chief Justice solidified the legacy of William Rehnquist, while Justice Alito should be a more reliable judicial conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor. Plus, the existence of a solid GOP majority was undoubtedly a factor in convincing President Bush to drop Harriet Miers (Reid's preferred candidate) in favor of then-Judge Alito.

Despite Democratic obstruction and delay, we have also seen the confirmation of 15 Circuit judges: Bill Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, Brett Kavanagh, Priscilla Owen, Kimberly Ann Moore, Jerome Holmes, Neil Gorsuch, Bobby Shepherd, Michael Chagares, Thomas Griffith, David McKeague, Richard Griffin, Sandra Segal Ikuta, Milan Smith, and Susan Bieke Nielson (Judge Nielson has since died). Many, though not all, of these are well-known judicial conservatives. The Senate has also confirmed 35 federal District Court judges. You may not think that's enough, but it's more than would get through a Democratic Senate; of that we can be sure.

2. National Security

The President has particular authority and responsibility for military and foreign policy matters. But Congress has a role to play too. Some of that comes in the form of appropriations to continue the war effort, appropriations that could be held up by Democratic committee chairmen in the next Congress. But it is also reflected in legislation. This Congress passed two significant pieces of legislation. In March 2006, Congress renewed the Patriot Act, which was due to expire and which provides essential tools to fight the War on Terror. Just the past month, Congress - in a deal brokered among two factions, both led by Republicans - passed the Military Commissions Act, resolving by statute a difficult and knotty set of questions about the handling of detainees, questions that will be with us for the duration of the war.

3. Immigration

No, Congress has not passed comprehensive immigration reform - but then, there are legitimate reasons why not, given deep divisions in the public and even among members of the Republican coalition on this issue. But as neoliberal commentator Mickey Kaus spent months arguing, there is a strong consensus on building a fence along the border with Mexico as at least a first step towards reducing the torrent of illegal immigrants crossing that border. Sometimes, starting with the easy questions makes sense, and so at the end of its term in October the 109th Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, which provides for 700 miles of fencing in the areas of the border that the Border Patrol has the most difficulty policing. Some may argue that the Republican leadership only got this done because the voters they depend on at election time were demanding that something be done about immigration. To which I respond: precisely. Because Nancy Pelosi's caucus would not see the same necessity.

4. Taxes

Given the major cuts in the income, capital gains, dividend and estate taxes in 2001, 2003, and 2004, it is not surprising that new and additional tax cuts have not been a major priority for this latest Congress. And for now, the Bush tax cuts are not quite in danger of expiring in the immediate future. But at least one significant tax bill passed in this Congress, with the passage in May 2006 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act, which extended the capital gains and dividend tax cuts out from 2008 to 2010, created relief for 2006 from the Alternative Minimum Tax, and offered tax breaks on the conversion of traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs.

The battle over making the remainder of the tax cuts "permanent" (i.e., so that Congress can't raise taxes merely by letting them expire) will go on - if there is a Republican majority to carry it on.

5. Spending

The federal budget is a massive and ever-expanding thing, and to be frank, the fight against overspending has been suppressed by dynamics at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue: Congress is institutionally set up to demand federal spending in every state and district, and President Bush simply hasn't led any battles for major reductions in spending.

For all of that, though, this Congress did manage to pass into law or rule three steps towards restraining the runaway spending train. In February 2006, the Deficit Reduction Act was signed into law, bringing with it a projected savings of $40 billion (more here from the CBO and here from the Heritage Foundation on the House version of the bill). Even granting the congenital unreliability of government budgetary forecasts and even though about a quarter of the savings come from projected revenues from an analog spectrum auction by the FCC (which doesn't count as a spending cut in my book), the Deficit Reduction Act did at least trim tens of billions of dollars from entitlement programs, which is the biggest part of the budget and the hardest one to cut.

Two other spending reforms were passed in September of this year. The first was a new rule of procedure in the House of Representatives, H. Res. 1000, which requires a list of earmarks and the Representatives requesting them, even (or perhaps especially) earmarks dropped into bills at the conference stage (i.e., when the House- and Senate-passed bills are being reconciled). Per the "Boehner protocol," at least as long as the current Majority Leader is in place, H. Res. 1000 will be applied broadly and without loopholes to all new bills containing earmarks, regardless of form.

The other was a bill, passed and signed as the culmination of a campaign begun in the blogosphere, entitled the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, a/k/a the Coburn-Obama bill, which provides for a public database of federal grants and contracts.

H. Res. 1000 and the Coburn-Obama bills don't cut a dime by themselves, but anybody who knows Washington can tell you that changing the procedures is half the battle; by providing increased public and media oversight over earmarks and pork-barrel spending - as well as simply a better mechanism for Members to see what they are voting on and at whose behest - the rule and the bill together provide a first step towards getting the pork problem under at least the beginnings of control.

6. Free Trade

This Congress passed two significant free trade acts, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (CAFTA), signed in August 2005, which opens markets in Latin America, and the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act in September 2006, which eliminated trade barriers for an ally in the Middle East. That is, if you are keeping track, two more examples of less government and more liberty - and with the benefit of making more friends abroad. Given the anti-free-trade tilt of the post-Clinton Democrats, a Republican majority is crucial to getting trade deals done.

Free trade pacts with Peru and Vietnam remain pending for the next Congress.

7. Lawsuit Reform

This is perhaps the one I'm most intimately familiar with, and one that has had immediate practical significance - the Class Action Fairness Act, passed in February 2005. Like a lot of subjects on this list, reform of the civil justice system will likely take many incremental steps, but this one went right to work, immediately re-routing scores of multimillion-dollar nationwide class actions with nationwide effects out of the handful of plaintiff-friendliest state court jurisdictions and into federal court to be governed by uniform national procedural standards (including the fact that federal courts are less likely to apply a single state's law to a lawsuit involving people from all over the country). Though it operates to transfer power from state to federal government, CAFA is actually a significant boon to federalism by reducing the ability of any single state to export its laws and the biases of a particular locale to the nation as a whole.

Not such a terrible job for two years' work, two years in which much attention was consumed by natural disasters at home and war abroad and during which the House leadership underwent a significant mid-course reshuffling. More can, and should, be demanded of future GOP majorities. But much less should be expected if those majorities don't survive November 7.

« When Negative Ads BackfireComments (4) | Get On The PhoneComments (8) »
Your 109th Congress 27 Comments (0 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

second-most-conservative Republican president

That's simply a sad state of affairs as Bush is so far from being a conservative (except on judges and taxes).

Your choices, recall, are his dad, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Hoover.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Ask that question 5 years ago, and I'll say Cool Cal beats him easily.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Considering for the first 24 years of that 75 year run, the modern conservative movement hadn't been launched yet, it's not THAT bad.

We had to get founded, grow, and create our positions. Fusionism had to come and go, growing some bonds between the religious right and conservatives in the process.

Only then could we make the leap from the dismal electoral failure of Goldwater to the fantastic electoral success of Reagan.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I agree with everyone who is upset that George W. Bush looks a lot more like the "Liberal In Chief" than a conservative. But I ask my conservative friends (and libertarian friends too) not to take this out on the US House of Representatives. If the democrats take the House, our Liberal in Chief will get his amnesty for illegal aliens passed. Only the House stopped this insane plan. Plus, you can be sure spending will get even worse.

Vote Republican for your House Representative. Conservative power in this government is currently found only in the House of Representatives. Lets not throw that away!

Vote and Vote Republican!

President Bush is no conservative, but anyone who's disappointed simply wasn't paying attention in 2000. The things he's done that are to the left of the party mainstream, are things he RAN on.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Our fault for nominating this guy.

At least "compassionate conservatism" is D.E.A.D.

but it's secular older brother is still alive and well. Just look at the Republicans in the Senate.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

and John Koward Kerry. You should stand in line to kiss his butt in thanks for that, just as soon as Bob Dole gets finished.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

with the same personality he had in the Viagra ads the world would be a much better place.

As I recall 2000, the choice worked down to Bush or McCain. The rest of the field were busy impersonating the Dwarfs. I honestly can't remember anyone else in the running.

Given a choice between W and J, we made the right choice. I am very unhappy with a bunch of W's policies, but given the choice I would take him again over the opponents.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

...its not like he went out bragging about his far-left views and positions on immigration. And he didn't exactly tell us that he'd applaud a Sup Court decision upholding racial preferences in public education.

I'm not fond of W for a whole list of reasons I won't bore you with now. However, you're off the reservation on the specifics you point out.

-> "Immigration." The President is right where he was in 2000 on immigration. He didn't specifically endorse amnesty at that time, but if you follow his position statements on immigrants, Mexico and specifically Mexican immigrants the only surprise here is that the actually signed the fence bill.

-> "Racial Preferences." He had no control over the decision, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that statements after the decision were simply making the best of a bad situation. I'll give him a pass on that because of his SCOTUS nominees, at least after HM was withdrawn.

Bush has NEVER been a "conservative", any more than his father was.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

But on the second, it was his legal team that argued in favor of the continuation of the preferences. His team didn't have to make those arguments, they could have argued that in the abscence of an overt act of racism, there is no justification for granting preference based on race.

Still, as you say, the Bushes are from the noble obligations branch, not conservatism per se.

Yes, there was no reason to think Bush would be a conservative on immigration in 2000, but its also true that he didn't make it known just how far left he would be on it, both in his rhetoric (constant use of the various platitudes, calling Minute Men 'vigilantes, redefining amnesty), and his policies (refusal to enforce laws, embracing of amnesty).

And as for racial preferences; what bothered me was (1) he sided with Alberto Gonzales over Theodore Olsen over what type of position to take. Gonzales favored embracing 'diversity' as a compelling state interest, while Olsen favored the principled, conservative position that rejected the diversity rationale; and (2) he applauded the pro-preferences decision. As you say, maybe it was making the best of the situation, but what was the point in that? Why not just say that the diversity rationale is garbage? When you consider its collision with his immigration policies, then it becomes downright insane.

I am a bankruptcy attorney, and trust me BAPCPA is poorly drafted, ineffective and just plain embaressing. Though I am a republican, we should not try to take credit for that bill.

You can almost feel how he strained not to type 'rethuglikkkan.' He'd have passed out if he added the capital R.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

You can't just throw out "bad legislation" comments with no support.

*********************************************************
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

The bankruptcy bill does have its substantial critics. I'm not strongly for or against it, but the reason I lumped it in with "stuff that got done but wasn't necessarily good" is because there were genuine grounds for debate on the merits.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Nice try, but the fact remains that the folks in Washington lost the way and let us down. Conservatives have every right to be angry, and not just with W. The leadership of the House and Senate are just as much at fault, and just as guilty of abandoning conservative principles.

That does not mean that conservatives should vote Libertarian, stay home on election day, or fail to work the phones. Folks can make all the chess analogies they want, but I'm not seeing a strategy where Republicans come out ahead in 2008 or 2010 by losing seats now. Keeping the faith is hard when you've been let down, but sometimes it's what you have to do.

BTW, I'm not sure how you get W up to the number two spot. Hoover held to his small government principles in the face of incredible pressure. Even Nixon, for all the big government entitlement programs midwifed on his watch, took important steps to move the country towards the right (the first conservative Supreme Court appointments in a generation, at least jawboning against the steady aggrandizement of the federal bureacracy and the welfare state, taking active steps to help develop a new generation of young Republican activists, and so on, making his legacy at least mixed, and in an environment where he did not have the total control over Congress that W has had). At best, W's legacy will also be mixed, and I'm not sure that when all the balancing is done history will judge W as more conservative than Nixon, even acknowledging the massively liberal elements of the Nixon legacy.

Hoover was not a small government guy. Smoot-Hawley is the most obvious example but Hoover was more of a technocrat than a Coolidge type.

Nixon did indeed score some wins for conservatism, but he also put Harry Blackmun on the Supreme Court and instituted wage and price controls, to give two especially egregious examples. And his record on spending was appalling.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Smoot-Hawley was mainly protectionist tariffs, back when that was not viewed as a liberal/conservative issue, and when the liberating impact of free trade was not well understood. It's not altogether just to hold a guy acting in 1930 to post Chicago school concepts of economics. As he understood conservatism and conservative principles, Hoover was a solid conservative. No one would say the same of W.

As for Nixon, there are wage and price controls, the creation of the EPA, the actual and sizeable increase in the size of the federal government, and so on - all enacted in a world where truly liberal Democrats controlled the Congress, which had something to do with defining what was possible (and what is politics, after all, but the art of the possible?). W rammed through his government-expanding drug entitlement by bamboozling a conservative Congress; it was not imposed on him by a liberal Congress. As for the Court, Blackmun was considered a tough-on-crime conservative when he got nominated; that both he and the hot button issues changed makes a fascinating story but you can't fairly blame Nixon for not forecasting what Blackmun would become. Nixon did appoint Rehnquist to the Court, and that was probably the single most important Court appointment of the 20th century. Rehnquist virtually single handledly changed the terms of Constitutional debate through the force of his personality and the clarity of his written opinions. Then there was law-and-order - because the notion that bad guys who break laws should be put away for a long time is so universally accepted these days, we forget what a huge and hot issue it was back when Nixon was in power. More than anyone else, he held the line on law and order. Sure, all taken together, Nixon is a mixed bag, but then so is W.

I'm sticking with W being at best third, and probably no better than fourth. I'm not even sure he bests Eisenhower, a moderate, but a prudent moderate. I view prudence as a conservative virtue, and no one would accuse W of being prudent.

While we are on the topic of conservative Presidents, who is going to be the conservative candidate for 2008? I'm not really seeing one among the supposed front runners.

Also, on Nixon, don't forget that he's the one who started us on that 'realism' kick, conducting an amoral foreign policy that led us to buddy up with Communist China.

Nixon would have a hard time fitting into today's Republican party.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Bush ran on implementing a perscription drug program for seniors and HE DELIVERED. Ok. So you don't like the idea of expanding entitlement programs. Think for a moment about listening to DEMS running on PERSCRIPTION DRUGS or DOG FOOD for the last couple of years and into the 08 elections. At least the plan that was passed has SOME SMALL incentives from the "free markets".

Oh, and we may have already lost the house and even perhaps Kerry would have been elected. Good GOD! We had been hearing about perscription drugs for the last 10 years.

Get over yourselves people. The program should be means tested. Yet that would never have happened. I don't begrudge seniors medicine. In fact we actually OWE THIS PARTICULAR generation of seniors alot. And so what...now some have MORE MONEY to spend on OTHER goods and services.

Now when the crybaby, whiny, babyboomers retire...well I don't think we OWE them as much.

Until we can means test ALL the entitlement programs WE ARE STUCK.

Quit whining YOU TOO MAY BE OLD SOMEDAY ...and have more money to spend on other stuff. OK?

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service