On Tuesday Nov. 4, millions of Americans turned out to vote in the Federal midterm as well as local and state elections. Dominating the mindset of a majority of the voter-base was disappointment in the last two years under the Democratic Party’s majority in the Senate and dismally low approval ratings for President Obama.
As a result of these ongoing themes, The Republican Party saw a sweeping set of victories in both houses of the United States Congress, as well as in the state governor setting. Already having a majority, the Republicans gained 14 seats in the House of Representatives – most significantly, ousting three incumbent officials in New York State as well as in Texas, Florida, Iowa, West Virginia, Georgia and North Carolina (among others). John Boehner, of Ohio’s 8th Congressional District, continues his tenure as Speaker of the House and third in line to the Presidency. The current house demographics stand at 243 (R) to 178 (D) with 14 districts undecided (as of Wednesday) due to close calls, run-off elections, or inconclusive results.
The Republicans also managed to pull off a 7-seat gain in the Senate – putting them in the majority for at least the next two years. The incoming Republicans successfully defeated long time Democrat strongholds in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina defeating ex-Senators Mark Udall, Mark Pryor, and Kay Hagan respectively. In addition, the Republicans picked up Montana, Iowa, South Dakota, and West Virginia – and by the end of the week it is predicted Alaska will also be picked up by Republicans.
Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada ends a seven year stint as Majority Leader and will pass off his position of control to the Republican’s Mitch McConnell from Kentucky. The current results from Tuesday’s turnout place the Democrats with 45 and the Republicans with 52. Though the races in Alaska, Virginia, and Louisiana have not been decisively announced (as of Wednesday), no possible outcome would change the final count.
Andrew Cuomo was re-elected to as the Governor of New York State, defeating Republican adversary Rob Astorino. However, the Democrat-laden New York State legislature did see some change with the Senate being overtaken by a Republican majority. New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio teamed up with long-standing U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer and Governor Cuomo in an attempt to rally Democratic voters to a victory in the Senate. Despite their efforts, key districts in Long Island and upstate New York swung sharply to the left, increasing the Republicans margin of control.
For Houghton, the reelection of longtime representatives Assemblyman Joseph Giglio, Senator Catherine Young, and U.S. Representative, Thomas Reed, comes as no surprise. A highly Republican region, all three were incumbents and faced little real challenge in getting re-elected (Giglio and Young ran unopposed). Reed faced Martha Roberts from Ithaca, but defeated her.
Though most may consider midterm elections unimportant in comparison with Presidential elections, this weeks results and incoming politicians will determine many of the issues that will be hot topics during the 2016 presidential election. Time will tell if Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or another Democratic presidential candidate has been handily equipped with a Congress they will need to get elected.
According to a public opinion poll taken last year, Congress is less popular than cockroaches, traffic jams, and root canals. In fairness, it is not unusual for Americans to be dissatisfied with congressional performance, but popularity levels of Congress are at their lowest in recent American history. A Gallup opinion poll reports that currently congressional approval rests at just about 15%, well below the historical average of 33% since Gallup began polling in 1974. Across the country, Americans are crying for congressional reform.
Courtesy of en.wikipedia.org
A popular grassroots movement to reform Congress advocates the imposition of term limits on federal lawmakers. In the current American political system, term limits in the House and Senate do not exist. A legislator can be voted into office and, granted that they survive elections every few years, they could stay in office for life. Most supporters of a term limits reform hope to limit legislators to about 12 years in their office–which translates to two terms in the Senate and six terms in the House. (Of course, a Representative that serves six-terms could also have the opportunity to run for the Senate for an additional two.)
According to a Gallup poll taken last year, nearly 75% of American adults favor instituting term limits, with 21% against. The same poll indicates that this reform measure has support across both party lines and across all age groups. It’s a popular reform proposal, but is it a good one?
Supporters claim that this type of reform is directed towards “career politicians,” who they claim pursue office for their own interests rather than on behalf of their constituents. From this point of view, “career politicians” are more concerned about re-election, not legislation, and are beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists, rather than to their vocation as a representative to their home district. In effect, these Americans view incumbents and long-serving senators and representatives as “what’s wrong with Washington.”
Ultimately, the main goal behind the term limits movement is to reform and perfect representation. Term limits seem like a good way to get the “bad” politicians out who might otherwise be kept in place by political machinery and the nearly insuperable advantage of incumbency. Supporters of a term limits reform, like conservative Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist George Will, claim that instituting term limits will change the motivations that politician have in running for office. Imposing term limits would purportedly turn Congress into a “rotating citizen body.” The added effect of a “rotating citizen body” would be that it would be a pool of new ideas and new approaches to the issues, with less corruption.
One can see the appeal of a “citizen body” in Congress–the kind idealized by Frank Capra’s movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It is reasonable for voters to be more comfortable if “someone like me” were elected into office. However, in contrast to these claims, one could pose the following question: is lack of experience now a job qualification?
Like any other job, elected legislators are subject to a learning curve, which takes time to establish. Among the key things that newcomers learn in Congress in their first year is the organization and structure of Congress. To clarify, this does not refer to procedure but to the expected norms of Congress as a social institution.
Indeed, Congress, like all governmental structures, is a social body. There are certain norms that legislators are expected to adhere to. In the American system, this includes apprenticeship of junior members to senior members, restrained partisanship, institutional (read: House or Senate) loyalty, individual specialization in key policy fields, and reciprocity between members. Put together, these norms create something we could call “institutional memory”–a collective set of guidelines and know-how within the institution. Newcomers to Congress do not have this information-set going into office, it’s something that they have to learn on the job. In turn, these norms ultimately produce better legislation by the mere fact that they produce better legislators.
The effect of term limits on institutional memory would be largely negative. Think about it: no sooner would a legislator learn the ropes around Congress or experience major pieces of legislation with senior members or begin to specialize in a policy field before they would be turned out of office not by voters, but by a ticking clock. Sure, there are many remarkably talented people that can serve in Congress, but there is a benefit to re-electing members that are already familiar with the information-set to do their jobs well. Rapid turnover in Congress–a rotating “body of citizens”–would decrease the power of institutional memory and would be akin to trying to build a legislative institution on shifting sand.
Although not perfectly analogous, the recent influx of legislative newcomers (who–largely–campaigned against so-called “career politicians”) in the current Congress has provided a glimpse into what a future with term limits might look like. The current Congress has been marked by new members (such as Ted Cruz [R-TX] of government-shutdown fame) who actively have resisted following the historic norms set before them. The result has been, frankly, creating a toxic atmosphere on the Hill that makes legislative work unrewarding and has driven many members–often those used to working across the aisle–away.
In response to senators like Cruz and others who have disrupted congressional norms, many senior members of what has been dubbed as the “problem-solving caucus” have decided to not seek re-election. As former senator and famed bipartisan Olympia Snowe (R-ME) penned in an editorial in the Washington Post, “the Founding Fathers intended the Senate to serve as an institutional check that ensures all voices are heard and considered…Yet more than 200 years later, the greatest deliberative body in history is not living up to its billing. The Senate of today routinely jettisons regular order.” After three terms in office, and despite being a key compromiser and legislative-veteran, Snowe has decided to retire.
Other senior legislatures agreed with Snowe. For example, in a statement to the Detroit News, Representative John Dingell (D-MI) said, “I find serving in the House to be obnoxious….This is not the Congress I know and love. It’s hard for me to accept, but it’s time to cash in.”
To conclude, “the establishment” isn’t the problem–it’s actually one of the greatest strengths of Congress. Imposing term limits on Congress would not just be an ineffectual reform, it would only make things worse.
When I think about news engagement (that is, how often one watches or reads the daily news), I often think about my grandparents. Every morning of the week or the weekend whenever they would visit my family as a child, the TV monitor would tuned to a local or national news station (and often flipped between several if there were commercial breaks.) It was a ritual for my grandparents to turn on the news station and listen to the reports while they fixed their bacon, eggs, and coffee and got ready to begin the day.
I remember my grandparents because according to statistics, news engagement, such as reading a daily printed newspaper or watching a news program, appears to be diminishing with every passing generation. In other words, there has been an alarming occurrence of young people going “newsless” and news engagement habits – such as my grandparents habit of watching morning news programs every day – seem to be disappearing.
According to a 2012 Pew Research report, a full 29% of younger Americans under the age of 25 tend to be “newsless” on a typical day (including digital news) while older Americans are less likely to do so. In addition to this, young people that do pay attention and engage with the news are also less likely to spend much time with it. Pew reports that those younger than 30 spent an average of 45 minutes engaging with the news while older age groups spend a range of 62 to 83 minutes per day. However, according to another Pew poll, the major audience for “fake” news programs such as Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” or Stephen Colbert’s “The Colbert Report” are youth – some of whom even cite those programs as their main source of news.
I have known these frightful statistics to parallel conversations that I have had with my peers. Some that I have talked with have cited frustration with media in general, specifying concerns about propaganda or bias in major national news networks which causes them to shun media in general. (These are, I expect, people who would watch “The Daily Show” or “The Colbert Report.”) Others do not see the enterprise as very important or relevant to their daily lives and just don’t bother to take the time.
This is worrisome because a well-informed national population often means a strong civic culture. Being informed on current events means that people will be more likely to take action on important issues, whether it be on the local, national, or international level. A father may be encouraged to get involved with the PTO after reading about a decision that his child’s school board makes. A woman may write a letter of concern to members of Congress following an article covering a political issue important to her. A church group may decide to organize a relief effort following news of an international disaster. There are many examples of how paying attention to current events can galvanize people to action. When young people do not pay attention to the news, will they be able to take action and contribute to the democratic system that our country prides? Or participate in international affairs?
In other words: read, watch, and listen to the news, young people. Change your attitudes, change your habits. Establish a routine – such as looking at the headlines of a front page of a news website each day – and find a way to incorporate engaging with the news on a frequent basis. Who knows? You may find yourself motivated to make a stand for your beliefs or to do things that contribute to other people’s welfare along the way.
On September 30 this week, at the stroke of midnight, the federal government shut down.
This circumstance is not new to American history. The United States has gone through many partial and full government shutdowns, the most recent occasion taking place in 1995-1996 when Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House and President Clinton was in office. This latest incident, however, involved not only a disagreement between Republicans and Democrats on how to best fund the government, but revealed a growing rift within the GOP as well.
Courtesy of cnn.com
In short, Congress was supposed to approve a budget by 11:59 p.m. on September 30, but failed to do so. This was because Congress could not agree on appropriations bills required. In fact, congressional leaders had seen this trouble coming for a few weeks. As time was beginning to run out, House Republicans proposed a temporary budget plan (what is called a “stopgap measure”) that would give them more time to create a full one. However this plan was created to appeal directly to the hardliners of the party and their conservative base by calling for the defunding of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, also called Obamacare), the new healthcare plan that was due to take place on October 1, both in exchange for keeping the government running for a few more months. Democrats were overwhelmingly opposed to defunding ACA, as this is President Obama’s keystone legislation, and refused to pass the stopgap measure unless this was stripped from it. In the end, the debate continued and both the House and the Senate voted several more times, but nothing was passed and no agreement was ever reached. The government thus shut down after the due date on October 1.
So what does a government shutdown actually mean? It means that although not all government functions will cease to operate, there will be significant cuts and furloughs across all federal agencies. In sum, according to the Washington Post, an estimated 800,000 federal workers will be furloughed without pay and almost every agency from the Education Department to the FDA will be reduced in some way. National parks, Smithsonian museums, and national monuments will also be closed. Meanwhile, various other government programs, such as the WIC program, will be running on reserve funding, until the government can resolve the budget issue.
The longest that the US has experienced a government shutdown has been three weeks. In normal circumstances, the party that is undergoing the most fallout and political pressure as a result of the shutdown will begin to offer concessions. Many speculate, however, that the high level of partisanship and congressional gridlock experienced in D.C. these past few years (and recent weeks) will protract negotiations. Neither side seems willing to budge and, meanwhile, Republicans seem to be caught in a moment of disunity between the more conservative members of the party and the more moderate members which should add an extra complexity to the negotiations.
Of course, not all federal functions have disappeared. Functions that relate to the well-being of citizens and the security of the country are still being allowed to continue. For example, air traffic controllers will continue working, Social Security checks will continue to be delivered to the elderly, veterans’ hospitals will remain open, and operations like border patrol will remain in place.
Americans on the whole do not approve of the shutdown, with most placing the majority of the blame at the Republicans’ feet. Whether this will be enough to galvanize political leaders to come to a compromise, however, is anyone’s guess.
This past Wednesday, President Obama unveiled a new budget plan to be sent to Congress. Obama’s proposal will also be considered next to other plans that have already been proposed, including, most notably, two separate competing plans drawn up by Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in the House and Senator Patty Murphy (D-Wash.) in the Senate.
Courtesy of money.cnn.com
Obama’s proposal, a ten year plan, calls for about $300 billion in new spending measures for employment and public works, along with major new taxes for the wealthy, and some entitlement reforms. The plan calls for, among other things, an extra charge of 94 cents added to the cost of a pack of cigarettes. (The proceeds from the charge will be used to help finance programs for preschool education, programs that Obama mentioned in the State of the Union Address earlier this year.) Besides this striking feature, the plan will also call for $700 billion in new tax increases for the wealthy which, not unexpectedly, does not please many Republicans in Congress. However, the President has also made several concessions to Republicans, such as reducing Medicare benefits for wealthy couples.
By far, however, the largest concession that the President’s plan offers the Republicans is to reduce Social Security by applying a chained consumer price index (chained CPI) that will be less generous in calculating benefits. (Along with Social Security, the chained CPI will index spending and taxes by tying them directly to the rate of inflation.) Compared to the old model of calculating benefits, the new formula will cause benefits to tick up at a much slower rate. This is expected to save the federal government about $130 billion within the next ten years.
This is a bold step by the President, as trimming Social Security is often considered untouchable by the members of his own party. Regardless, some Republicans in Senate are pleased with the concession and see this as a point where Republicans and Democrats can begin to compromise, though many Republicans advocate for higher Social Security costs. Other Republicans, however, do not see Obama’s move as a conciliatory measure and do not think that the concession really reforms entitlements. According to the Washington Post, Representative Ryan said that, “I don’t see this as fundamental entitlement reform as much as clarifying a statistic which does happen to save money.”
Obama’s proposal comes several days late – 65 days, to be exact. Usually in Washington, the president is the one to initiate discussions on the budget but, with several fiscal crises in the first quarter of this year, Obama’s initiative was delayed and the Senate and House of Representatives have already proceeded with their own initiatives.
Republican congressional plans generally seek to balance the budget within ten years and cut spending. Their counterparts, Democrat congressional plans, also seek to reduce deficit, but not to balance the budget. President Obama’s plan is no different in this respect. Regarding the level of national debt, one Republican plan from the House will level off debt within ten years, but another plan submitted by the Republican Study Committee would reduce it significantly. Obama’s plan, like other Democrat plans, will not reduce national debt significantly and will continue to let it to swell.
Budget talks in the upcoming weeks will continue to be debated. Continue to keep an eye on the news for further developments.
During the State of the Union Address on Tuesday, President Obama spoke on the topic of immigration reform, saying, “Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months, and I will sign it right away.”
Courtesy of bigthink.com
During his speech, Obama mentioned three things that he wishes in an immigration reform package. One, he desires to continue to increase border security; two, he would establish “a responsible pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants already here; and three, he would reform the process of legal immigration so that there would be fewer waiting periods and would attract those that would help create jobs and help to grow the economy.
This was not merely talk. In recent weeks, comprehensive immigration reform has been steadily approaching legislative reality. A bipartisan group of senators, four Democrats and four Republicans, was formed only a few weeks ago with the task of developing a framework for reform that could possibly develop into a bill. This group has spearheaded the effort to come up with solutions to the many problems of immigration in this country – namely, illegal immigration, undocumented workers, insecure borders, and problems with the process of legal immigration, along with other issues.
For once, this seems to be a movement that will receive much, if not total, support in Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that immigration reform makes economic sense as immigrants are a key part of economic growth and development. Given the current economic uncertainty, immigration is a vital issue to address. The GOP also seeks to broaden its base, especially after the last presidential election where most of the Hispanic vote went to President Obama. Offering solutions to the immigration problem and presenting themselves as open to discussion will help develop support for the GOP platforms.
The public has also demonstrated consistent support for immigration reform. According to a Gallup poll, more than seven in ten Americans support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and more than eight in ten Americans support legislation that would require that all employers verify that their employees are living in the United States legally.
Efforts to reach across the aisle and compromise about immigration also seem to be gaining ground, particularly from Senator Marco Rubio (R.-FL) who is quickly becoming a GOP superstar. Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has been consistently leading the effort on behalf of the GOP to get discussion going. However, a hurdle that must cleared for legislation regarding immigration is a pivotal controversy within the Republican Party itself.
There are a significant number of GOP members who do not wish a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, saying that it amounts to amnesty. There are others within the party that disagree. Rubio dodged this issue in his speech in the GOP response to the State of the Union Address on Tuesday evening, but in recent weeks he has shown his support for a process of citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
The United States may well be on its way to immigration reform within the coming weeks. As talks and discussions among Congress become more serious and legislation begins to develop, the United States may even be implementing new immigration reform by the next State of the Union Address in 2014.
As a result of these ongoing themes, The Republican Party saw a sweeping set of victories in both houses of the United States Congress, as well as in the state governor setting. Already having a majority, the Republicans gained 14 seats in the House of Representatives – most significantly, ousting three incumbent officials in New York State as well as in Texas, Florida, Iowa, West Virginia, Georgia and North Carolina (among others). John Boehner, of Ohio’s 8th Congressional District, continues his tenure as Speaker of the House and third in line to the Presidency. The current house demographics stand at 243 (R) to 178 (D) with 14 districts undecided (as of Wednesday) due to close calls, run-off elections, or inconclusive results.
