By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 10/02 at 10:11 PM
(1)
Comments
The VP debate is in the books, and pundits are busily dissecting the performances of both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin and what they mean to their respective “principles,“ to use Biden’s term.
Here are my quick takes on the night:
Everyone was waiting for a gaffe. Could Biden keep his mouth shut and avoid the pitfalls of perceived sexism or overaggression? The answer was yes. Biden was careful not to engage Palin directly, though she tried hard to draw him in. He chose to speak to the moderator, and a few times to the camera, but very, very infrequently did he speak to Palin herself. He was measured and even, his tone only giving way to anger once that I saw. For her part, could Palin make it through 90 minutes without any Couric interview-like comments? The answer was yes. She came out of the gate direct and strong, speaking directly to the camera about 3/4 of the time and to Biden most of the rest of the time. Palin did have some minor miscues: Two people texted me swearing that they heard Palin say, “O’Biden;“ at one point, I understood her to say “for Ganistan,“ or something to that effect; and she pronounces it “nucular.“ The most major misstep she had was confusing the name of the general in command in Afghanistan; she called him “McClellan;“ his name is “McKiernan.“ But given that 99.999 percent of Americans don’t know the difference, that’s a negligible mistake.
I thought Palin held her own and was most impressive during the first 20 or 25 minutes of the debate, when discussion centered around domestic policy. She was clear and concise, and she was able to effectively contrast McCain’s platform with Obama’s. She got a couple of strong digs in and was able to score some points with voters—well, CNN’s “uncommitted Ohio voters,“ anyway—in her answers early on. But when the subject matter turned to foreign policy, it was quite evident that she was out of her league. She made a valiant effort to keep pace with Biden—who, after all, was chosen for nothing else than his foreign policy expertise—and she was much improved from her interviews with ABC’s Charlie Gibson and CBS’s Katie Couric. But if you are a 40-something governor with virtually no foreign policy experience, there is no matching wits with someone who has spent 36 years in the Senate and has made it his hallmark.
I have to give Gwen Ifill credit; for all the sound and fury about her new book about THE AGE OF OBAMA, she was even-handed and fair. There is no way to know, of course, whether she was more even-handed and fairer because of all the uproar about her book. But whatever the cause, Ifill was careful to not make herself the issue. One could even make the case that she trod especially lightly around Palin. There were several times when Ifill could have pressed her for an answer to a question when Palin answered a question that wasn’t asked, but Ifill never did so. In the end, Ifill was fair. But we can’t know whether she was always going to be fair. There’s always that question of whether it was a reaction to the book backlash. And she could have—and probably should have—pressed Palin for answers to her questions. For whatever reason, she chose not to do so, and the debate was weaker for it. And that goes back to what I was talking about the other day: If the book hadn’t become an issue, Ifill could have pressed without being accused of roughing up Palin. Given the circumstances, though, I thought Ifill did a relatively admirable job. It’s nice to see a moderator actually stay out of the fray and leave the candidates to make the news during the debate. (Right, George Stephanopoulous?)
If there was any question about the groundbreaking interest this vice presidential debate drew among the American public, consider this: Nearly two full hours after the debate concluded, fully 80 percent of Google’s Top 100 most-searched phrases were debate-related. Several of these searches were for vocabulary words (turpitude, No. 20; divestment, No. 35; consummate, No. 43; tumultuous, No. 84) or concepts (“exceptionalism,“ from Palin’s use of the phrase, “American exceptionalism,“ checked in at No. 9). But the 61st-most searched term on Google tonight gives us by far the clearest picture of the interest in this election: “Am I registered to vote?“
There was a lot of talk post-debate about what the impact of this debate will be on the campaigns themselves. Republican pundits on CNN were generally of the mindset that Palin did her job, which was to reassure the conservative base that McCain hadn’t made a mistake in choosing her. Democratic pundits said that it was a sorry day, indeed, when the bar is so low that you are left to convince your own party that you’re a credible candidate. But whatever the impact, everyone generally agreed that by tomorrow, this debate will be basically forgotten (except by Tina Fey and the writers at “Saturday Night Live”), absorbed into the continuing drama on Capitol Hill about what will happen with the not-a-bailout bill.
Tomorrow, all eyes turn back to Washington and the House of Representatives to see whether Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team can hold together enough Democrats to pass the not-a-bailout bill. Conventional wisdom seems to be that they will.
What happens after that is anyone’s guess.
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 10/02 at 03:25 PM
(0)
Comments
CNN now has a story about the proliferation of earmarks in the Senate’s version of the not-a-bailout bill. I saw a video of it by Brian Todd on CNN a bit ago, but it isn’t available on the web site yet. I’ll keep checking.
Guess which earmark is getting the most attention?
If you guessed CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN, you get an A!!
From CNN:
For example, the proposal includes an excise tax exemption for a very specific type of arrow used by child archers.
According to Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group, current law places an excise tax of 39 cents on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer or importer of any shaft of a type used to produce certain types of arrows.
“This proposal would exempt from the excise tax any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means to enhance the spine of the shaft used in the manufacture of an arrow that measures 5/16 of an inch or less and is unsuited for use with a bow with a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more,“ Ellis wrote.
Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, and Gordon Smith, a Republican, were the initial sponsors of the arrow provision. According to Bloomberg News, the earmark provision would be worth $200,000 a year to Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon.
A Wyden aide said the Oregon senator did not ask that the provision be added to bailout package, but that doesn’t fly with Ellis.
“The bottom line is, this is benefiting a very few manufacturers, and I think most Americans who are either concerned about the bailout package or concerned about the economy are going to be wondering why a provision benefiting wooden arrow manufacturers is catching a ride on the package,“ Ellis said.
Um ... yes, they sure are.
Incidentally, I think it’s really funny—not in a comical way, but in an insulting way—that Wyden’s aide says it’s not an earmark because Wyden didn’t request it.
So now we have not-really-earmarks as part of the not-a-bailout bill.
Give me a break!
Read the rest of the story here.
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 10/02 at 07:22 AM
(0)
Comments
Ding ding ding!! Take your seats, class; American Government is now in session.
When I heard on Tuesday that the U.S. Senate would take up the not-a-bailout bill yesterday, my first thought was, “How? It failed in the House.“
One of the first things you learn about Congress is that the House balances the Senate’s power by holding the purse strings. Per Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives ...“
I wondered how the Senate could pass the bill before the House could, and I spent most of the day Tuesday and almost all day yesterday trying to figure it out. More than a few people believe that the Senate’s action yesterday was unconstitutional because they leapfrogged the House on the not-a-bailout package.
They leapfrogged the House, all right, but it’s completely constitutional. How? The answer lies in the phrase immediately following the “all bills” clause:
“... but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.“
And that’s exactly what they did.
H.R. 3997, the not-a-bailout deal rejected by the House Monday, actually began as a tax credit bill for military servicemembers and others. It was passed by the House and amended and passed by the Senate. It was sent back to the House for that chamber to concur. It was awaiting action there when it became the vehicle for the not-a-bailout package. (That’s why the vote says, “On Concurring in Senate Amendment With An Amendment;“ the House rejected the amendment that would have put the not-a-bailout language on the returning bill.)
The House failed to send 3997 back over, so the Senate had to look for another way over the river. Enter H.R. 1424, a bill by U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) known as “The Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.“
When the House passed it back on March 5, H.R. 1424 was itself an amendment of sorts: It rewrote sections of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Public Health Service Act and the Internal Revenue Code “to require equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment, and for other purposes,“ according to the Library of Congress’s bill information system.
The Senate received it, read it the first time and placed it on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
... Back in March.
Translation: Until it was snatched up, Frankensteined with the not-a-bailout language, debated and passed—all in one day—yesterday, it languished for nearly six months without so much as a single committee assignment.
That’s important because the language that was in it—the mental health parity language—remained in the bill. It was passed yesterday without a single committee hearing in the Senate.
Here’s the interesting thing about the process: As it was sent to the Senate, H.R. 1424 boasted 274 co-sponsors, almost all Democrats.
When the bill returns to the House, if everyone whose name is on the bill votes for it, the bill will have 275 votes—far more than the 218 it will need to pass.
But it’s likely that many of those co-sponsors will now oppose the bill on which their name appears. Of course, the original mental health parity provisions are still in the bill. But they have been absorbed by the gargantuan appetite of proviso language having to do with the not-a-bailout package: The mental health language doesn’t appear until Subtitle B of Title V.
(EDITOR’S NOTE: Warning; sarcasm coming.)
In addition to the things you’ve probably already heard about the not-a-bailout package—an increased FDIC deposit limit, the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax, the extension of the federal deduction for state and local sales taxes and the provisions needed to enable the government to buy up $700 billion in “illiquid assets”—the Senate showed tremendous leadership in addressing other issues absolutely critical to getting the U.S. economy moving. Among these:
SEC. 317. SEVEN-YEAR COST RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MOTORSPORTS RACING TRACK FACILITY.
SEC. 325. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF DUTY SUSPENSION ON WOOL PRODUCTS; WOOL RESEARCH FUND; WOOL DUTY REFUNDS;
SEC. 502. PROVISIONS RELATED TO FILM AND TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS; and
SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.
I am not making this up.
Never mind the mortgage mess. I feel all better about the economy now that we got those tax breaks on certain wooden arrows designed for use by children!! The dollar will rise again!!
Now you know why Ben Stein used the word “festooned” to describe what the Senate did with the not-a-bailout bill. I don’t know who lobbies for “certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.“ But you can bet that whomever it is will be receiving a handsome bonus from a very, very happy client.
But wait! There’s more. This bill now strays into other major issues, like illegal immigration and national intelligence capabilities, under the cover of the not-a-bailout language. That’s NOT sarcasm, and I’ll tell you about it in a separate post.
And by the way, the operative title of the bill now is, “Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.“ That language is buried in Title VI.
Don’t you just love the legislative process?
Now, I hope you were taking copious notes, because there will be a test on this material—on Nov. 4.
