The President’s Action on Immigration

As I research and write what amounts to a bi-weekly column on my deeply held concerns about the state of Israel, under the collective heading “I Am A Jew,” I think it is appropriate for a short time out, to focus on another pressing issue, namely the gridlock in the Congress.

The President’s action on immigration, taken out of absolute frustration with the inability of Congress to deal with the needs of the nation, made me address this issue with a short Letter to the Editor of The Record, a North Jersey daily newspaper. I chose The Record because my frustration with the New York Times has reached the breaking point. Getting a letter printed in that storied paper is like winning the lottery, with the odds being similar.

While the New York Times has an average circulation of 1,865,318 The Record has a daily circulation of 138,904 and a Sunday circulation of 167,278 and it is growing. It is better to reach a potential readership of 167,278, than to strive for the moon, and reach no one.

My Letter to the Editor of The Record, which appeared in last Sunday’s edition,  is set forth below:

Regarding “Obama calls for ‘accountability’ ” (Page A-1, Nov. 21):

The president’s action on immigration reminds us once again that gridlock has become the norm in Congress.

An immigration bill passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote, and a vote count in the House showed that it would have passed if it had been put up for a vote.  But the Republican Speaker, John Boehner, refused to allow a vote.

We have a similar situation in the Senate, where numerous House bills have died without being put to a vote because the Democratic Majority Leader, Harry Reid, wants to protect members of his caucus from having to cast votes that might be politically difficult. 

This puts far too much power in the hands of single individuals, and quite possibly, is a greater cause for gridlock that even the infamous filibuster.

The Constitution did not intend one party leader in either chamber to exercise veto power over legislation. I strongly urge that the Congress pass rules that require an up or down vote on any legislation passed by the other chamber.

The American people should demand it. 

Emil Scheller 

Fort Lee, Nov. 21 

Comments are welcome and will be published with attribution unless anonymity is requested. 

The Trojan Horse – Comments II (continued)

In my last post "The Trojan Horse – Comments II" I responded to only half of Leonard Levenson’s comment. My earlier response can be found by clicking on the title shown in brown above. Leonard Levenson’s full comment can be found here.

I will here continue with my response showing his arguments in quotations and my responses in the body.

Before negotiations got a full head of steam he made a public announcement that the 14th Amendment argument was not a winning argument. You say the public would not have supported such a move. The public is interested in results...not the niceties of the literal adherence to arcane provisions in the constitution. A strong argument by him to Boehner that he was prepared to use the 14th Amendment would have gotten him enormous public support and put the fear of god in the Republicans. Compared to the outrages to the constitution by Bush such as the institution of torture as official Government policy and Bush's bill signing declarations, Obama's threatened use of the 14th amendment have had the seriousness of spitting on the sidewalk in a Draconian Penal Code.

It would have been downright stupid for the President to announce in advance that he would rely on the 14th amendment, if the debt ceiling were not raised. That would have let Republicans completely off the hook. Negotiations would have come to a halt. Michelle Bachman would have announced her vindication, proving that she was right all along that failure to raise the debt ceiling would not resulted in default, and the President would have been on the defensive charged with abusing his office by ignoring the will of Congress in order to “continue his spending spree”. Thus a situation where the public was increasingly hostile to Republicans in general and the Tea Party in particular, would have been completely turned around.

Yes, the 14th amendment could have been used with the public's support, if the negotiations had broken down, default had occurred, the stock market had crashed, the economy was in shambles, and the President was acting in an emergency under the 14th amendment. But this was to be avoided at almost all costs, because by that time the economy would have been so damaged as to almost irreparable, something to be avoided at almost all costs.

Obama is a good man but naive in his belief that he could work with the Republicans. If he could make that realization today there might be hope for his Administration. But I fear that he has yet to learn how to play hardball, a skill that the Republicans excel at. Right now we need a nasty, hard-biting, backroom, dirty, skilled politician... not a Constitutional Law Professor. We need a Johnson, a Roosevelt, or a left wing Bush. Instead we have a Woodrow Wilson who couldn't sell ice in the Sahara.

Rah, Rah, --- but the fact is that Obama is a brilliant negotiator, who understands that there is a time for partisan rhetoric and a time to be low key. Yes, I too was disappointed with his inaugural address as Drew Weston complained in the New York Times. But Weston was nit picking almost three years after the fact when it had become fashionable to criticize the President. The President must be judged by results in a political climate unequaled in memory, and as I have pointed out the results would have been impressive even in a less hostile climate. That is what counts.

It should also be noted that in our system of government obstruction is much easier than positive accomplishments.

Lastly, perhaps you can explain why we still do not have relations with Cuba...a largely executive function;

I think Levinson knows why! For the same reason that the hero of the base, (I will be damned if I know why.) John F. Kennedy set this policy in motion. And every President since (I count eight) has continued this policy. Why does Levenson task this President for not doing what nine other Presidents have not done? That shows an unreasoned search for things to criticize.

why we still have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, and Europe plus Military advisory personnel in virtually every right wing country on Earth. When do we learn that supporting Corrupt Governments fighting populist insurgent uprisings can never be successful? How many Vietnams do we have to go through in one lifetime? Do we really need an active military strength of 1.6 million and 200,000 in Europe, 70,000 in S. Korea and Japan, 475 in Honduras and 988 on Diego Garcia? Who are we afraid of? Distribution of our troops is a presidential function as is the size of our army.

That is a lot of lumping. South Korea, Japan, and Europe are Corrupt Governments fighting populist insurgent uprisings? “The size of our army” is a Presidential function? Not since the last time I read the US Constitution! Section. 8. “ The Congress shall have the Power… Clause 12: To raise and support Armies…”

Even in Afghanistan the Taliban can hardly be called a “populist insurgent uprisings.” And as for the rest, our troops have been spread to many countries since the WW II. Just like that – this President is supposed to magically make everything all right with the world. That is a fairy tale world. That is a world of magic wands that should be waved. It just is not the real world. And why didn’t Levenson raise this Banner when all the other Presidents were in office, counting how many since the end of Vietnam? Lets get real!

Would I rather have a Republican in the White House than Obama? Perhaps, if Abe Lincoln were reincarnated! But that doesn't mean we should stop pushing Obama to see reality.

I think it’s the other way around. Obama is very much in touch with reality. It is his critics, as I have demonstrated at length, who are out of touch with reality.

Nor should he believe that the Left has no place to go. We will always vote for him but we may not work for him with the old passion and enthusiasm so important in a campaign nor contribute our money.

It is all the same. Anything less than the most vigorous support of our President would risk turning the country over, not just to Republicans as we used to know them, but to the most extreme, radical and irresponsible bunch that have ever, (or at least since the Great Depression) threatened the welfare of our people. That threat alone should bring more vigor than ever before, This bunch makes G.W. Bush look like a responsible statesman. I contend that we have a President we should be enthusiastic about and one who has under the most difficult circumstances, compiled a record that other Democratic Presidents would have envied, but the threat of Tea party dominance should be enough to sound the bugle.

Since publishing my first installment of The Trojan Horse – Comments II I heard from Levenson again. He wrote:

Thank you for sharing your views with me with regard to Obama. You cannot be serious when you say that my views "represent a closing of one's eyes to facts which contradict preconceived ideas....” I had no greater political desire than to have Obama succeed. I contributed more money and work to his campaign than any other presidential campaign I worked on....including the Nixon McCarthy debacle. My views evolved after 2 1/2 years and evolved very reluctantly.

I will not respond to all of your comments other than to say that my vote (1 time) for Reagan is not a very powerful argument against the validity of my criticism of Obama. Additionally, I do not deny that Obama has been responsible for many worthwhile accomplishments such as the Health Care bill. But even the Health Care Bill must be looked at realistically. For example, most of its important provisions do not take effect until 2014 which make it vulnerable to repeal before its virtues can be shown to the public.

Let me conclude by suggesting that all those that criticize Obama are not his enemies but are merely trying to push from the Left so that he realizes that there is a constituency there that requires his attention.

To which my response was:

First, I probably owe you an apology for referring to your vote for Reagan. That was a cheap shot.

When you say that I can't be serious when I say that your views, (and more importantly the views of the pundits and the many who share your views) "represent a closing of one's eyes to facts which contradict preconceived ideas...." I refer to preconceived ideas of what Obama could be expected to accomplish and how. What I refer to as expecting that he had a magic wand. This is not at all at variance with your having been very enthusiastic about Obama and having worked your tail off for him. It fits right in with it.

What I am saying is that having worked so hard you had totally unrealistic expectations of what he could do, and when those expectations were dashed you became angry. Again I am speaking less about you individually, but rather the many for whom you speak.

On the Health Care law there is no chance of it being repealed even if Obama were to lose since any attempt at repeal would be subject to a filibuster. I can't answer why many of its effects were delayed until 2014 without spending more time than I am prepared to do, but I am sure that its authors felt that it was vital that other aspects had to be in place before others could go into effect. There has to be a modicum of trust that the people who made these decisions knew what they were doing. The greatest danger to the bill is the US Supreme Court, but that is something that no one can avoid.

The base, and you are part of that base, basically wanted Obama to take on the Right and not compromise. Maybe that would have been satisfying, but nothing would have been accomplished, and I mean nothing. Not the stimulus, not health care and very few of the many accomplishments I list.

You say: "I do not deny that Obama has been responsible for many worthwhile accomplishments" but that is exactly what you did in your last presentation to which I was responding.

Tell me, if you can, why are his Left wing critics so anxious to besmirch him that they are even resorting to outright lies about the compromise on the budget, which I think was a very favorable one if one looks at the details.

And I received a very satisfactory reply:

No apology is necessary for your reminding me of my Reagan vote. In fact, I found it funny. Of all the ad hominem attacks you could have used against me, the worst was "he voted for Reagan.” Words like "corrupt,” "stupid,” "racist" or "bigot" would not have hurt as much as saying that I voted for a Republican.

You may have a point when you suggest that my anger at Obama is really disappointment at the lack of progress that I hoped for. Perhaps no Democrat could have made any substantial progress against the know nothing Republicans. I think I would have preferred a battle royale (even a losing one) than accepting a weakened Health care Bill, an inadequate deficit reduction bill and the many other compromises, which Obama probably was forced to make.

Before I close I need to take cognizance of one other attack. It came from Herb Reiner of Clifton, NJ, but more important it was repeated in the New Yorker in an article by John Cassidy where he wrote: “In retrospect, the White House erred last December in not demanding a raise in the debt ceiling as the price of extending the Bush tax cuts.“ Well, in retrospect, like hindsight is always 20/20. So why pile on another criticism. But let us examine it. What good would it have done? These things always go to the deadline. Asking sooner would either have produced an extension too short or no extension until default was imminent. But what makes it even more ridiculous is that the Administration in fact did ask for an increase, not in December, but in January (Close enough). See here for Tim Geithner's letter to Harry Reid.

Why don’t these pundits at least check their facts before spilling ink on paper and ranting about things they don’t begin to understand? It does not serve the cause they pretend to serve and it does not even serve them when people finally begin to understand how much nonsense they have subjected them to.

The Bankruptcy Bill and Arlen Specter

Why are the bankruptcy laws available to the rich but not to every-man? What do Democrats gain when they embrace Arlen Specter?

Some may wonder how they are interrelated, but they are.

We have witnessed many large and small corporations become overwhelmed with debt. They file for what is known as Chapter 11 bankruptcy under which their debtors are encouraged, and many are required to forgive at least part of the debts and the corporation emerges from the process with a new beginning. We saw that happen with Continental Airlines, and we now see the process unfolding with Chrysler and quite possibly soon with GM.

It used to be available to the average Joe or Jane (maybe even to Joe the Plumber) but it was taken away in March of 2005. The matter is summarized by the BSC Alliance.com Credit and Debt solutions alliance, as follows: "After an eight year long battle funded by the banking and credit card industries, who contributed more than $40 million to federal election campaigns during this period, The United States Bankruptcy Code has finally been amended. The new bill was approved by the Senate in March 2005 and by the House on April 14, 2005. The changes to the Bankruptcy Code became official law on October 17, 2005." 

Today adequate publicity has been given to the predatory practices of the credit card industry. They drive people into bankruptcy by taking a relatively small debt, and by encouraging the debtor to pay the smallest conceivable amount each month, create a situation where the principal instead of shrinking gets bigger over time, and then by increasing the interest rate at will and adding exorbitant fees if a monthly payment is missed, they create a situation where the debtor often ends up in debt to a multiple of the debt incurred. G-d forbid the debtor should get sick resulting in his loss of job, health insurance and now mounting debts he finds the door to debt relief through the bankruptcy courts no longer available.

That 2005 bill passed the senate by a vote of 74 to 25. Not a single Republican voted against it. They are not always the party of NO. Not when it comes to protecting the interests of the banking industry. Where was Arlen Specter? He voted with his brethren. According to "On the Issues", he voted with the Republican Party 67% of 322 votes. Democrats are not so united. Fourteen, including now VP Biden and now majority leader Reid voted with the Republicans. But at least these Democrats didn't vote 67% of the time with Republicans. The pressure after eight years of lobbying was intense and Bill Clinton signed the bill.

Fast forward to 2009, we have a bankruptcy bill to protect homeowners from foreclosure when their homes are "under water" pending in the Senate. 

Once again the party of NO was solidly against this. They don't believe in giving anyone, but the rich, a break. Where was Arlen Specter? You guessed it, he was now officially a Democrat, but who did he vote with? He voted with his former brethren. We know where his heart lies. To be sure, once again 12 Democrats voted against every-man but that is the more reason why we don't need another like Specter.

What happened to Arlen Specter? In today's Republican Party 67% isn't good enough. It's like the Communist party of old. They expect 100%. Specter was about to lose the Republican Party primary in Pennsylvania to a true blue acolyte of Right wing politics from the Club for Growth. This Republican nominee would have had no chance to win and a real Democrat would have been elected; one who could have been counted on to support the Obama agenda. But instead the Trojan horse in the form of Specter has entered the gates. The Democratic party is a big tent. There is no problem with having a Democrat who only votes 67% of the time with his party. But do the Democrats need someone who votes 33% of the time with them, and 67% with Republicans? What have Democrats gained? If this were a situation of needing one vote to organize the Senate, it might have been understandable. But that is not the case, and Specter cannot be counted on to be the 60th vote to prevent a filibuster. He has already announced on "Meet the Press" last Sunday that he will oppose the Presidents Health Reform initiative.

I say Republicans don't want him and Democrats shouldn't either. It is to be hoped that Specter will be challenged in the Democratic primary and will be sent into the retirement he so richly deserves.

In referring to a "true blue acolyte of Right wing politics" above I do not, as Mr. Chiu suggests in his Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite, which is quoted below, mean to imply Fascist or Nazi. I simply cannot find any other suitable word for this movement. The media often calls them "conservative" but they are anything but conservative. They do not want to conserve, but to radically change things to the way the were in the days of President Harding, to undo the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" and even many reforms enacted under Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt and even Richard Nixon. That is not conservative. Some would have called them Reactionaries, but I don't know what that tells us. Right Wing is appropriate, and the bellyaching from people who have called progressives Communists, Fascists, Socialists, Muslim and friend of terrorists, in the case of Obama, and even lesbian, in the case of Clinton, (not that either Muslim or lesbian should be a term of opprobrium) have no standing to complain about a term that does no more than honestly describe their philosophy. As for the suggestion that the debate is just about which stimulus is better, that makes Republican opposition seem even worse, for that would hardly justify their unanimously trying to block a plan that they consider only not as good as theirs.

The letter from Mr. Chiu is quoted below:

"I have read many of Emil Scheller's letters. I wonder if his use of "Right Wing" isn't just for some descriptive purpose, but also code language for Nazi or Fascist. In liberal New York, this term is hardly a compliment. 

"If he took a friendlier tone, I'm sure he could convert some people to his positions. In fact, many people, especially if they don't double check his "facts" because his arguments can be persuasive. But instead he labels people who don't agree with him as "minions of the Republican party" or uses other epithets synonymous with "idiot". 

"In his letter published in the April 24, 2009 issue, he mentions his previous statement that Republicans claim the New Deal was "totally ineffective". I've never heard any Republican say that. My old high school history teacher, a Democrat, said the New Deal created jobs but did not itself end the Depression. It was WWII that did. That's the consensus of the history books. And, again, no one ever said "totally ineffective". Any stimulus would create economic activity. If Democrats spent $1 and get 50 cents of stimulus, the Republicans may want 60 or 70 cents of stimulus from that dollar. And they may claim that their plan is better. That's what the debate is about."

Bush's Third Term

The Obama campaign keeps warning that John McCain is running for a third Bush term. I have concluded that as bad as that would be, a third Bush term would not be as bad as a McCain/Palin administration. Some of you might wonder how I could make such assertion, but when we look at the record we see that Bush in the waning days of his Presidency, and in an effort to save something of his legacy, has begun to moderate his confrontational foreign policy. After years of denouncing Clinton’s diplomatic approach to North Korea, which yielded increasing concessions by that dangerous regime, and after spending seven years of his Presidency with nothing but belligerency toward that nuclear power, even calling them one of the “axis of evil”, Bush has been resorting to diplomacy. His previous policy resulted in North Korea exploding a nuclear device in 2006. The new diplomatic stance has resulted in North Korea agreeing to resume disabling a plutonium plant and allowing some inspections to verify that it had halted its nuclear program as promised months earlier. John McCain who had earlier criticized the diplomatic effort, quickly expressed concern. (NY Times October 12, 2008)

Barack Obama has called for negotiations without preconditions with Iran as having more promise of getting results than simply making threats. The preconditions which Bush had demanded were that Iran stop reprocessing plutonium before we would talk to them, which of course would mean that Iran would have conceded the very thing which negotiations are supposed to accomplish. The Bush Administration has heeded Obama’s call for unconditional talks and sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the Iranians. (cnnpolitics.com July 16, 2008)

McCain has denounced such an approach and continues to insist on no talks until our conditions are met first. He thinks bombing Iran is a joke and sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of Barbara Ann. His running mate Sarah Palin and the person who would become Commander in Chief with her finger on the atomic button if anything should happen to McCain, said in her first interview since becoming the Republican nominee for vice president that the U.S. might have to go to war with Russia under certain circumstances. (The Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2008)

If the election were to be between a third Bush term and McCain I would vote for Bush. Thank God that is not the choice I, or anyone else, has to make. Yes, the economy and McCain total lack of comprehension as to what got us into this mess or how to get us out of it is what is on most people’s mind and national security is supposed to be McCain’s strong suit. But if anything, I find him and the woman he has chosen to be his running mate even scarier on defense policy than on the economy. But what have they offered us on the economy. They decided to change the subject. With the Standard and Poor having dropped 37.7% as of October 11 from the beginning of this year (even more since its last high) and having dropped 18.2% just the week of October 6th McCain took to a campaign of slander, with Palin accusing Obama of “hanging around with terrorists.” (October 4, 2008 Associated Press) Of course aside from the fact that Obama’s connection to William Ayers, a 1960s radical, is tenuous at best, they are trying to give the impression that Obama has a connection to what they call “Islamist terrorists” or specifically Al QAEDA, which of course fits into the underground slander, which claims Obama is a Muslim, when they know he is a Christian, and the use of Obama’s middle name, Hussein.

That didn’t seem to work and, lo and behold McCain switched tactics again. The Washington Post of October 11, 2008 reported:

“At the end of perhaps the most charged and negative week of the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain sought to tone down his rhetoric toward Sen. Barack Obama even as his running mate, allies and his own advertising continued to attack the character of the Democratic nominee.

“On Friday, McCain urged a crowd of skeptical supporters at a town hall forum in this Minneapolis suburb to be respectful of his rival for the presidency despite their deep policy differences with Obama.

“The Republican nominee drew a cascade of boos from the crowd when he called Obama ‘a decent person’ and told an expectant father that he does not have to be scared if he is president of the United States.

"We want to fight and I want to fight, but we will be respectful," McCain said, again prompting loud boos when he declared that he admires Obama's accomplishments. "I want everyone to be respectful, and let's be sure we are. . . . That doesn't mean you have to reduce your ferocity. It's just got to be respectful."

“At one point in the event, McCain grabbed back the microphone from an elderly woman who had begun to say that she didn't like Obama because he is an Arab. “ No, ma'am. No, ma'am," McCain said. ‘He's a decent family man, a citizen who I just happen to have serious differences with on fundamental questions."

“His comments came a day after an angry crowd at a Wisconsin rally shouted epithets about the Democratic nominee, pumped their fists angrily in the air and catcalled repeatedly when Obama's name was mentioned. Several called him a "socialist," and many flipped their middle finger as a press bus drove by.

“McCain appeared determined to respond Friday, saying that he respects Obama and only quieting the boos by saying "if I didn't think I would be one heck of a better president, I wouldn't be running."

“But throughout the day, McCain's allies and advertising unleashed a flurry of attacks on his rival's ethics, touting Obama's ties to a Vietnam War-era radical and accusing him of being connected to a group accused of engaging in voter fraud.

“He launched a tough new television ad linking Obama to William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed U.S. facilities in protest of the Vietnam War. The narrator in the ad says Obama "lied" about his relationship with Ayers and accuses the Democrat of "blind ambition, bad judgment." (For those who might want to hear McCain’s actual words defending Obama click here)

My first reaction upon seeing this video clip was to react positively and to say to myself, “Finally the old McCain is back, he may have the wrong policy prescriptions, but he is showing integrity” but then I realized that this is just another zig-zag in a McCain who will do anything to keep his chances of the Presidency alive. The smear was backfiring. The crowd, which he was addressing, was small and the media audience would be large. Maybe, just maybe, this might get him some independent voters. It is just another campaign tactic in the erratic and indecisive McCain campaign.

Jewish voters in Florida having been flooded with smears leaving many of them believing that Obama is a Muslim, which he is not, that he is an Arab, which he is not, that he is anti-Israel, which he is not. If McCain is sincere about his newfound integrity let him go to Florida and address elderly Jewish voters down there and tell them the truth. It may not get him elected, but at least he will have regained some measure of his integrity.

These Jewish voters as well as other voters may be interested in an article that appeared in the NJ Jewish Standard of October 10, 2008, which has the headline, “FOR SECOND TIME IN A MONTH, GOP THWARTS IRAN SANCTIONS” and goes on to say, “WASHINGTON – Republicans in the U.S. Senate have sunk anti-Iran sanctions for the second time in less than a month, drawing allegations that they are putting politics ahead of the need to confront Tehran’s nuclear program.

“Senate Democrats made one final bid last week to pass legislation that would tighten sanctions aimed at getting Iran to stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Among other things, the stalled measure would facilitate efforts to divest from the Islamic Republic.

“Republicans blocked it the evening of Oct. 2, leading Democrats once again to suggest that the GOP was playing politics by obstructing legislation championed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

“We’ve tried to get this done in this body; there’s been objection by the Republicans. That’s unfortunate,” said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader. He made his comments after Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) exercised his prerogative to obstruct the legislation.

“Senate Republicans continue to block anti-Iran sanctions introduced by Democrats, including U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd."

So much for Obama being soft on Iran or anti Israel.

Euphoria and Reality

The election is over and Democrats won to an extent that few expected, though many had hoped.

It was widely expected that the Democrats would win in the House of Representatives but while there was always hope for the Senate, it was generally considered to be a long shot. Well the long shot came in. In the outgoing Congress, which will remain under Republican control until January, the Republicans controlled the House by 15 votes. As of this moment Democrats control the House by 33 votes and eight races are still undecided. However in the Senate the control is by only one vote, which means that the death or incapacity of a single Senator in a state having a Republican governor would swing the Senate back to Republican control. Nevertheless, grounds for euphoria-absolutely.

There are even more reasons for optimism. Voters seem for the first time in a long time, to care about the political process. More than 40 percent of registered voters showed up - apparently, the highest midterm turnout in a generation. (20 years) Voters aged 18 to 29 cast an estimated 10 million votes, or 13 percent of all ballots, up from 11 percent in 2002 and they voted for Democrats by a wide margin: 22 percentage points, according to CNN's exit poll data. Democrats cracked the South, justifying Dean’s 50 state strategy, Evangelicals gave smaller majorities to Republicans than in past elections, and almost every demographic group tended more Democratic.

Governing is where the issue of reality comes in. First nothing has changed until January. Democrats, or at least some of them are talking about bringing our troops home from Iraq within 60 days, or at least within six month. This is not governing. This is grand standing. The reality is that the President, not Congress has the power to make these decisions. Clearly, Congress can pass resolutions but they are not binding on the President. Congress holds the purse strings but Democrats would not dare to cut off funding for our troops. That would be political suicide.

Congress can investigate, and intends to do so, but I predict that the President will obstruct on the grounds of national security, on executive privilege, on attorney/client privilege, etc. All this can affect the political climate, but it cannot dictate policy. So on Iraq nothing fundamental has changed, even if Rumsfeld is out. If there is a change in policy, and there may well be one in the making, it will ultimately be the President who will dictate this. This may be all to the good from a political standpoint because we are now in a loose-loose situation no matter what policy is followed, and the ability to continue to blame the Republican President may be all to the good. The President may denounce the “blame game” but the “blame game” is just another way of ascribing responsibility, the acceptance of which this President and this Administration have never been good at.

On the domestic front the picture is somewhat different but not much. There has been much talk of bipartisanship by both the Administration and the Democratic leadership but that is nothing more than posturing. In every area of policy the parties are too far apart for compromise to be possible.

One area that has been spoken of as lending itself to bipartisan action is raising the minimum wage and the Administration has indicated an interest in dealing with this on a bipartisan basis. But we have already seen what they mean by this. They will not go along on this without a quid pro quo. This was illustrated in the last session of Congress when the House voted 230 to 180 to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, from the $5.15 rate on the books since 1997. The bill also would have exempted from taxation all estates worth as much as $5 million -- or $10 million for a married couple -- and apply a 15 percent tax rate to inheritances above that threshold and as much as $25 million. For estates exceeding $25 million in value, the tax rate would be 30 percent. The measure died in the Senate after then Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid said he "is confident the Senate will defeat this fiscally irresponsible estate-tax proposal, as we have in the past."

For all the posturing Republicans will not support a minimum wage increase without their estate tax measure and Democrats will not accept it. There will be no bi-partisanship.

Once Democrats take control in January, they may be able to pass the minimum wage bill but because of a possible filibuster by Republicans in the Senate it is not likely to pass there, and if somehow it does pass the Congress without the estate tax provision, it will almost surely encounter a Presidential veto. Good from a political standpoint but not from a policy standpoint.

The reality is that under the U.S. Constitution the President wields enormous power. While the Congressional victory will give Democrats veto power over Republican initiatives, such as making the tax cuts permanent, their own initiatives face an uncertain fate. The next two years will consist primarily of posturing leading up to the Presidential Race in 2008. To the extent that Democrats may be able to accomplish anything positive it will be in areas with such great public support that Republicans dare not oppose them. Whether an increase in the minimum wage is such a wedge issue is problematic.