Cut and Run Republican Congress

Every year, it seems, the GOP-run Congress finds a slogan and repeats it over and over again like a club with which to bash Democrats about the head. Last year it was "up or down vote," usually said quickly like it was one word. "Upperdownvote!"

This year it's clearly "cut and run," as in "The Democrats want to cut and run from Iraq." I think the Majority Leader was trying to set a record yesterday for the most times using "cut and run" in one legislative session. (A notable exception to this was Chuck Hagel, who I'd have no choice but to consider voting for in a Presidential contest against certain Democrats. At least he's part of the reality-based community.)

I thought Sen. Kerry's retort, that the Republicans want to "lie and die," was OK, but dueling slogans is not the way to go. What would be more effective would be to highlight how this do-nothing Congress is, in fact, cutting and running from their own responsibility to govern. Just within the last 48 hours, Republicans have stalled a host of legislation, and in so doing have decided to gridlock the country to serve their electoral needs.

On immigration, House leadership has shut down compromise legislation for the rest of the year, promising another round of hearings as an obvious stall tactic. It's pretty clear to me that they think immigration can be the wedge issue that will turn out their hardcore base and stop the bleeding in the midterms. They actually said as much in this very interesting post-mortem written by the NRCC (Congressional Campaign Commitee) after the Brian Bilbray-Francine Busby race in CA-50. They want to attack Democrats as the party of amnesty, and passing a bill (no matter what it said) would remove their ability to do so. So, once again putting party over country, the GOP would rather do nothing on immigration for yet another year. Here's their strategy:

Some officials added that Republicans have begun discussing a pre-election strategy for seizing the political high ground on an issue that so far has served to highlight divisions within the party. Among the possibilities, these officials said, are holding votes in the House or Senate this fall on additional measures to secure the borders, or on legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security payments or other government benefits.

"The discussion is how to put the Democrats in a box without attacking the president," said one aide, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Additionally, GOP aides said Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the House campaign committee, has recently been using polling data to persuade fellow members of the leadership that the public would respond poorly to some provisions in the Senate-passed bill.

There's a doubly positive effect here assumed by the Republicans, of not only trying to gain a wedge issue for November, but distancing themselves from an unpopular President. As I said, the way for Democrats to play this as to call this do-nothing Congress exactly what it is.

And immigration is not the only issue where this applies. This week Ted Kennedy offered an amendment that would raise the minimum wage, which has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for close to a decade, up to $7.25 an hour. You simply can't live on $10,000 a year in America. This would boost the economy by adding disposable income, and study after study has shown it does not affect job creation. This is, in fact, the Democrats' major wedge issue for November.

But that didn't stop them from bringing it to the floor. They didn't shelve it so they could use it in the fall. But thankfully, the Republicans did it for them:

The Republican-controlled Senate smothered a proposed election-year increase in the minimum wage Wednesday, rejecting Democratic claims that it was past time to boost the $5.15 hourly pay floor that has been in effect for nearly a decade.

The 52-46 vote was eight short of the 60 needed for approval under budget rules and came one day after House Republican leaders made clear they do not intend to allow a vote on the issue, fearing it might pass.

The Senate vote marked the ninth time since 1997 that Democrats there have proposed — and Republicans have blocked — a stand-alone increase in the minimum wage. The debate fell along predictable lines.

"Americans believe that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty. A job should lift you out of poverty, not keep you in it," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. He said a worker paid $5.15 an hour would earn $10,700 a year, "almost $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three."

Kennedy also said lawmakers' annual pay has risen by roughly $30,000 since the last increase in the minimum wage.

Similarly, the House leadership, worried that a minimum wage increase had passed the Appropriations Committee, scuttled the entire bill:

With the help of a few rebellious Republicans, House Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee succeeded in attaching a minimum wage increase last week to legislation providing funding for federal social programs. Fearing that the House would pass the measure with the increase intact, the GOP leadership swiftly decided to sidetrack the entire bill.

"I am opposed to it, and I think a vast majority of our (rank and file) is opposed to it," House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday.

Pressed by reporters, he said, "There are limits to my willingness to just throw anything out on the floor."

Like anything that has bipartisan support, for example. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer offered a full-throated rebuke of the craven tactic, exclaiming that "while Democrats are fighting for the average hardworking American, Republicans are worried about giving Paris Hilton another tax cut." Indeed, there will be a vote on a bogus compromise bill to cut the inheritance tax, after it already failed in the Senate.

And today, Southern Republicans in the House delayed a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which is nothing more than one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation in American history.

This Republican Congress hasn't had a major piece of legislation pass their ranks all year, and they've committed to continuing that perfect record. They literally ought not to have existed in 2006. The only thing they managed to do was get the President to back down on the Dubai ports deal, on which the President promptly reneged. This is a cut and run Republican Congress that has abdicated their responsibilities as the lawmaking body of the nation. And it's time for new leadership that might actually be interested in getting something done.