Posted on 03/25/2007 7:47:37 PM PDT by RWR8189
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has a theory about divided government. It's this: When one party holds the White House, and the other holds one or both houses of Congress, the chances of passing landmark legislation improve dramatically. McConnell cites two examples. The first is the passage in 1983 of a Social Security reform (and bailout) bill that brought President Reagan and Democratic House speaker Tip O'Neill together. The other came in 1996 when President Clinton signed a sweeping welfare reform bill drafted by a Republican Congress.
A theory held by the leader of the minority party in Congress normally wouldn't be significant. But it is in McConnell's case because he has suddenly emerged as the king of Capitol Hill. Though Democrats control both the House and the Senate, McConnell has greater influence on what Congress passes and in what form than either House speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate majority leader Harry Reid. So it matters that he believes the circumstances are ripe for reforming immigration and Social Security.
Until McConnell became Senate minority leader, these two issues had been left to President Bush to promote. And it was a fair assumption that Democrats, having seized Congress, would take charge of the immigration issue while keeping Social Security reform off the congressional agenda altogether. But Democrats have dawdled.
Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat and petulant chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, inadvertently cleared the way for McConnell on immigration. Leahy said it was up to Bush, not Democrats, to act first by offering a proposal. He implied the president was insincere in his support for comprehensive immigration reform, which the entire pro-immigration community and other Democratic senators know is untrue.
McConnell stepped in. His goal on most issues is to maximize Republican power by unifying as many of the 49 Republican senators as possible behind a single position. This is necessary to block Democratic legislation because a successful filibuster requires 41 votes. On immigration, however, McConnell's "personal preference" is to pass reform legislation, not block it. And he is well on his way to producing a bill that would win the support of Republican senators from John Cornyn of Texas, a restrictionist, to John McCain, who cosponsored a liberal immigration bill last year with Democratic senator Edward Kennedy. This year Kennedy has complained that McCain is avoiding a discussion with him about immigration.
At McConnell's instigation, Republican senators have been meeting for weeks to discuss immigration reform. The group includes Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Mel Martinez of Florida, and Johnny Isakson of Georgia. Isakson is important because the Republican bill now taking shape is centered around his idea of staggering reform by doing border security first, then taking steps to deal with the illegal immigrants who are already here.
The latter steps would be pursued once the Department of Homeland Security certified that five measures necessary to border security had been undertaken. These include the hiring of 14,000 new Border Patrol agents, authorizing the construction of 370 more miles of fence along the border with Mexico, deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles, deployment of ground radar, and the creation of a biometric ID card so employers can verify whether an immigrant worker is legally in the country.
Certification would trigger a program to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status, though not citizenship. But the bill is unfinished. Once drafted, it would be presented to Kennedy in hopes of reaching a compromise with Democrats. Kennedy is sure to demand at least one thing: a provision for guiding illegals in the United States toward becoming citizens.
There's an incentive for both parties to reach agreement on immigration. Democrats would get credit for passing a major piece of reform legislation with something for restrictionists (beefed-up border security) and for pro-immigrant forces (some form of legalization). Republicans would get an issue that divides them bitterly off the table before the 2008 election.
As for taking on Social Security, that's problematic. Some Democrats still boast about having thwarted President Bush's attempt to reform the system--or "privatize" it from the Democratic perspective--in 2005. And the expectation has been that Social Security would be left for the next president to grapple with.
McConnell doesn't want to wait. He would like to set up a bipartisan procedure for reaching a compromise that probably would reject both a tax increase and the private investment accounts funded by payroll taxes that Bush and conservatives have championed. More likely, it would involve means-testing of benefits, which would trim increases for those in upper income brackets. Other possible changes include increases in the regular retirement age and the early retirement age.
Social Security reform, however, may be out of reach and, for now anyway, McConnell has set his sights low. All he is seeking is what he calls "a process that could lead to a conclusion." The process would bring together Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate, along with Bush administration officials. They would craft a reform measure to be sent to both houses under a procedure allowing no amendments, only an up or down vote, just as is done in the case of trade treaties.
"It's a way to get a result," McConnell says. When Bush proposed Social Security reform and sought Democratic cosponsors, "we got nothing." McConnell's scheme may fail as well. "We haven't gotten to a process yet," he says. "I'm not optimistic we're going to get there."
In three months as Senate Republican leader, McConnell has proved himself to be adept at foiling Democrats. That's his negative role. But he also envisions a positive role. "We need to do something on both these issues," immigration and Social Security, he says. "They are uniquely suited to being decided by divided government." On the other hand, "it's really easy to do nothing around here."
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
BUMP!
PING
"Hallo John, it's Ted!
"Err... hallo? hallo? Dang cellphone!" And hang up..
nothing wrong with legislating from the back bench. the libs did it and got the "campaign finance (if two of us put an ad in the paper and mention a (god politician by name i will be arrested) reform" and "no child can read" @#$%#$%
GO MITCH, GO! GO!! GO!!! GO!!!!
Interesting theory. Mitch is a good guy, I hope his version of border/immigration control comes to pass.
Citizenship for illegals will mean no Republican will ever again win the Presidency after 2008 because the illegals who become citizens will want the freebies that the Dems will promise them. That is why Kennedy is desperate for that aspect of any proposed legislation.
Wow, I like that man. Just one more reason to retire in KY, Lord willing!
Right after the last election when the rats took the Senate, one of the talking head pundits asked Mitch if he was going to work with Harry Reid and the new Democrat majority. His reply was classic: "We will give the Democrats the same cooperation they gave us." It was beautiful!
I second that ! Go Mitch Go !
I never thought i'd say that the Senate is our last resort and only hope, but it is ....
I agree. I never thought it would happen, but it appears that the Senate is our stronghold. (As much as we have one today in American politics after the 2006 election and with a weak president.)
So true , thank God for the filibuster .
Well, you'll need to retire as far East of the Mexican border as you possibly can because if you think this silly Slow Road To Total Amnesty and Takoover of America by Mexico is the way to go, then you sure won't want to retire out here where we Americans are already a minority and headed towards rule by Mexico (google "Fabian Nunez" and "Antonion Villaraigosa" for a little flavor of what that's like).
McConnel is a sleaze sellout to the cheap labor crowd and his wife, who has no business being in the position she's in, is their willing enabler.
Mitch McConnell is my kind of Republican! You can never trust RINOs like Specter or Hagel, but I know he'll always come up with 41 Senators who can block any whacked out bill the RATS bring up, which is why I don't think Dubya will need his veto pen for that idiotic "We Surrender" bull*hit the House passed last week...
I saw that ... it was great!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.