A few political notes
By the time you read this Boehnor will probably have won re-election. (ETA: Yep, just saw it on the NY Times wire.) It's something of a miracle, considering that he voted with the other party's (hated) president and against his own party majority leader and party whip, but there just isn't a well-enough-known viable alternative candidate.
The bill that got through to 'avert' the fiscal cliff doesn't really avert it. The revenue raised in that bill is about $620bn, compared to the $1.6tn that CBO estimates is needed. Winding down the wars will help, but right now there's still a big gap to fill. The bill also kicks the sequestration can down the road, significantly to after the debt-ceiling fight. That's probably good for both parties, as it seems more likely we'll be able to get a deal done in pieces rather than a grand compromise. It's sad that nobody is able to steer this ship on a global course, but if they can keep it from locally going aground that'll probably have to do.
The Democrats increased their seat counts in both the Senate and House but most of the incoming freshman class is more polarized and ideological than the outgoing group, so it's unclear that more progress will happen with the 113th than the 112th.
The two good parts of this bill are (1) the tax rate changes are written into law. They're no longer going to keep coming up for votes. Whether you like or dislike the changes, it's a good thing to have new discussions rather than keep on having the same old ones. And (2) the Republicans can now focus on the spending cuts they want and not have to have the cuts:revenue ratio hanging over their heads. This will let them conveniently forget they walked away from a 10:1 deal before the election and couldn't pass a 4:1 deal recently. They can just say "we got cuts" and Democrats can say "we protected our preferred entitlement programs" and maybe everyone can go away satisfied, if not actually happy. My guess is they'll get something close to 4:1 in the end - remember that Obama is pretty much a Bush I-era moderate Republican in fancy clothing.
Periodically the liberal/progressive side comes up with really idiotic ideas. The latest one that has appeared in my mail stream is a move to do away with filibusters. This is a stupid idea. Yes, obstructionist Republicans in the last Congress used the filibuster (or threat of same) to wield more power than their absolute numbers might have had. And yes, it really did seem like the Party of No was on the rampage. But it's still a bad idea to get rid of filibusters.
(ETA: according the NY Times just now: "Senate Democrats [...] stepped away from a threat to immediately ram through new rules to limit the power of Republicans to filibuster with a simple majority vote." Thank goodness.)
It appears that the left has completely forgotten the 1980s when Reagan kicked them to the woodshed. Back then the Democrats used filibusters often to block Reagan judicial nominees, to slow Gingrich's Contract on with America, and otherwise to maintain some slivers of relevance. Sorry guys, but filibusters are not just a Republican tool - they're a tool of whoever happens to be in the minority, and changing that now just because you don't like this minority is a stupid way to govern.
I would support a move to return filibusters to where they have actual requirements. Back in the day, you had to stand up and really speak for the time you were filibustering. I own a copy of The Speech not because I'm particularly enamored of it but because I admire Sanders for being hard-core and old school about his filibusters. Most of the Republican filibusters these days are pure parliamentary moves where one guy says "I filibuster" then sits down. Everyone fiddles with their Blackberries or goes out for food for a while until someone cuts a deal some hours later or they give up and withdraw whatever is being filibustered. It's cheap and easy to use because it requires no effort. So by all means make the filibuster meaningful again, but stop trying to change the rules because your side happens to be in power just now.
The bill that got through to 'avert' the fiscal cliff doesn't really avert it. The revenue raised in that bill is about $620bn, compared to the $1.6tn that CBO estimates is needed. Winding down the wars will help, but right now there's still a big gap to fill. The bill also kicks the sequestration can down the road, significantly to after the debt-ceiling fight. That's probably good for both parties, as it seems more likely we'll be able to get a deal done in pieces rather than a grand compromise. It's sad that nobody is able to steer this ship on a global course, but if they can keep it from locally going aground that'll probably have to do.
The Democrats increased their seat counts in both the Senate and House but most of the incoming freshman class is more polarized and ideological than the outgoing group, so it's unclear that more progress will happen with the 113th than the 112th.
The two good parts of this bill are (1) the tax rate changes are written into law. They're no longer going to keep coming up for votes. Whether you like or dislike the changes, it's a good thing to have new discussions rather than keep on having the same old ones. And (2) the Republicans can now focus on the spending cuts they want and not have to have the cuts:revenue ratio hanging over their heads. This will let them conveniently forget they walked away from a 10:1 deal before the election and couldn't pass a 4:1 deal recently. They can just say "we got cuts" and Democrats can say "we protected our preferred entitlement programs" and maybe everyone can go away satisfied, if not actually happy. My guess is they'll get something close to 4:1 in the end - remember that Obama is pretty much a Bush I-era moderate Republican in fancy clothing.
Periodically the liberal/progressive side comes up with really idiotic ideas. The latest one that has appeared in my mail stream is a move to do away with filibusters. This is a stupid idea. Yes, obstructionist Republicans in the last Congress used the filibuster (or threat of same) to wield more power than their absolute numbers might have had. And yes, it really did seem like the Party of No was on the rampage. But it's still a bad idea to get rid of filibusters.
(ETA: according the NY Times just now: "Senate Democrats [...] stepped away from a threat to immediately ram through new rules to limit the power of Republicans to filibuster with a simple majority vote." Thank goodness.)
It appears that the left has completely forgotten the 1980s when Reagan kicked them to the woodshed. Back then the Democrats used filibusters often to block Reagan judicial nominees, to slow Gingrich's Contract on with America, and otherwise to maintain some slivers of relevance. Sorry guys, but filibusters are not just a Republican tool - they're a tool of whoever happens to be in the minority, and changing that now just because you don't like this minority is a stupid way to govern.
I would support a move to return filibusters to where they have actual requirements. Back in the day, you had to stand up and really speak for the time you were filibustering. I own a copy of The Speech not because I'm particularly enamored of it but because I admire Sanders for being hard-core and old school about his filibusters. Most of the Republican filibusters these days are pure parliamentary moves where one guy says "I filibuster" then sits down. Everyone fiddles with their Blackberries or goes out for food for a while until someone cuts a deal some hours later or they give up and withdraw whatever is being filibustered. It's cheap and easy to use because it requires no effort. So by all means make the filibuster meaningful again, but stop trying to change the rules because your side happens to be in power just now.