Hill Democrats fall short on legislation

Slim majorities curb efforts

By Sean Lengell THE WASHINGTON TIMES | Sunday, July 6, 2008

• Print
• [-][+] Font Size
• E-Mail Alerts
• Tell a Friend
• Got a Question?
• You Report
• Click-2-Listen

When Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007 for the first time in a dozen years, they promised a "new direction for America" that included weaning the nation off its dependence of foreign oil, an end to the Iraq war, and the most open and honest Congress in history.

A year-and-a-half later, fuel prices are at an all-time high, the war continues and Republicans complain they are repeatedly shut out of the legislative process.

But Democrats have delivered on pledges to raise the minimum wage, expand benefits for war veterans and extend unemployment insurance. And they passed a landmark energy bill that included the first mandate to increase fuel efficiency for cars in more than three decades.

So while Democrats have slogged through a bitterly partisan and often ineffective 18 months in power, many political observers say the party's leadership has done about as well as can be expected for a party faced with fragile majorities in both chambers and a White House determined to block its every step.

"No, they haven't done as well as they can, [but] nobody ever does - almost never," said Michael Barone, a political analyst with the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

House Democrats got off to an expectedly fast start in early 2007, passing a flurry of bills in their first 100 hours that fulfilled campaign promises, including increasing the minimum wage, expanding federal support for embryonic stem-cell research and measures designed to make America more energy independent.

But much of the package was later delayed or blocked in the Senate or White House.

Democrats "found out the hard way that, not only are there two houses of the legislative branch, but there's also a president," said Bill Galston, a former policy adviser to President Clinton and a political analyst with the liberal Brookings Institution. "It took them awhile to figure out how to be effective within those constraints."

Democrats have been restrained by a razor-thin 51-49 majority in the Senate, where 60 votes often are required to proceed with legislation, and a 236-199 advantage in the House, which is more comfortable but far short of the two-thirds majority needed to overcome a presidential veto.

President Bush, who vetoed only one bill in the first six years of his term, has threatened Democrats with vetoes on almost every major piece of legislation they've proposed in the past year-and-a-half.

"What [Democrats] essentially had to do in some ways was go up to the brink and push and push and show that they're serious about the issue, and yet, [they did] cave in on various things," said John Fortier, a political analyst with AEI.

"You can say that was ineffective in a way, but looking back at the reality of the situation, I think that's all they really could do."

One of the Democrats' most glaring setbacks occurred last month, when they gave in to Republican demands and approved a controversial update of the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The measure, which is expected to be ratified by the Senate this week, would allow intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on U.S.-based communications without court approval if one of the parties is a foreign target. It also gives retroactive immunity to phone companies that participated in Mr. Bush's post-Sept. 11 surveillance program that operated outside court review - a provision Democrats had strongly opposed.

Another major Democratic disappointment has been the party's inability to bring an end to the Iraq war, as Republicans and the White House repeatedly have blocked their attempts in both houses to set a timetable for troop withdrawals. Congress last month approved a $162 billion measure to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through early 2009.

Unlike last year, though, Democrats won some significant concessions in the war-funding package, including a massive expansion of college-aid programs for returning veterans, and a 13-week extension of unemployment-insurance benefits.

"I think things have gone better this year than they did last year," Mr. Galston said. "Clearly, they have figured out that a change in [war] policy will have to wait for a change of administrations."

But others say the Democrats' persistent attempts at ending the war was a major political blunder.

"They thought the could get a lot of nervous Republicans over on their side, and once that didn't prove to be the case, their continued attempts to float terminal deadline legislation and so forth was ... a waste of limited legislative time," Mr. Barone said.

Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?