incumbents

Making a Difference – A Very Small Difference

by Ryan Young on July 2, 2010

in Economy, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

The House passed a budget enforcement resolution yesterday. It sets 2011’s discretionary spending $7 billion below what President Obama has requested.

Next year’s discretionary spending target is $1.12 trillion for next year. The $7 billion difference represents savings of 0.625 percent. Barely a rounding error. If total spending (including mandatory and defense spending) ends up at $3.5 trillion next year, the savings becomes 0.2 percent.

Of course, 2010 discretionary spending was $1.39 trillion. 2011 spending will very likely end up much closer to that than the targeted $1.12 trillion. The appropriations process is not kind to non-binding resolutions, however well-intentioned. Especially when the resolution “doesn’t detail how Congress should reach that [deficit reduction] goal.”

Congress lacks the will to cut $270 billion of spending. The interests benefitting from that spending will scream bloody murder the second their programs are put on the chopping block. In an election year when incumbents are more fearful than usual, no politician worth his salt wants to cause an uproar.

Congress need not worry too much, though. Even in anti-incumbent years, re-election are almost always above 90 percent. The vast majority of congressional turnover happens through retirement, running for other office, or death.

The pattern is holding this year, so far. The University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato recently pointed out that 5 incumbents have lost their state primary elections this year, while 240 were re-nominated. That’s a 98 percent success rate. There will be a few more casualties, especially in the November general elections.

Most members are safe. They can, and should, rock the boat by cutting unnecessary spending. If anything, the most aggressive cutters might become folk heroes like Chris Christie in New Jersey. They just don’t have the guts.

I will be more than happy if Congress proves me wrong. We’ll find out over the next few months.

A Telling Headline

by Ryan Young on May 21, 2010

in Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

From The Hill: Vulnerable Democrats defend support for campaign finance legislation

Campaign finance regulations are an incumbent’s best friend. The incumbent already has name recognition, and a deep network of fundraising contacts. Heck, Congress’ franking privilege allows incumbents to send out de facto campaign messages for free. Challengers have none of those advantages.

It takes a lot of money to buy enough ads to get a challenger’s name recognition anywhere near the incumbent’s. Campaign finance regulations make it harder to raise that money, and harder to put up a fight against established officeholders. No wonder so many incumbents from both parties favor strict campaign finance regulations! It’s good for their job security.

The Shock of the Not New

by Richard Morrison on January 12, 2009 · 2 comments

in Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

It was, of course, inevitable that after a general election, political observers would be talking about everything in Washington suddenly being new. A new president(-elect), a new administration, a new New Mexico corruption scandal; none of this comes as a surprise. What is interesting, however, is that some people are also referring to the “new leadership” in Congress.

Now, as we all know, leadership positions in Congress are often based on seniority, especially in that plush assisted living community known as the U.S. Senate. This means that in order to climb your way to the top of the mountain and become a committee chair, it takes time. The faces you’ll see presiding over hearings during the 111th Congress will generally be the same ones that have been frightening small children in our nation’s capital for decades.

So, just for the record, lets take a look at some of the dewy-eyed youngsters who will be running things in the 111th and how long they’ve been avoiding getting real jobs:

Judiciary – Patrick Leahy (VT) 34 years
Foreign Relations – John Kerry (MA) 24 years
Appropriations – Daniel Inouye (HI) 46 years [+4 years in the House]
Budget – Kent Conrad (ND) 22 years
Homeland Security – Joe Lieberman (CT) 20 years
Environment & Public Works – Barbara Boxer (CA) 16 years [+10 years in the House]
Energy & Natural Resources – Jeff Bingaman (NM) 26 years
Health, Education, Labor & Pensions – Ted Kennedy (MA) 47 years
Armed Forces – Carl Levin (MI) 30 years
Intelligence Select – Dianne Feinstein (CA) 17 years
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs – Chris Dodd (CT) 28 years [+6 years in the House]
Rules & Administration – Chuck Schumer (NY) 10 years [+18 years in the House]
Agriculture – Tom Harkin (IA) 24 years [+10 years in the House]
Veterans Affairs – Daniel Akaka (HI) 19 years [+13 years in the House]
Small Business & Entrepreneurship – Mary Landrieu (LA) 12 years
Commerce, Science & Transportation – Jay Rockefeller (WV) 24 years
Finance – Max Baucus (MT) 31 years [+3 years in the House]
Indian Affairs – Byron Dorgan (ND) 17 years [+11 years in the House]
Ethics Select – Tim Johnson (SD) 12 years [+10 years in the House]
Aging Select – Herb Kohl (WI) 20 years

According to my rough calculations, that makes 479 years worth of, um, experience among the current Senate committee chairs. If we expand that to include total Congressional tenure, we bump the total up to 564 years. This is, of course, not counting years spent as Lieutenant Governor, State Tax Commissioner or Municipal Animal Control Supervisor.

If you’re one of those sentimental people who thinks institutional memory is important, then you may very well be happy with this state of affairs. Whatever else it is, though, “new” it most definitely is not.