[Previously posted, and front-paged, at Congress Matters.]
The 110th Congress passed a number of good legislative items in 2007 and 2008 that went on to be vetoed by President Bush, among them two versions of SCHIP expansion and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. These bills had relatively solid Democratic support and some conspicuous Republican crossovers, but were not able to garner veto-proof majorities. If you consider the number of good bills that passed the Dem-dominated House but died on a cloture vote in the Senate, more issues come to light, notably the Employee Free Choice Act, which nabbed a mere 51 Senate votes for cloture.
But President-elect Obama 1) won't veto these kinds of bills, and 2) will enjoy heftier Democratic majorities in both chambers. Many Senate cloture votes that had 53 or more on the "pro" side will now have the 60 necessary to shut down debate. Thus, bills like the Employee Free Choice Act, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and SCHIP expansion would be easy to get through Congress come January 2009.
The dilemma becomes this...
If Obama and the Democrats want to maintain high enough popular approval to win in 2010 and 2012 and (they hope) strengthen Team Blue's grip on Washington in coming years, they need to pass significant legislation (and by significant, I don't mean renaming post offices). Stem cell research and SCHIP expansion, for example, are issues that have commanded majorities of public opinion for years, and should be easier to make law with a bluer Congress and a blue White House. But with the economy rapidly crumbling and congressional spending on the war and the financial bailouts eating up the lion's share of the federal budget, will passing "gimme" political issues like these be fiscally feasible, let alone appropriate?
I wonder if the financial crisis has hit at just the right time to deny the 111th Congress and President Obama any significant policy achievements, aside from addressing a beyond-daunting economic situation. And without the budgetary ability to score political points with the American people in their first two years (something the first two years are traditionally reserved for -- see Bush's tax cuts and No Child Left Behind in 2001, Family Medical Leave Act and NAFTA for Clinton in 1993, etc.), a real catch-22 is created: Obama and congressional Democrats will lose political capital and thus (according to traditional political science) their ability to govern effectively. In other words, the vicious circle of budgetary constraints will foment more gridlock and inability to produce results.
Now, I have no doubt Obama is smart enough to find a way. But what should the easier policy items on his agenda be for 2009? I don't mean "fixing the economy" or "ending the war". I'm talking about domestic policy akin to the First 100 Hours agenda pushed by Speaker Pelosi in the 110th, things like the minimum wage increase or the ethics bill that build public confidence and store political capital in advance of the tougher, more momentous endeavors. I'd love to hear your thoughts, especially on the fiscal and/or political viability of the issues being discussed.