So Much for Post-Partisanship?

Washington, DC -- It's increasingly clear that the moment the Congress convenes, the Republican minority in the Senate will be under heavy pressure -- and in fact are already inclined -- to jump right in with the same scorched-earth, filibuster-everything tactics that were used so successfully by Bob Dole to block progress of Bill Clinton's agenda in 1993.

The tip-off has been the response to the auto bailout. Officially, the negotiations on a compromise broke down because the Democrats wouldn't agree to further wage cuts for autoworkers in 2009. Opponents of the bailout said they wanted these cuts so that Chrysler and GM could regain competitiveness. But it's been widely reported that the real reason was a desire to weaken the union movement overall. "This is the Democrats' first opportunity to pay off organized labor after the election," read an e-mail sent around to Senate Republicans. "This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it." And an analysis done before the votes by CBS News showed that the actual wage differential between the unionized Big Three auto workers and their non-union Japanese and European competitors was only 22 cents an hour.

Even with benefits factored in, the labor differential is only a few dollars -- and the United Auto Workers members live in more-expensive cities. The only meaningful difference in the labor costs facing the Big Three and their competitors is that the Big Three, because they have been around so long and because they used to be much larger, are facing huge pension and healthcare costs for retired workers. They should have set aside this money while those workers were on their payrolls, but the U.S. government allowed them to underfund pensions. And if the auto companies go under, the federal government's pension-guarantee fund and Medicare will have to bear the costs.

So even though the wages of Big Three workers are at the same level as those of their competition, there's no way that the labor costs of American companies can be made equal to their competitors -- unless the federal government steps in to assume the legacy costs. So why did the Republicans in the Senate shoot down the auto bailout down over this bogus issue?

Quite simply because it was their first test of their new strategy for scoring cheap political points: First, find essential steps toward economic recovery that, if taken in isolation, might not poll well. (The auto bailout doesn't.) Use minority rule (aka the filibuster) to obstruct these measures. Leave the Obama (or in this case Bush) administration to find another way to keep the country running.

It's not looking pretty, unless the American people finally realize that this is obstructionist politics instead of the kind of healthy checks and balances that will lead to good outcomes.

Comments

[N. Sukumar]

And what are the democrats doing about it? Apart from fundraising - Obama is STILL emailing us asking for donations!

[Michal Mudd- a 25+yr member who is continually dismayed by the Club's partisanship]

Mr. Pope,
In reading some of your past blogs I saw you write these words,
" Is it really wise to sacrifice the environment to the short-term vicissitudes of party politics? American history suggests that we make our case to the entire nation, not to a single political party."

and I wonder when the Sierra Club, of which I've been a member for over 25 years, is going to enlarge its mindset to include post-partisanship where the Green Party of the US, with which I've been involved for almost as long, is concerned?
I would like to think that this post-partisanship can start now.
We have a hopeful administration in place now, but completely lack the leverage necessary to plead the case for boldness in action. Are we simply going to cross or fingers and hope that the promises of change indeed come to fruition? With the Club so incestuously linked to the Democratic Party how can we exert influence if they take the Club's support for granted, pat us on the head and say, see you in 4 years?
Can you honestly point to great leaps that were made under the Clinton administration, in which we also placed such hope?

I'd like to see the Club pull away from such a single party identification and truly seek a post-partisan era where members of all parties can feel valued and where this excuse of "viability" is not allowed to trump stances on issues. Afterall, there was a time when the candidacy of Barack Obama was questioned as to his viability, yet brave people took a chance and followed their ideals.
Isn't it time for the Sierra Club to do the same?

I'm not asking for the Club to identify with the Green Party, but you could give it more credence, especially since our Party has its counterparts in the majority of the nations on this planet at a time when we are well aware of the need to think and act globally.

Thank you for your time, and that of other readers,
Michal Mudd
Co-chair, Green Party of New Mexico
Former chair, Central Group NM Sierra Club
former ExCom member Alamo Group, TX