Hat tip to Steve Benen at Washington Monthly for today’s post.
Steve links to a Pew survey showing that Americans are worryingly uninformed about how our government actually works. It’s not just that huge numbers don’t know what’s in the health care reform bills, many of us don’t know what a filibuster is, how to break it, or what actually happens in Congress. Only 32% know that the health care bill passed in the Senate without single Republican vote. Only 26% of people know that it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. The poll reveals some deeply troubling things – for instance older, college educated white males are significantly more knowledgeable than any other group; younger people, persons of color, women are all less informed. (Of course you have the typical problem that a specific woman or young person or person of color will know more than a specific older white college educated man but taken as a whole the average is lower.)
Benen wrote:
It’s a clever trick, isn’t it? Voters give Democrats power, Republicans prevent Democrats from using the power, and the public, unaware of the details, gets annoyed and asks, “Why can’t Dems get anything done? Aren’t they in the majority?”
Greg Sargent added this morning, “Some will respond that it’s only mathematically impossible [for the majority to govern] if Dems accept the filibuster as an inevitable fact of life, rather than something that might be campaigned against and changed.”
This is an area that infuriates me. How can you not know how government works? But a lot of very smart people don’t know. I had a conversation the other day and I said, “Republicans are filibustering in the Senate. That’s why things aren’t getting done.” The person I was talking with replied, “Well why can’t the Democrats just stop them.” I found myself explaining Senate procedure over turkey sandwiches.
Matthew Yglesias observed:
It’s also worth pointing out that one of the major failings of most political journalism is a perennial tendency to overstate the American people’s level of knowledge about politics. You never hear the impact of public ignorance about the filibuster discussed as a factor in the president’s fortunes. But I’d say the fact that people don’t understand how this works is an important element of what makes it so effective. To a small slice of Americans, the GOP’s minoritarian obstructionism is a heroic stand. To another small slice of Americans, the GOP’s minoritarian obstructionism is an undemocratic disaster. But to the majority of Americans it’s completely invisible and all they see is a Democratic Party that can’t get things done.
The Republican party has spent decades operating on the theory of that if can divide the country, they can grab the slightly larger part and win elections, reward their campaign contributors and generally get away with whatever they want. They had their chance to govern as they wished and they delivered two wars, the worst economic performance in decades, not one but two crashes, and $5 trillion dollars in additional debt. Despite their rhetoric, Republicans aren’t actually interested in governing the country. They want to win elections and they’re pretty good at that, but actually dealing with our national problems and providing actual solutions? No, the Republicans have no interest in that – and are actively working to undermine any effort to do so. They’re going to get away with it because: a) Americans don’t understand and b) for reasons passing understand, the Democrats have let them.
I wish I could just rail against the dumbing down of the American public but that’s not the problem. Some of it is genuine lackof knowledge but some of the problem is the relative obscurity of the knowledge in question. Even members of Congress don’t really understand Congressional procedure.
The political problem is one that the Democrats should not have a problem solving – you figure out how to educate the public and beat up the Republicans at the same time. You do some focus groups, you do some testing, you figure it out.
But I think there’s a deeper problem. Americans really don’t know how our own government works. I would be interested in seeing a variation on the Pew Poll asking people to explain how laws are made, how Congress works, how the President is elected and so on. A sizable majority of Americans don’t know who Harry Reid is and a majority don’t know the Steven Colbert is a talk show host and comedian. I’d be interested in finding out what Americans actually know.
Here’s my take: If Americans don’t understand the filibuster they presume that the Senate works, more or less, like the House where a majority pretty much rules.
#1 by Richard Warnick - January 29th, 2010 at 10:36
I think the problem is that leading Democratic politicians don’t know how government works.
When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, they could have fulfilled their constitutional duty to impeach VP Cheney and President Bush for admitted high crimes. They didn’t.
Speaker Pelosi could have de-funded the Iraq occupation simply by refusing to allow the supplemental appropriation bill to come to the House floor. She didn’t. Nor did she withdraw the authorization to use military force, which is a resolution that cannot be vetoed.
Democrats could have passed health care reform through the Senate using reconciliation, the same way Republicans rammed through legislation with a much smaller majority than the Dems have now. They didn’t.
Republicans know how to do this stuff. Why can’t Democrats figure it out?
#2 by brewski - January 29th, 2010 at 10:56
There is no nice way to say it, people in Government don’t know how America works.
This is a much bigger problem.
#3 by Glenden Brown - January 29th, 2010 at 11:03
Richard -
So Steve Benen followed up with an interesting post about the “megaphone gap.”
#4 by Richard Warnick - January 29th, 2010 at 11:25
I know legislators love to give speeches, even though few American politicians are known for their eloquence. But actions speak louder than words. Senator Ted Kennedy served in the Senate 47 years, and was the Democratic point man on health care reform. We still don’t have health care reform, but they all say Teddy was a great senator.
You can make noise with your actions. For example, the U.K. has a commission investigating the illegal Iraq invasion and the lies that led up to it. Former PM Tony Blair is testifying under oath today. Why is there no U.S. government Iraq Commission?
I wish Democrats would quit whining about the unfairness of Republicans and fight back. Punch somebody in the nose. Maybe then they could get invited on the Sunday morning talk shows.
Media Matters:
Look at Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL). He’s a first-term congressman from a swing district. Is he laying low, hoping to survive the next election by not offending the Republicans? I think the answer to that is, hell no! He vehemently defended ACORN, called the GOP on their stupid health care rhetoric, and took a leading role on the issue of Federal Reserve transparency.
#5 by brewski - January 29th, 2010 at 12:19
Here is my point:
Let’s say you want to start a small lawn care business and hire one (1) employee. If you decide to do that you, now the employer, are responsible for:
1. withholding that employee’s federal income tax,
2. withholding that employee’s Utah income tax,
3. withholding that employee’s portion of social security tax,
4. withholding that employee’s portion of medicare tax,
5. pay the employer’s portion of social security tax,
6. pay the employer’s portion of medicare tax,
then also pay state unemployment insurance (SUI),
7. pay federal unemployment tax (FUTA),
8. then pay worker’s compensation insurance.
You are responsible for all the bookkeeping and filing of each necessary form each month or quarter as the case may be.
You might say “don’t bother with that, just pay the one employee as an independent contractor”. Well, you could, but you would be in violation of the law since the law says that the employee vs independent contractor determination is not an election. It is a determination of the facts. If you provide the person tools to do their work and direct their work, then he/she is an employee regardless of how many or how few hours the person works. So, if you hire a person for ONE HOUR in a year to mow a lawn and you provide them with the lawnmower and you tell them to mow your lawn, then BY LAW that person is an employee.
This is what the governmen doesn’t get. The government makes it hard and expensive for small employers to hire people and create jobs. The government is in the way of a highly socially desirable outcome. So what is government’s answer? Well tax credits and incentive to hire people, which will require the filing of further forms and further bookkeeping. It would never occur to goverment to get rid of the barriers they erected in the first place.
They don’t get it and they never will. They have never created a job themselves in their lifetimes and they never will.
#6 by brewski - January 29th, 2010 at 12:20
I missed a number so it is really 9 responsibilities.
#7 by Richard Warnick - January 29th, 2010 at 12:33
brewski–
If employers still had to use pen and paper, I’d be more sympathetic to your argument. But we have computers now for doing taxes.
#8 by Richard Warnick - January 29th, 2010 at 13:06
Today, President Obama met with House Republicans to impart a little friendly advice:
Note to President Obama: WAKE UP! Nobody gives a crap about bipartisanship, least of all the Republicans. People voted for you because they wanted results. Making bipartisanship the goal instead of doing the right thing is dumb.
There are 51 Democratic senators on the record supporting a health care public option. Use those 51 votes and get us health care!
#9 by brewski - January 29th, 2010 at 13:20
Richard.
Have you ever yourself personally been responsible for the abovementioned 9 requirements?
#10 by Richard Warnick - January 29th, 2010 at 13:39
Nope, but I work for a small company that’s not run by geniuses, and they’ve got it all automated.
#11 by brewski - January 29th, 2010 at 13:47
That doesn’t answer the question about the out of pocket costs from the employer (employer portion of SS, employer portion of Medicare, employer paid SUI, employer paid FUTA, and employer paid Worker’s Comp). This is all money paid by the employer that could have been available to do things like pay the employees more, grow the business, etc.
Also, if taxes are so easy and computers just do it, then why do the vast majority of members of Congress need to hire outside tax preparers to do their taxes for them? I mean, the computers do it, don’t they?
And as a matter of principle (principal for Cliff), the government should not make thinks complicated, expensive and burdensome just because it doesn’t matter since computers do it anyway.
By the way, I didn’t even mention employer provided health insurance, dental insurance, long term disability insurance, substance abuse and mental health care, life insurance. And God help you if your employee has child support payments or other garnishments.
And by law this is if you have ONE employee for ONE hour.
#12 by Richard Warnick - January 29th, 2010 at 13:51
Look, brewski, if these requirements are so bad and onerous then why didn’t the Republicans change them when they controlled the Congress for ten years? They had the votes to abolish Medicare– why didn’t they?
#13 by shane - January 29th, 2010 at 14:04
If only we elected people like Palin, who not only have never created a job and never will and don’t understand but who also walk away from a job so they can demand $100,000 a pop to speak to teabaggers who think income tax is the worst thing on earth! Then we would be somewhere.
I see now your interest in the WSJ and their “taxes are the worst thing ever!” philosophy. What is the term the use for the people who make so little that they pay no taxes? Oh yes, lucky-duckies! It must be wonderful to be so poor that you pay no taxes. Everyday is just unicorns and rainbows…
Myself, I think the teabaggers should just go all John Galt on us. Would fix the unemployment rate. I am sure none of them would claim it!
Glen:
There was a website that was followed on “Dispatches from the Culture Wars” for a while because they where convinced he was serious. I am sure you caught some of their posts.
#14 by Glenden Brown - January 29th, 2010 at 14:05
Richard – the short answer is that the Republicans don’t actually want to solve problems.
#15 by Richard Warnick - January 29th, 2010 at 14:47
Ezra Klein has a more sympathetic take on President Obama’s meeting with the Republicans today, which Klein compares to Question Time in the British Parliament.
Apparently MSNBC and CNN aired the entire event, but Faux News cut away because Obama was demolishing the GOP talking points. I’m looking forward to seeing some video clips tonight.
#16 by Glenden Brown - January 29th, 2010 at 14:51
I’ve seen some very positive coverage of the meeting between Obama and the Republicans. Andrew Sullivan in particular was impressed which isn’t necessarily a guide but there you have it.
#17 by brewski - January 29th, 2010 at 15:19
I did not say Democrats don’t understand how America works. I didn’t say Democrats have never created a single job and never will. You people need to read:
#18 by shane - January 29th, 2010 at 16:03
Perhaps you can show me who said that you said Democrats?
#19 by brewski - January 29th, 2010 at 16:04
Was Mr. Sargent an opponenet of the filibuster when the Dems were blocking judicial apointments? Or does he want filibusters when the Dems are in the minority, but no filibuster when the GOP is in the minority?
#20 by Richard Warnick - January 29th, 2010 at 16:29
Actually, at the start of the next Congress in 2011, the Democratic Senate majority has the right to re-write the Senate Rules. By a simple majority vote. Do they have the guts to eliminate the filibuster entirely?
#21 by brewski - January 29th, 2010 at 16:40
I am sure you would’t have been in favor of that when the Dems were filibustering the judicial appointments.
#22 by brewski - January 29th, 2010 at 23:16
Richard, you are clearly missing the point. I did not say you had to be a genius to comply. I said it was a barrier. It is a burden, it is time consuming and it is expensive. You may think your non-geniuses handle it fine. But how how about a potential employer, again my lawn care company, whose owner may not be that literate, maybe never graduated from high school, maybe doesn’t speak English, doesn’t have a computer. He/she is still the employer and still has to comply with and pay for all of this.
Try reading IRS Publication 15 (Circular E) Employer’s Tax Guide and then ask yourself if an uneducated non-English-speaking person is going to understand all 71 pages of it including the “Income Tax and Advanced Earned Income Credit Payment Tables” not to mention the “Alternative Methods of Income Tax Withholding.”
And remember, by law, the employer would have to do this to hire one person for one hour, no exceptions. This potential employer may not have a computer, or the software, or the know-how to “just automate” it all.
You assume all employers have offices and computers and are educated and are numerate and speak English and have the time to do all this crap, nevermind actually do work related to running their business. You would be wrong.
#23 by Larry Bergan - January 30th, 2010 at 14:18
Giant corporations with the complicity of the CIA, the FBI, and many other clandestine operations now run the government AND make the rules. It’s the media’s job to make us forget who’s really in charge and they don’t like to lose their jobs any more then the rest of us.
Laws and everything else are irrelevant until the Democrats betray them the way they have betrayed us and get all of this sneaky treason out in the open.
Pelosi seemed to be trying to do that when she said the CIA lied, but the grand media machine scared her away. She should have kept trying by calling everybody who wouldn’t stand with her cowards.
That’s what’s killing us: a bunch of cowards who are too afraid to even shoot somebody in the back so they get apples to do it for them and call them bad later on. The Bush crime family has been working on this for many, many decades; especially Bush Sr.
That’s the way I see it.
#24 by Richard Warnick - January 30th, 2010 at 14:48
brewski–
(1) You should not be so sure. I thought the Dems lost an opportunity when Republicans were ready to do away with the filibuster for judicial appointments only. The smart move would have been to up the ante and say, “let’s do away with all filibusters.”
(2) The situation you describe, of a poorly educated non-English-speaking employer hiring one guy for one hour while trying to comply with all government rules, scarcely exists in the real world. There’s an underground cash economy for that sort of thing.
#25 by anonymous - January 30th, 2010 at 16:40
Understand this
#26 by brewski - January 30th, 2010 at 17:18
Yes exactly. So due to the complications and burdens imposed by the government on socially desirable behavior, you are advocating breaking the law. Stick with that one.
I’d keep the filibuster. It seems to be doing what it was intended. Prevent any one party in charge from railroading the minority party. That is the point. It is working and it is good.
#27 by cav - January 31st, 2010 at 09:41
Our government works in many strange and wonderful ways:
By Susan Davis
At least half a dozen leaders of the Republican Party have joined forces to create a new political group with the goal of organizing grass-roots support and raising funds ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to people familiar with the effort.
The organizational details of the group, expected to be called the American Action Network, are still being worked out, but it is expected to contain both a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4 component. In simpler terms, a 501(c)3 can advocate on policy matters while a 501(c)4 is an election arm.
Republican leaders expected to be affiliated with the group include former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Bush adviser Karl Rove, Republican strategist Ed Gillespie, and Republican donor Fred Malek.
……………………..This is about getting Jeb Bush into the White House in 2012.The vote pilferers are on the move.
#28 by Larry Bergan - January 31st, 2010 at 13:25
It’ll never work!
It has to be called the American FAMILY CITIZEN VALUES action network. Actually the word action is a little too hard edged; not friendly enough.
#29 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - February 1st, 2010 at 13:20
Brewski–
I just have to say this, although I’m not sure the point is still pertinent to the evolving discussion:
You have to recognize that, as long as politics is a game, some politicians are going to engage in the strategies even while they try to change the rules. Politicians who vote to simplify vote of cloture rules may filibuster from time to time; politicians who want to minimize corporate donation power may accept donations; and so on. While we would all like principled politicians, the fact is that those politicians don’t get elected. Politicians have to play the game to stay in the game, while trying to change the rules from the inside.
Judging hypocrisy requires a different rubric when it comes to politics. That’s just the way it is.
–Dwight
#30 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - February 1st, 2010 at 13:24
Brewski–
I agree that politicians don’t know how America works. As a matter of distance, most people don’t know how other people’s lives work, the demands of circumstance, etc.
But the people misunderstanding politics is an important challenge, because politics is supposed to work for the people. To me, the extra paperwork necessary for filing taxes is small cheese next to misunderstanding politics such that you shoot your ideology in the foot. If people don’t understand the challenges Obama faces from constant filibusters, Republicans shift the game in their favor by obstructing progress. Its a complete and utter deception, with national import. I’d fill out 20 extra forms if it meant we could avoid being abused by politicians who know that we don’t know what’s going on, and have no desire to let us.
–Dwight
#31 by brewski - February 1st, 2010 at 17:05
I think cost and hassle is a big deal. People make decisions on what to do based on all kids of inputs. Some inputs is what is least hassle, lease burden, cheapest and easiest. If we make hiring one person a big headache then simple human behavior is going to tell you that some people won’t get hired. You can dismiss it away as just being paperwork, but I have to believe it results in real people not being employed.
From a macro polciy point of view, we make hiring people a hassle and expensive, but we make jumping in our car and driving on the freeway cheap. We don’t tax gas very much, we don’t have any toll roads in Utah, so it is no wonder that our air stinks. So what kind of beahvior are we trying to encourage and what kind of behavior are we trying to encourage. Based on what we do it looks like we want a world with bad air and high unemployment.