Former Congressman, Lee Hamilton, has a good column in the Evansville Courier Press on the subject of contradictory constituent demands. Basically, they want more with less and, if sacrifices are necessary, they should be made by someone else. General lobbying demands are at odds with specific demands.

He singled out the Business Roundtable for using anti-deficit rhetoric while “it consistently lobbies for a higher deficit” in the form of corporate tax breaks and infrastructure spending. But the criticism applies equally to all the groups that lobby to help themselves and their members, usually through specific tax cuts or spending initiatives, while expressing concern over the deficit.

To help things a bit, he suggests:

We can do the basic work asked of us by our democracy: Learn our facts, know what’s fact and what’s opinion, keep a broad perspective, understand the overall problem legislators must resolve, remember that what’s good for us might not be good for our neighbors, and think through the implications of our positions.

Good luck with that.

Maureen Groppe, writing for the Indianapolis Star, has an article (h/t Advance Indiana) on Citizen Bayh who, you might remember, retired from the Senate with a great deal of sanctimony bemoaning special interest influence and a lack of public spirit.

A funny thing happened after his retirement, however. Bayh took on a bunch of jobs that reflect special interest influence and a lack of public spirit. But, one presumes, they pay well.

He is a partner in the Washington office of the McGuireWoods law firm; a senior adviser in the New York-based private equity firm Apollo Global Management; and a contributor to the Fox News Channel. On Tuesday, Bayh was named to the board of directors of Cincinnati-based Fifth Third Bancorp. And, now he’s also working for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

But he’s totally not a lobbyist. In fact, he’s “amused” by the notion:

Bayh said he’s amused by criticism that he’s trying to cash in on his Senate career, which included service on the Senate banking committee.

“I’ve asked no government official for anything,” Bayh said. “If people want to hire me, it’s because of my knowledge and because I can give sensible advice, not because I’m attempting to wield influence.”

He’s either delusional or thinks we are if he’s serious in thinking that all these people are hiring him because he’s just such a sensible, knowledgeable fellow. He’s like the rich kid with all the cool toys who thinks people are always coming to his house simply because they think he’s a really great guy.

Update Matt Yglesias suggests that Mr. Bayh might be single-handedly responsible for the job crisis. Concluding:

They forgot that he’s also holding down a third job as a lobbyist and a forth job with Apollo Capital Management as a private equity rainmaker. That’s a lot of jobs for one man, especially since in a few years he’ll be eligible to double-dip on pensions as a former governor of Indiana and a former senator.

I’m naturally pre-disposed to hold Dwight Eisenhower in high regard. Besides bringing the Thousand Year Reich to an abrupt end, he is also a distant cousin on my maternal grandmother’s side. I like him even better after reading this passage from a letter he wrote to his brother on November 8, 1954:

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this – some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything – even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

(emphasis added). The numbers, or at least the influence, of people who believe that we can or should eliminate these things is no longer negligible. But their wisdom is the same as it ever was.

Eisenhower’s brand of Republicanism was the sort I was raised with; and the one with which I am most comfortable. And that’s why I look at what’s going on today and have to shake my head.

Newt Gingrich, of all people, looks at Paul Ryan and the House Republican plan to eviscerate Medicare and calls it a bridge too far. Rather than taking Gingrich’s comments as a call to back off, discuss, or reconsider its position on Medicare, the G.O.P. – at least the prominent national voices of the party – views this as an opportunity to double down on the Medicare position and to punish Gingrich for daring to give voice to heretical views.

Friends, in a political environment where Newt Gingrich is regarded as insufficiently conservative, a man such as Eisenhower would be hounded from the ranks as a communist or worse.

I had been relatively sanguine about deficit spending because I anticipated: a) an economic recovery; and b) expiration of the ill-advised Bush tax cuts. Obviously I’m an idiot. Obama and the GOP have struck a deal whereby the tax cuts would be extended and Congress would allow for an additional 13 months of unemployment benefits. They’re calling these things “temporary;” Mr. Obama says that *next time* he’ll fight extension of tax cuts for the rich, but we’re in Lucy-with-the-football territory here. That’s not going to happen.

If Mr. Obama thinks I’m being sanctimonious by calling this a horrible idea, then, with respect, bite me Mr. President. Call their bluff. See if they’re really willing to raise taxes on huge majorities to protect the interests of the wealthy. Push a new tax plan, maybe get credit for your own tax cuts. As it is, Bush continues to get credit for tax cuts, Obama gets blamed for the deficit.

I suppose I am insufficiently compassionate for the unemployed and for millionaires, but my suspicion is that my economic prospects would be better if I lost whatever tax benefits I receive under the Bush versus the Clinton era tax structure and, in return, the money lost on this deal was available to reduce the deficit, pay down the debt, or other purposes. At least the Depression era public works projects gave us tangible infrastructure we still use today. To me, this just looks like another squeeze on the middle class for the benefit of the rich and the poor.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill cutting taxes for the portion of a household’s income that is less than $250,000. However, the minority Senate Republicans have promised to filibuster the measure because, if the very wealthy don’t get to keep more of their income in excess of $250,000, apparently the rest of us can go pound sand.

And, it’s not like we’re talking about Nixon or Eisenhower era levels of taxation; it would be a return to Clinton-era tax levels. As I recall, people were doing fairly well through that period. Given the expense of the tax cuts for the wealthy, it’s pretty clear that the posturing on the deficit by those calling for extending tax cuts for income above $250k is just for show.

A couple of other items – I found it remarkable that Republicans were complaining that this hurt the spirit of bipartisanship; a spirit, that near as I can see, has been dead and buried since Obama took office; perhaps since sometime during Dubya’s first term. We saw that Obama’s misguided efforts at bipartisanship during the healthcare debate got him exactly nowhere.

The article also notes Obama’s tendency to bid against himself in negotiations. He gives up stuff as a gesture of good will without demanding concessions in return. I think pretty much any negotiator would tell you that all this does is move the mid-point of a potential settlement in favor of your adversary. At least that’s been my experience in negotiating settlements in civil suits.

There is also a prisoner’s dilemma dynamic going on in D.C. these days. If both sides are “good,” both get rewarded a little. If both sides are “bad,” then both get penalized a little bit. But, if one side is “good” and the other side is “bad,” then the bad side gets rewarded a lot and the good side gets penalized a lot. Obama extending his hand to people who routinely smack it away just makes him look like a chump. The rational way to play the game is to be nice at first, but if the other guy pounds you, you pound him back until he starts playing nice, then you play nice too.

The AP has an article warning Republicans across the country that there might be a backlash if they pursue social issues. I guess the warning isn’t technically from the AP; the author stuck the fact in someone’s mouth when writing the article, so I guess that makes it a news piece. But, I have a hard time believing the author couldn’t have found a person willing to say there would be a backlash if they didn’t pursue social issues.

Anyway, the premise of the article is that voters voted for Republicans because of economic issues and they pursue social issues at their own peril. That might be true. In fact, I suspect it is true, but the article seems weird as a news piece instead of an opinion piece.

Anyway, I expect the temptation to go to the social legislation bag of tricks will prove irresistable. Economic solutions are difficult, painful, complicated, and unlikely to be rewarded by voters. Social issues are emotional and immediate, even if divisive. Social issue solutions don’t need to be effective to be popular in some quarters. (See, e.g., ‘abstinence only’ education’s ineffectiveness.) And they’re easy to talk about on the campaign trail. Try talking about homestead replacement credits, and watch eyes glaze over. Talk about how They are taking away Our country and how it’s time to Fight Back, and suddenly you’re William Wallace in Braveheart.