The bill, which passed the GOP-controlled House with 31 Democrats backing it, is likely to pass the Senate with bipartisan support in a vote as early as next week, despite the Democratic majority in the upper chamber. The Democratic Party’s usual support for D.C. home rule drove opposition in the House.
The answer to the above question is not very hard to understand. It is also not too hard to understand why a legal reporter (a liberal one at that) from D.C. is upset. Biden can be hung by his Administration's earlier Statement of Administration Policy on the bill, perhaps released expecting it would be blocked in the Senate. If not, it comes off as a bit much:
While we work towards making Washington, D.C. the 51st state of our Union, Congress should respect the District of Columbia’s autonomy to govern its own local affairs.
The statement, without going as far as saying he would veto a bill, used this principle to ground his opposition. The statement was not based on agreement on the policy [it covers two bills -- one on allowing noncitizens to vote (which NYC allowed) and the crime bill] but the principle of home rule.
Statehood is not coming any time soon. The best you can do now is the honor the principle. This came up in the daily briefings when Biden's latest position arose. The press secretary tried to avoid the basic point by pivoting to Biden's position on crime policy overall. No sale. The bit about him caring for the public interest here is rather insulting to the degree it implies the city council is not since they decided things another way.
For me, unless the policy at issue is so blatantly wrong that it might warrant overruling it, that settles it. And, yes, it sets forth a lousy precedent. It invites (with the hope that they will get some support in the 51-49 Senate with Fetterman ailing and one or more other Democrats out too) further efforts by the House Republicans to target home rule.
It won't happen, but on the merits of statehood, I'm open to a compromise. Home rule + a voting member in the House. I understand the "but Wyoming" argument and am sympathetic to two senators as a sort of virtual representation of urban voters. Still, realistically, you make compromises. And, those two things are the core. Puerto Rico is different given the population and "state-like" nature warrants full statehood (or two senators).
I don't like the "two wrongs make a right" sentiment. Also, D.C. is a city, really, not a "state." I rather not have full state sovereignty rights. This issue, however, underlines the value of home rule. In fact, it shows the value of applying the filibuster here. Overriding local majority rule is something that deserves that usually misguided tool.
But, as the article cited in the title notes, the crime bill is acceptable on the merits too. Still, I realize the political realities (call it cynicism) involved here. The realities, to be clear here, are not just being weighed by Biden. The "Biden stabbed" narrative annoys me in that regard. The list of Democrats, yes DEMOCRATS, involved here are:
- The D.C. Mayor
- 31 House Members
- Senator Manchin (who might be enough given Fetterman's ailment)
- Probably other Democratic Senators
So, President Biden, with the 2024 elections and other things to weigh since politics is not just a series of single things, has to determine if a veto is warranted while knowing there is some Democratic support. If "bipartisan" is going to be tossed around if a single Republican senator is involved, this bill is "bipartisan." And, it brings up the usual "soft on crime" stuff. This is so even if it's bullshit. "Softer than the D.C. mayor."
People have a right to be bothered but some of the language to me is a tad exaggerated. Is it really shocking that he did this? The guy has a history of supporting tough-on-crime policies. Again, yes, as the Slate piece notes a careful (or even fairly cursory) understanding of the measure shows it is reasonable and if anything helpful for public safety by cleaning up confused laws that were open to court challenge.
The Administration has decided to go the path of least resistance in part since the people making the decisions judge that the more simplistic take has such a powerful force in politics. Also, probably, Biden just doesn't personally care enough about the issue (compare to if Congress was overriding a trans policy or something) to stick his neck out.
The first veto (the method in place to override administrative regulations, now that a legislative veto has been held unconstitutional, needs a simple majority; two Democrats went along with the House Republicans) is likely on another matter:
The president’s decision followed Senate approval on Wednesday of another resolution of disapproval, this one overturning a Biden administration policy on allowing retirement funds to consider climate change and other social factors when picking investments. Republicans denounced it as an example of “woke” policymaking by Democrats, though the rule was drafted to counter a Trump administration policy that banned taking such factors into account.
Anything labeled "woke" is basically not worthy of any respect since it is likely to be partisan drivel. Anyway, that is a lot easier for the Administration to defend, and it sets up a prime (unburdened by the other matter) example of what the Biden Administration stands for.
[ETA: I don't know when Republicans locked on to "woke" but it's an example of twisting a perfectly fine word and concept. The word "woke" brings to mind old-time religious imagery. AWAKE! and all that. It also was applied to other things. The saying "wake up!" or "get a clue." So, someone "woke" was enlightened, including on how things really work. This upset those who liked the old ways so "woke" took a bad connotation.]
And, for now, yes, to cite the Slate article this includes the fact that D.C. is a "colony" of sorts if one (going by that article) who for a long time was let be when governing on these matters. D.C. statehood is not going to happen. You have to work within the system. The SOP was correct. But, the Administration did not want to take it all the way. In the end, the title's anger is self-inflicted. The SOP comes off as bullshit.
ETA: (3/6) The D.C. Council seems to be trying to find a way that will remove the rules change so that Congress does not have the power to revoke it. TBD what happens here.
3/8: After the city council announced it would take it back, adding another excuse not to support it, over 80 senators voted to block the change.
It was noted that this was maybe the fourth time since the 1970s (or the third in 30 years) that the city council was blocked. Which is a notable sign that self-rule was generally allowed.
The Dems during the "debate" mostly let Republicans troll. I saw a reference to only two (including a Maryland senator & Booker) actually defending D.C. on the merits. The whole thing as noted above is b.s. -- it was sound on policy and should have been left in place as a matter of self-government. The opposition was full of trolling. Very depressing.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!