Not to say "useless." Looking at the Congressional mess from a different angle and comparing its behaviors to the behaviors of the White House, it seems about time to admit Congress is not into governance. With the increase in numbers of Republicans on the Hill, it's dignity is under even greater challenge.
Republican rudeness and lack of respect for Constitutional compromise may turn out to be the greatest shame of this era in Washington. There's a good case for a president and in the American people turning their backs on Congress, turning their attention to opportunities for more forward-looking action.
... The Center for American Progress, a research group with close ties to the administration, put out a report this week called “The Power of the President” that sought to identify areas where Mr. Obama can bypass Congress.
The report suggests that Mr. Obama can act on a host of domestic and foreign issues, like conserving federal lands, carrying out the Small Business Jobs Act, promoting mediation for homeowners seeking to avoid foreclosure and appointing a special envoy for the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, who could work with Yemen’s government on the terrorism threat there.
“He needs to rise above the definition of the presidency as just being a skirmish between Republicans and you,” said John D. Podesta, the president of the Center for American Progress and a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. “If he spends two years in the scrum with these guys, that’s what they want. He’s capable of doing things on his own without them.”
The White House has given no sign of any major postelection reorganization or personnel shakeup, and Mr. Obama’s aides have not tipped their hand about how they might address issues, like reducing the deficit or overhauling the tax code, that could offer opportunities for bipartisan compromise. ...NYT
___
What about Republican Senator Jon Kyl's unthinkable "hold" on the nuclear arms treaty legislation?
What about Republicans waiting for Jon Kyl to change his mind in view of the importance of the treat in overall efforts to improve national security?
Have Republicans decided to give up their claim to being "the party of national security"?
What are Mr. Kyl’s objections?
In a statement on Tuesday, he said there is not enough time to act during the lame-duck session, given other unspecified items on the Senate agenda and the “complex and unresolved issues related to Start and modernization.”
What Mr. Kyl did not mention is that there have already been countless briefings and 21 Senate hearings on the treaty — sufficient for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the country’s top military leaders, six former secretaries of state (from both parties), five former secretaries of defense (from both parties) and seven former nuclear weapons commanders to endorse it.
As for concerns about “modernization,” President Obama has already promised an extra $84 billion over 10 years to modernize the nation’s nuclear weapons complex and its arsenal. That would raise spending 20 percent above the levels of the Bush years and is far more than we think is necessary.
If Mr. Kyl were just one vote, the White House and the country could safely ignore him. Two-thirds of the Senate is needed for ratification, so the treaty cannot get through without some Republican support. And most Republicans have not taken a public stand, apparently awaiting Mr. Kyl’s instructions.
Senator Richard Lugar, the Senate’s leading expert on arms control, isn’t waiting. On Wednesday, Mr. Lugar repeated his strong endorsement of the treaty. He urged President Obama to press ahead with the vote, warning that a failure to act would place the country “in some national security peril.”
He also warned that if the treaty is defeated, the Congressional consensus for vastly increased financing for the nuclear complex could shatter. ...NYT
