(By way of definition, the null hypothesis is the building block of scientific inquiry. A base proposisiton is set (N0), and data are collected and analyzed. The analysis can either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. In politics, this might take the form of "If Congress does nothing in dealing with "x" it will actually be better for America and the American people than doing what Democrats want.")
Politico has a story today, now that the Republicans in the Senate have allowed debate to move forward on the Democrat financial reform bill, discussing the frustrations that Republicans have with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (soon-to-be-ex-D-NV). Senator Bunning (R-KY) calls him an "idiot."
Bunning’s harsh words — confirmed by several people in the room — came in the midst of Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander’s presentation about Reid’s handling of the Senate floor. Bunning rose from his seat and, speaking loudly, read fundraising data that singled out Reid and other Senate Democrats for taking more money from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms than Republicans had.
[...]
While the two parties have been engaged in constant battle since President Barack Obama took office last year, the politics in the usually clubby Senate have grown increasingly personal in recent weeks.
In the wake of the superheated debate over health care reform, Reid and his confidants have used fierce rhetoric to portray the Republicans as tools of Wall Street who spread lies about the financial regulatory reform bill as a way to protect well-heeled donors. Meanwhile, Reid has been forcing the Republicans to vote again and again on the regulatory reform bill, hoping to jam at least one GOP senator into flipping to the Democratic side for fear of coming off as entirely obstructionist.
A couple of comments first. Not in recent memory has the Senate been "clubby." Democrats ever since I began observing politics have openly ascribed motivations of evil, racism, greed, corruption and/or stupidity to every Republican who fails to meekly support Democratic aims. Keep doing that and its no surprise that membership in the "club" shrinks.
Second, I think we would find the media doing their own debunking if Republicans were trying to paint their opponents as bought by Goldman when they, in fact, took significantly more money from Wall Street. The opposite is clearly not true. Third, I was in the Senate gallery this past Monday and heard Senator Alexander's speech firsthand. It was outstanding, and appeared to resonate with most of those around me.
But let's return to the analysis. The Republicans will need to grow some backbone, and to find a way to get their message out. They don't appear to realize it, but they have a winning hand and they need to show it to the American people. There is now ample evidence to support the Null Hypothesis of Washington listed above, that doing "nothing" is actually better than doing what the Obama administration, Senator Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are pushing. Sen. Reid's spokesman Jim Manley is quoted saying:
“The American people elected them to legislate — not to filibuster everything and prevent us from doing our job.”
Republicans privately acknowledge that the Democrats’ “Party of No” attacks are starting to take their toll politically, and they’re beginning to push back that Reid himself is the leader of the “Party of No” because he’s always trying to end debate and force votes on bills.
I don't know about the rest of America, but I don't vote to send individuals to Congress to "legislate." I do it so that the correct and prudent things can, when necessary, be done for the country. If Democrats in Congress are going to promote unhelpful, freedom-robbing, anti-capitalist measures and prevent Republicans from offering changes then yes, I would rather that body take no action. As for the "not to filibuster everything" part of the construct, didn't Massachusetts (of all states) send Scott Brown as Tom Seaver (#41) to do just that? Let's look at the carnage.
We have, first and foremost, the ObamaCare health bill, which includes bribes, new taxes hidden until the bill was signed, higher costs hidden until the bill was signed, tax incentives that force people into government plans, likely unconstitutional individual mandates, and rationing of care. That's pretty much hitting for the cycle of unhelpful, freedom-robbing and anti-capitalist.
We have the stimulus, $840B of pork barrel projects and non-stimulatory spending that hasn't "created or saved" enough jobs to keep the unemployment rate under 9%, let alone 8%. Not even close, no matter how many baseline measures are altered.
We have the bailouts. Oh, sure some of them I believe might have been helpful or necessary amid the chaos, but the recent false GM ad claiming to have paid back the bailout money along with the gifting of large portions of the U.S. auto industry to the UAW are evidence that some bailout work was at the very least misguided.
Upcoming we have cap & trade, immigration reform, and a financial reform bill that would allow unlimited future bailouts. There is a strong case to be made, based on the evidence from past actions, that none of these should move one millimeter until after November's elections. Or, at least, until a substantial number of both Republicans (i.e., not just Lindsay Graham) and Democrats are convinced of the worthiness of the bills.
So embrace the null hypothesis. There is, to this point certainly, insufficient evidence to reject it.
