Steny Hoyer is Right, Food Stamps Stimulate the Economy (and keep children from starving)

The conservative blogosphere is all atwitter (pun intended) responding to House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer's comments that food stamps and unemployment insurance are the two "most stimulative" things you can do for the economy. Almost immediately, Hoyer's Republican opponent in the upcoming election, Maryland House of Delegate Republican Minority Leader Tony O'Donnell, sent out a fundraising e-mail criticizing Hoyer for the comments.

Trouble is, Hoyer's right. Welfare programs like Food Stamps (actually called SNAP - but I use the names interchangeably) and unemployment compensation stimulate the economy.  Who says so? Some left wing think tank? No - Moody's Analytics. Moody’s Analytics estimates that in a weak economy, every dollar increase in SNAP benefits generates $1.72 in economic activity... SNAP is followed closely by - you guessed it - unemployment insurance which generates $1.63 in economic activity for every dollar spent. Comparatively, tax cuts generally break even with every dollar in cuts generating a dollar - of course income tax cuts would be meaningless to the folks who receive Food Stamps given they generally receive no income (because many are children) or their income is so low they'd owe no income taxes.

The federal government spent about $65 billion on Food Stamps in 2010. If Moody's is right, that $65 billion generated about $112.5 billion in economic activity (I wish my 401k gave me a return like that). Now $65 billion is not chump change to a cash starved federal budget and Food Stamp participation has grown rapidly in recent years - growing from 25 million recipient in 2007 to about 46 million today. But during that same time the number of Americans in poverty has increased from 35 million to over 45 million. Unemployment increased from just over 5% to above 9% and now is at just above 8% and 42 percent of all unemployed workers have been out of work for more than half a year.

Of course people would prefer to earn income from work - but that requires available jobs. In the absence of jobs there would be an even worse contraction in economic activity if the unemployed could not buy food, clothes, gas, utilities, and pay rent. This is what programs like SNAP and unemployment allow. The $65 billion in Food Stamp spending is not buying a Cadillac for a welfare queen - it's buying bread, milk, cereal. It's keeping people employed at Wal-Mart, Target, and local grocery stores. The average Food Stamp participant receives $133 per month - which works out to $1.34 per meal. It's hardly an outrageous sum per person, but is cumulatively significant to the economy. The average family on Food Stamps has a net worth of $101 and nearly 60% earn half the poverty level or below (1 in 5 have no earnings at all).

Oh, and one more important thing to note - nearly three-quarters of SNAP dollars go to families with children. So in addition to economic stimulus, the program keeps kids from going hungry and can stave off the malnourishment that could result in a lifetime of health problems and reduced productivity - imagine the economic drag. Not too bad for $65 billion a year.

And to put that $65 billion into some perspective - that 401k that I mentioned -  I, and millions of other working folks, get a tax deduction for putting aside money in a retirement account. The cumulative cost of those tax deductions? $93 billion. I also have a house, something most of those folks with $101 in net worth do not. I get to deduct my mortgage interest. Total cumulative cost? $87 billion.

Welfare programs such as SNAP and unemployment cost the federal government relatively little compared to the money spent on middle and upper middle class welfare support programs like the mortgage interest deduction and the retirement contribution deduction. Now, I happen to agree with many conservatives that tax cuts can stimulate economic growth as well - but such tax cuts cannot help folks without a job.

Food Stamps and unemployment allow tens of million to engage in economic activity and therefor support the jobs of tens of millions more. Take that money away and aside from devastating the lives of recipients there would be a ripple effect felt from retail store employees to manufacturers to farmers to truck drivers to you and to me.

Of course we'd all prefer a growing a economy with fewer welfare recipients and more private sector jobs. That's why programs like SNAP and unemployment matter. Investments in these programs today decrease the likelihood of needing them tomorrow.

*** Full disclosure - Steny Hoyer represents me in Congress and is a member of the Board of Trustees of St. Mary's College - my employer. I like and respect Hoyer and think House Democrats need to dump Nancy Pelosi and elect Hoyer their leader - we'd all be better off. That said, I was an expert witness in the Voting Rights challenge to Maryland's new congressional districts and have argued that Hoyer's 5th Congressional district disenfranchises minority voters by using them to offset conservative voters in southern Maryland.

As to Minority Leader O'Donnell... he represents me in the Maryland House of Delegates. Not only do I know him, I like and respect him. He and I disagree on many issue (but the same is true of Hoyer) but I consider him to be a strong leader within the Maryland Republican party and if Maryland ever adopted a Congressional district map that represented it's people I have no doubt O'Donnell would do well representing Southern Maryland and Anne Arundel county.

My point being - I don't have a dog in the Hoyer/O'Donnell fight. I simply want to make clear that Hoyer is right. Welfare benefits stimulate the economy. And in a high unemployment job market that stimulus is needed. And the stimulus is quite cheap.

Redistricting in Maryland: Can O'Malley Make Maryland a Republican-Free Zone?

Update: Make sure your voice is heard - there will be 12 public hearings on the issue of redistricting - dates and times are available here.

Governor O'Malley has named the members of his Redistricting Task Force and no one should be surprised by its composition.

• Jeanne D. Hitchcock will serve as chair of Task Force. Hitchcock is O'Malley's Secretary of Appointments. Prior to joining the governor's office, she served as Deputy Mayor to then-Mayor Martin O'Malley.
• Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., Maryland State Senate President since 1987 and a veteran of past redistricting efforts in 1991 and 2001.
• Michael E. Busch, Maryland Speaker of the House since 2003.
• James King, a former member of the House of Delegates from 2007 to 2011. King is a Republican, but he sided with O'Malley in the past, specifically on the issue of a Slots referendum.
• Richard Stewart, President and Chief Executive Officer of Montgomery Mechanical Services Incorporated.

The Task Force is decidedly Democratic and regardless of O'Malley's promise that the task force will develop a map that represents the diversity of Maryland this will be a decidedly partisan affair and the only thing represented will be the interests of Martin O'Malley and the state Democratic Party.

Recent Census data shows that Maryland's population has grown, but more important to the redistricting process, it has grown more in some Congressional Districts than in others. This means the redistricting Task Force must balance out the district populations such that each district has roughly 721,000 people.

The table below shows the districts that must shrink (Blue) and the ones that need to grow (Green).

A quick review of the table should show why Democrats are excited about redistricting - 2 of the 3 districts that must shrink are home to Maryland's only two Republican members of Congress. Democrats would very much like to eliminate at least one of those Republicans and most of the focus is on the 1st Congressional District and Representative And Harris. Harris was narrowly defeated in 2008, but won decisively in 2010 in a district that is roughly equally split between Democrats and Republicans - it is Maryland's only swing district.

The 6th Congressional District is more solidly Republican and it would take more than a shift of 17,000 voters to make it competitive.

Democrats may have a very tough time trying to improve upon their current 6 to 2 advantage in the state's Congressional delegation and it largely results from the successful redistricting process completed after the 2000 Census. Prior to the 2001 round of redistricting, Maryland's Congressional delegation was split 4 to 4 between Republicans and Democrats. A Task Force (of 4 Democrats and 1 Republican) appointed by then Governor Parris Glendening developed a map that altered the boundaries of the 1st and 2nd Congressional districts so that two Republicans - Robert Ehrlich and Wayne Gilchrest would now be in the 1st Congressional district. Ehrlich opted to run for governor (and won). The newly open 2nd district was more Democratic and elected Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger.

Maryland's 8th Congressional district was home to moderate Republican Connie Morella. Morella's district consisted of much of Montgomery County and her strength came from the Republican northern suburbs. To eliminate Morella, Montgomery county was spread across three Congressional districts with the more Republican elements packed into the reliably conservative 6th Congressional district.

The plan in 2001 was clear - elect more Democrats. Casper Taylor (D-Allegany), then Speaker of the Maryland House said the plan was the best way to elect more Democrats, arguing "We Democrats deserve six [Democrats] and two" Republicans.

The plan worked. Morella was defeated, Ehrlich left - the delegation was 6 to 2. In 2008, moderate Republican Wayne Gilchrest was defeated in the Republican primary by conservative Andy Harris. Harris narrowly lost to Frank Kratovil thanks largely to the Obama win in Maryland. For 2 years Democrats enjoyed a 7 to 1 advantage, but Harris won big in 2010 and now Democrats want the 7 to 1 advantage back.

But how can they do it? Below is a map of the current Congressional districts. The first thing that she be obvious is that the 2001 Task Force produce a work of partisan art - the 2nd, 3rd, 4th are ridiculously drawn districts - drawn not to preserve existing communities but to maximize Democratic votes. Baltimore City is chopped up and spread across 3 districts (denying Baltimore a dedicated member of Congress) and Montgomery County is spread across 3 districts to dilute Republican votes and maximize Democratic votes.



The 1st Congressional district covers the Eastern Shore and then slices of Harford and Baltimore County and hops across the Bay Bridge to include parts of Anne Arundel County.

So what can Democrats do in 2011 to improve upon their master gerrymandering stroke of 2001? First, they need to accept that the dream of an 8 to 0 delegation is a lost cause. It would require to many changes to current districts and the state's 6 sitting members of Congress are unlikely to accept that. Democrats should take the 17,000 voters from Bartlett's 6th Congressional district and add them to Edward's 4th and Cummings' 7th. Both districts are overwhelmingly Democratic and overwhelmingly African-American - they could easily absorb the 6th Districts excess (even if that excess is more Republican). Edwards won re-election with 83% of the vote and a 130,000 vote margin in 2010.

Cummings' 7th district would still be well shy of 721,000 and the best scenario would be to take a significant chunk of Prince Georges county from Hoyer's 5th district along with elements of Anne Arundel county. Cummings won with 75% and a 106,000 vote margin in 2010 - Cummings needs 60,000 new members in his district, but so long as some of those folks come from Prince Georges County he can absorb more Republican voters.

Hoyer's strength is in Prince Georges and Charles County and he would likely protest the loss of parts of Prince Georges County, but the task force could compensate Hoyer by taking elements of Anne Arundel - a portion of his district that he lost in 2010. Hoyer won with 65% of the vote and an 85,000 vote margin in 2010 - but he lost Anne Arundel County by 12 percentage points (he'd be happy to see it go). Hoyer's district includes 231,000 voters in Prince Georges County and 37,000 in Anne Arundel - he can afford to lose some Prince Georges county voters so long as he loses most, if not all, of his Anne Arundel voters.

Those changes would balance the populations in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Districts - leaving only the 1st and the 2nd. The 1st Congressional district needs to shed 22,000 voters and the 2nd Congressional district must add nearly the same - this present Democrats with their greatest chance for a seat gain. Ruppersberger won reelection in 2010 with 64% of the vote and a 64,000 vote margin. Harris won 55% and a 35,000 vote margin. Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and Harford counties accounted for nearly 28,000 of his 35,000 vote victory.

The Task Force could take elements of those three counties and move them into Ruppersberger's district - the problem being that Harris won by 35,000 votes and can only lose 22,000 (and some of the 22,000 would be Democrats). Ruppersberger won by 64,000 votes but any movement of Republicans into his district would make it more competitive - at present, it is the most competitive Democratic district in the state.

I believe that the scenario I just presented is the best option for the Democrats - the only way to ensure an 8 to 0 or even 7 to 1 delegation advantage would be via dramatic changes in the states current congressional districts - but I see no way that the state's 6 incumbent Democrats would accept such radical change. Rather, Democrats can make the 1st Congressional district more friendly to Democrats while only making the 2nd district slightly more competitive. The 6th Congressional district must remain a Republican stronghold.

As a final note, I would like to add that I find the whole process of partisan redistricting to be an affront to representative democracy. As with many states, Maryland's current Congressional district map is a ridiculous mess of oddly drawn districts. Communities are divided, counties spread across multiple districts, Baltimore City is treated like a cash machine for Democratic voters spread across 3 districts when it could have its own member of Congress. It would be nice to see the Task Force propose a map that respects county lines, regardless of partisan advantage - that, of course, will not happen.

I would also like to commend the Maryland GOP for releasing their own proposed map:

Notice how county lines are respected. Note as well that Maryland's traditionally recognized regions are represented. The Eastern Shore, Southern Maryland, the DC suburbs, Central Maryland, and Western Maryland. Baltimore City would have a dedicated member of Congress.

Compare the proposed map to the current map - no embarrassments like the presently drawn 2nd, 3rd and 4th Congressional districts. Baltimore County appears to be the only county in more than two districts and even there the division makes sense as elements of the county are joined with Baltimore City.

The Maryland GOP map would protect the 1st and 6th districts for the party. It's also likely that the 2nd, but especially the 3rd would become more competitive. In fact the 3rd would probably flip to the Republicans. But a 5 to 3 delegation would be more representative of Maryland than the current 6 to 2. Democrats make up 56% of Maryland voters, but hold all statewide offices and 75% of the Congressional Delegation. The current district map was drawn to ensure that Democrats won more seats than their registration advantage would naturally produce and it marginalizes Republicans and the growing number of unaffiliated voters in the state. If the Redistricting Task Force draws a map that would make Maryland a 7 to 1 state, 87.5% Democrats in Congress, it would be a body blow to the actual political diversity of the state, a tremendous abuse of process, and a victory for the worst kind of petty partisan politics.

If I were on the Governor's Redistricting Task Force I would walk into work today, hand out copies of the GOP proposal and declare the job done. That probably helps to explain why I am not on the Task Force. That said, the Maryland GOP has proposed a reasonable map, one not marked by partisan gerrymandering, will the Governor's Task Force rise to the occasion and release an equally responsible map?

In a future post I'll talk about Maryland's State Legislative districts - I think there will be a far more drama in the redrawing of those districts.

Full Video and Highlights of the Steny Hoyer/Charles Lollar Debate at St. Mary's College on Oct. 29th

Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Republican Challenger Charles Lollar faced off at a forum sponsored by the the Center for the Study of Democracy and the St. Mary's County NAACP at St. Mary's College of Maryland on October 29th.  The full video, as well as select highlights are included below.

Full Video:


On Illegal Immigration:


On Healthcare Reform:


On Cap and Trade Legislation:


On a Balanced Budget Amendment:

Interesting Turnout Dynamics in Maryland

In 2002, when neither Democrat Kathleen Kennedy Townsend nor Republican Bob Ehrlich faced serious primary threats Townsend received roughly 400,000 votes to Ehrlich's 200,000 - a 2 to 1 margin that closely matched the Democrats' registration advantage. Roughly 100,000 Democrats opted to vote against Townsend in the primary. So there was a 2.5 to 1 turnout advantage among Democrats, but 20% lodged a protest vote against Townsend and she went on to lose the general election.

In 2006, neither Ehrlich or Democratic challenger Martin O'Malley faced any primary challenge. O'Malley received 500,000 votes to Ehrlich's 200,000 - essentially the same 2.5 to 1 turnout in 2002, but the Democratic vote was unified.

In 2010, O'Malley faced no serious challenge and Ehrlich did. So far, there have been 411,000 Democratic votes cast and 255,000 Republican votes. Ehrlich has claimed 76% or 195,000. O'Malley has received 86% or 354,000. Three things stands out - 1) Democratic turnout is barely 1.6 to 1 over Republican, an incredibly low ratio, 2) O'Malley's advantage over Ehrlich is thus less than Townsend's over Ehrlich in 2002, and 3) 14% of Democratic voters have lodged a protest vote against O'Malley.

If these ratios hold then tonight will be a bad night for Martin O'Malley and perhaps indicative of a rough general election to come.

In the 5th Congressional District, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's district, Republicans have nominated newcomer Charles Lollar. In 2008 there were 110,000 Democratic votes cast in the primary and only 28,000 Republican votes - 3.5 to one in a district that is 2 to 1 Democrat. Hoyer won in 2008 75% to 25%. Tonight, there have been 53,000 Democratic votes so far to 25,000 Republican votes - about 2 to 1.  This suggests that even Hoyer may have a race on his hands - though odds are still very much in his favor.

In Maryland the Only Surprise is the Lack of Surprises

With early returns in the AP has called the gubernatorial races for Martin O'Malley and Robert Ehrlich. In the end, insurgent Republican Brian Murphy fizzled. Ehrlich carried 78% of vote in early returns - simply trouncing Murphy. Any suggestions that the result indicates a weakness for Ehrlich are simply wrong. Murphy was a reasonably well financed candidate with a strong organization, and Tea Party backing - Murphy should have cracked 25% or more. Look across the border in Delaware where Christine O'Donnell toppled establishment Republican Mike Castle in that state's Senate primary and you see how well insurgent Republicans are doing this year. Murphy underperformed...

In other news - Republican Andy Harris easily won the nomination for a rematch against Frank Kratovil in the 1st Congressional District and political newcomer Charles Lollar appears destined to challenge Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in Maryland's 5th Congressional District.

Candidates for 5th Congressional District Seat Will Answer your Questions Sept. 7

(St. Mary’s City, MD) August 26, 2010—A public forum for candidates seeking party nominations in Maryland’s 5th Congressional District will be held 6:30-8:30 p.m. Tuesday, September 7, at Auerbach Auditorium in St. Mary’s Hall at St. Mary’s College of Maryland. The 5th Congressional District seat is currently represented by Democrat Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader. Three Democrats, including Hoyer, Sylvanus Bent, and Andrew Gall, and four Republicans, Collins Bailey, Chris Chaffee, Charles Lollar, and Chris Robins, will appear on the September 14th primary ballot; all have been invited to attend.

Voters may submit questions to candidates either during the evening's program or in advance by e-mailing questions to arlyons@smcm.edu with Candidate Question in the subject line. Though the forum will be limited to 5th Congressional District candidates, which covers Calvert, Charles and St. Mary’s as well as portions of Prince George’s and Anne Arundel counties, all local candidates are invited to "meet and greet" the public and to offer campaign literature on the grounds of St. Mary’s Hall prior to the forum.

The forum is sponsored by the college’s Center for the Study of Democracy and the St. Mary’s County branch of the NAACP.

The Center for the Study of Democracy was founded as a joint initiative of St. Mary's College of Maryland and its partner institution, Historic St. Mary's City, the site of Maryland's first capital. The Center provides a forum for presentations by government officials, journalists, and scholars, and encourages and supports public participation in political processes. You can learn more about the Center by visiting www.smcm.edu/democracy/ or by following the Center on Facebook www.facebook.com/SMCMDemocracy.

The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination. The St. Mary's County Branch was chartered in January of 1946. You can learn more about the St. Mary’s County branch by visiting http://www.stmarysnaacp.org/.

For forum information, contact arlyons@smcm.edu or 240-895-6432.

Why Process Matters

Update: Realizing that it was undermining the credibility of the vote, Democratic leaders in the House have announced that they will not use the "deeming" procedure to pass health reform. This means that no one can question the process by which the Senate bill becomes law (if it is passed). Though the changes being made via reconciliation still represent a violation of process, the decision to abandon deeming goes a long way toward respecting the process of lawmaking.

With all of the talk about "deeming," "self-executing rules," and reconciliation proponents of health care reform have dismissed everyone who engages in a discussion of "process" as being opposed to reform and trying to avoid a real discussion of "the issues." As a proud advocate of health reform I reject such accusations and further contend that my obsession with "process" is a direct result of my support for health reform. In short, health reform is too important to passed in any manner other than one which embraces a clean, open, and honest debate. That means no parlimentary tricks, no rule making sleight of hand - no action which could ultimately undermine reform.

As a professor of public policy my students are introduced early to what is called the Policy Process Model - a six stage description of the process through which policy is created: problems are defined, policies considered, implemented, evaluated, and changed (if need be).  The third step in the process is one that is all too often overlooked - Policy Legitimation. According to public policy scholars Michael Kraft and Scott Furlong:

"Legitimation as a step in the policy process is at once both simple and complex. It is simple when it merely means that a recognized authority considered and approved a policy proposal. A bill becomes a law at the national level if both houses of Congress approve it and the president signs it, but does that process necessarily imply that the measure was legitimated?"

That's the simple, School House Rock, process of legitimation - but the authors continue:

"The complex view is that legitimation requires more than a majority vote... Policy legitimacy... flows from several conditions..." such as "demonstrable public support... and a full and open airing of the issues and controversies."

Kraft and Furlong conclude that without a sense of legitimacy:

"Policies... face serious hurdles. They may well fail to command public support, affected interest groups may... challenge them in court, and their implementation could be adversely affected."

I dwell quite a bit on the issue of legitimation in my classes and cite the examples of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 to illustrate why the simple process of legitimation is insufficient. If the public doubts the legitimacy of a legislative act, if there is any reason to question the decision-making process, a legally enacted bill (even two very good pieces of legislation) can ultimately fail.

Health care reform is one of the most important issues of our time. Health care spending is bankrupting our nation, our citizens, and 45 million Americans lack even basic coverage. The legislation pending before the House of Representatives marks the most substantial social reform since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 and is equally as import. But if Democrats opt to use parlimentary trickery to pass health reform they risk everything they hope to accomplish. Relying on reconciliation to bypass the Senate's filibuster rules and now talk of "deeming" the Senate bill to have passed in the House without a true up or down vote only serve to further undermine already abysmal public support for the legislation. Members of the public may rightly ask 'If this legislation is so good, why are all of the normal rules of process being cast aside?'.

Aside from the public's reaction the "deeming" process would put the entire legislation in question as it would certainly face a court challenge. As reported by Politico, Alan Morrison, a professor at the George Washington University Law School who has litigated similar issues before the Supreme Court warned “If I were advising somebody," on whether deem and pass would run into constitutional trouble, "I would say to them, ‘Don’t do it.’” Michael McConnell, a former federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, argues that the use of deeming to pass the Senate bill and simultaneously pass the reconciliation bii likely violates Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution. Said McConnell:

"Most of the time a self-executing rule is used to incorporate amendments into a pending bill without actual votes on the amendments, where the bill is then subject to a final vote by the House and Senate. That usage may be a dodge around House rules, but it does not violate the Constitution. I am not aware of any instance where a self-executing rule has been used to send one bill to the president for signature and another to the Senate for consideration by means of a single vote. Self-executing rules have also been used to increase the debt ceiling by virtue of adopting a budget resolution. That procedure is questionable, but because budget resolutions are not laws, this usage does not have the feature of using one vote to send a bill to the president and at the same time to send a different bill to the Senate."

So contrary to the claims that deeming and self-executing rules are common, or that they have been sanctioned by the courts, the simple fact is that they have not. So the use in this instance, a bill so substantial, represents poor judgement and certainly will raise questions of legitimacy.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer defended the use of the "deeming" approach by dismissing any need to worry about the rules of process. Said Hoyer, "We talk a lot about process in this town... 'So what?’ says the American public. What they’re interested in [is] ‘What result? What did you do for me and my family..." Congressman Hoyer is right and wrong - in most cases Americans do not care about process. In the past, the House of Representatives has used the deeming procedure on matters pertaining to House rules, it has been used to consider amendments to bills, there is a standing rule in the House to use deeming to raise the debt ceiling - but deeming has rarely been used to effect final passage of legislation. It has never been used to pass something as significant, and controversial, as comprehensive health reform. Americans do care about process - when they believe that it is being abused.

And the deeming approach is simply one more example of such abuse - it began with the decision to use reconciliation. The Constitution makes clear that the House and Senate must each approve a bill before it goes to the President. When they pass different versions of a bill they must reconcile those differences and if changes are made the new bill must be passed again by both chambers. The House and Senate passed different health reform bills last year, House and Senate negotiators were working on compromise legislation when Democrats lost their 60 seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate following the special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. Faced with the threat of a GOP filibuster in the Senate and a House that was unwilling to accept the legislation passed in the Senate, Democratic leaders decided that rather than abide by the rules of process they would instead have the House approve the Senate bill, but then use the budget reconciliation process to resolve key differences between the House and Senate bills. They essentialy decided to use reconciliation - a Senate budget process with limited debate that cannot be filibustered - to do an end run around the House/Senate conference process.

When party leaders discovered that many in the House were still unwilling to accept the Senate version they decided to explore the deeming process whereby House members would be asked only to vote on the House/Senate reconciliation fixes and if those fixes passed, the original Senate bill would be "deemed" to have passed.

If health reform passes as a result of the one-two punch of deeming in the House and reconciliation in the Senate there is little hope that it will ever be accepted as legitimate. It will face years of legal challenges and likely deeply entrenched public opposition. Worse, the manner in which the bill is being pushed may allow for errors or inconsistencies in the law that could weaken or undermine it in unanticipated ways. The normal process may cause delays and be fraught with obstacles, but it exists to protect the public and to promote sound legislation. In the end, Democrats will have turned the most important domestic policy issue of our time into a bill more toxic than the Nuclear Waste Act - and they will have only themselves to blame.