With Obama's second veto threat, is bipartisanship with Congress already over?
| Washington
Two veto threats in two days. Is President Obama killing the opportunity for bipartisanship in Congress before new members even have a chance to find the basement snack shops?
Democrats in the Senate who have been working on bipartisan bills to approve the Keystone oil pipeline and tweak the Affordable Care Act (ACA) 鈥� the House versions of which are Mr. Obama鈥檚 two veto targets 鈥� are particularly frustrated by the threats.
鈥淚鈥檓 very disappointed,鈥� said Sen. Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia, a co-sponsor of Keystone legislation in the Senate.
Meanwhile, Republican leaders in both houses, where these two issues are in active play this week, say the president is ignoring the wishes of Americans. They argue that the public supports the efforts and also wants the White House and Congress to work together.
鈥淭he president has failed his first big test when it comes to working with the Congress for the American people,鈥� said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the GOP Senate leadership.
Obama is making it quite clear that he won鈥檛 dine on what he sees as warmed-over GOP campaign promises disguised as bipartisan bills. At the same time, Republicans are hoping to finally get some of their issues to the president鈥檚 desk, and if he vetoes them, to use that as 2016 campaign fodder.
Expect much more of this, now that former Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada no longer has the power to shield Obama from bills he doesn鈥檛 like.
鈥淭he president is laying down the marker on what he鈥檚 willing to sign and what he鈥檚 not,鈥� says Sarah Binder, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a reminder we鈥檙e in a period of divided government and we don鈥檛 legislate just by tossing things down Pennsylvania Avenue.鈥�
What Obama wants to see, she says, is 鈥渞eal bipartisan legislation where you have a core of both parties鈥� backing it.
Keystone has six Democratic co-sponsors in the Senate, though other Democrats sharply decry it on environmental grounds. Also, a Senate bill that would change the definition of the workweek from 30 to 40 hours under the ACA has two Democratic co-sponsors. The change is meant to discourage employers from cutting hours to avoid the employer health mandate.
The House is expected to pass similar versions of both measures this week.
Sen. Richard Durbin (D) of Illinois, the minority whip, acknowledged Wednesday that it鈥檚 鈥渦nusual鈥� for the president to issue veto threats at this early stage 鈥� before legislation has even hit the Senate floor. But, he added, 鈥渢hese are not new issues.鈥�
The senator said he would welcome a debate on the ACA鈥檚 workweek 鈥� but not if it鈥檚 done in the context of 鈥渢he first nail in the coffin鈥� for the ACA.
鈥淲e need to talk this through and if we do it in a constructive, positive way, then I think the president would be willing to sit down,鈥� Senator Durbin said.
One reason the White House objects to the workweek change: It would add to the deficit, administration officials say. But the clutch of moderate Democrats working on these bills believes it is being constructive.
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D) of Indiana, who cosponsored the 40-hour-workweek bill with Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine, says the bill would save workers from having their hours cut and then having to find another part-time job to compensate.
鈥淚鈥檓 hoping he鈥檒l reconsider,鈥� he says of Obama. The bill 鈥渁ctually helps our families.鈥�
The risk for the president, of course, is that his early veto threats make him look like he鈥檚 backing away from GOP overtures on bipartisanship.
鈥淰eto threats on Day 1 and 2 of a new Congress play right into Republican hands,鈥� Ms. Binder says.
She doubts, though, that the moves will hurt the chances for other bipartisan agreements in Congress. If lawmakers really want to legislate on taxes or trade, 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think they鈥檇 let veto threats on other issues get in the way.鈥�
