Strike the Last Word

112th Congress Preview: Time for Democrats to Stand and Fight

2011-01-03T21:45:00.003-05:00

Good evening and welcome to the first edition of the Strike after the election season. Gone now are the large majorities voters handed the Democrats in 2008, and in comes a brand new daunting political landscape. On Wednesday at 12pm, Republicans will officially assume control of the House of Representatives under the leadership of John Boehner.

The first week's schedule is, of course, making all of us angry, but it also is an incredibly important opportunity to turn their political fortunes, and the country around. As little as I trust the Democrats' political instincts after what's happened in the past year, I have to say that I have a small measure of confidence that some good things could come out of being in the Minority.

Here are the painful details of how the week will go down. First, the members will elect the new Speaker in a live roll call on the House floor. John Boehner will get all 242 Republicans to vote for him. Minority Leader Pelosi will not get the votes of all 193 members of her caucus. Blue Dog Heath Shuler has declared that he's voting for himself, a pointless exercise in protest of Pelosi's alleged indifference towrd the Blue Dogs (despite the fact that she bent over backwards to accomodate their every need during the last Congress). Shuler and some other conservatives might form a block of around 10-20 members to vote againt their party's nominee for Speaker.

The most painful moment comes after this vote, when Nancy Pelosi will formally hand the gavel to the no doubt tearful Boehner. Boehner will give his inaugural address, and then the House gets down to business. The first item will be a package of rules introduced by the new chairman of the Rules Committee, the insufferable Rep. Dreier of California. The rules package has a bunch of junk in it. For one, it eliminates the Democrats' requirement that all spending or tax cuts has to be offset (PAYGO) with a bogus proposal that only spending be offset, not tax cuts. Second, the rules package will give Budget Chairman Paul Ryan the authority to unilaterally set spending levels for the whole House if House Republicans and the Democratic Senate Majority don't agree on spending levels (which will almost certainly happen). The effect of this will be that Paul Ryan will decide how much the government spends on each department, which isn't good, considering that he has proposed basically eliminating Medicare. The practical effect is less clear, since the real budget will be some sort of grand bargain between President Obama, Harry Reid and John Boehner, but this rule certainly rubs some Democrats the wrong way. I personally don't really care about it. Republicans won the election, and they make rules that favor their policy choices. I wish Democrats had done the same.

The rules package should pass easily. The next vote will be on a bill to cut House office budgets by 5%. This will save a measley $25 million, but Republicans believe that it will be good optics to show how much they're "tightening their belts." I'd be surprised if many Democrats had the nerve to vote against this, even though it's a pointless proposal that will cause House offices to be less effective.

After that, the real battle begins. The Republicans have introduced the "Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Bill Act," which is exactly what it sounds like. A vote on this bill will occur on Wednesday the 12th. The vote on the bill is a foregone conclusion. I expect at least 240 of the 242 Republicans to vote for it, which ensures that it will pass easily. 12 Democrats who voted against the bill last year are still in the House, and most if not all of them will support repeal as well. The rest of the 181 Democrats will vote no. The proposal will die in the Senate, thankfully, and won't even require the President's veto.

The battle, thus, is not the vote itself. It is the chance for Democrats to win a debate on the merits of health reform. They need to make the benefits of the law real, and the GOP is giving them a great opportunity to do so. When the GOP proposes repealing the bill, they are proposing that preventative no longer be required on private plans, that the Medicare donut hole be reopened, that preexisting conditions can once again be a basis for denying coverage. The Democrats need to make these arguments forcefully and turn this GOP political ploy into a chance to sell the public on what they'd be missing if the law were repealed.

I have some confidence that House Democrats will be able to do this, since most of the moderate wing of the party lost in November. The floor will belong to the liberals, who will need to fight hard for what they believe in. Of course, it would help if their President jumped into the fray and made the case as well, but I'm not holding my breath.

Final Election Predictions: Putting Me On Record

2010-10-30T17:55:00.005-04:00

It's not pretty, but I love predictions even when I predict my own party's demise. Here are my predictions for Tuesday night. The seats listed are those I think will be won by the opposite party (mainly, Republicans.). Races are listed in no particular order.

THE SENATE:
Currently: 59 Democrats, 41 Republicans

ND
AR
IN
WI
PA
CO
IL
NV

New Senate: 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans

THE HOUSE:

Currently: 255 Democrats, 178 Republicans

D to R:

AL-2
AZ-1
AZ-5
AZ-8
AR-1
AR-2
CA-11
CA-20
CO-3
CO-4
FL-2
FL-12
FL-24
GA-2
GA-8
IL-11
IL-14
IL-17
IN-8
KS-3
LA-3
MD-1
MI-1
MI-7
MN-8
MS-1
NV-3
NH-1
NH-2
NM-1
NM-2
NY-19
NY-20
NY-23
NY-24
NY-29
NC-7
ND-AL
OH-1
OH-15
OH-16
PA-3
PA-7
PA-8
PA-10
PA-11
PA-12
SC-5
TN-4
TN-6
TN-8
TX-17
TX-23
VA-2
VA-5
WA-3
WI-7
WI-8

R to D:

DE-AL
HI-1
IL-10
LA-2

New House: 233 Republicans, 202 Democrats

GOVERNORS: Currently 26 Democrats, 24 Republicans

D to R:

ME
OH
PA
MI
WI
IL
IA
KS
OK
WY
TN

R to D:

CT
VT
MN
CA
HI

R to I:

RI

New: 29 Republicans, 20 Democrats, 1 Independent

Checking In: Election Preview One Week Out

2010-10-24T22:00:00.002-04:00

Good evening! It's been almost two months since I've contributed an entry. Yes, I've been extremely occupied with law school and a Giants' trip to the World Series. But politics has also been extremely depressing recently.

The election is coming up a week from Tuesday, and it is going to be a long night for Democrats. According to almost every prognosticator, the House of Representatives will be won by the Republicans, who will take charge in January under Speaker John Boehner. The Senate is slightly more likely than not to stay in Democrats hands, but it will be by the narrowest of margins. If the Democratic Party in the Senate labored to pass legislation with 59 votes, imagine how they'll do it with 51!

Even more disturbing, Republicans will pick up somewhere between 6-8 net governorships, which will give them a control over the majority of state-houses. This might be the result that hurts working families the most. State budgets are under enormous constraints due to the economic downturn, and with a new slate of conservative Republicans, you can bet that cuts to essential services, schools and pensions will be first on the agenda.

In terms of raw numbers, we project Republicans to pick up between 45 and 60 House seats. A net gain of 39 would be enough for the GOP to gain control. It's not entirely clear exactly which races will flip, but we've made some educated guesses on the sidebar of your screen. The obvious seats will be those held by retiring Democrats in conservative districts. I think at least 20-25 of the Democrats elected during the 2006 and 2008 wave elections will lose. I also could foresee some losses to long-term House veterans like House Budget Committee Chair John Spratt (SC) and Armed Services Chair Ike Skelton (MO).

In the Senate, my range for GOP pickups has changed slightly. I now think Democrats will lose 8 seats. Races in Nevada, Illinois and Colorado remain extremely close, but all tilt ever so slightly to the Republican side. West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin is popular, but the state is so deeply anti-Democratic right now, that I think he's at least an even shot to lose. In Pennsylvania, Democrat Joe Sestak has shown some serious signs of life, but I still think he'll lose to Republican Pat Toomey. Races in North Dakota, Arkansas and Indiana are now automatic Democratic losses. The Democrats, I predict, will hold seats in Connecitcut and Delware relatively easy. I also expect them to hang on barely in California and Washington, which will be just enough to keep them in the majority. Even though the Senate is now a 60-vote institution, a majority still has some serious consequences. Democrats will still control the floor agenda, and if they are united, they could put a firm stop to initiatives coming out of the Republican House. Also, things like the START treaty and Supreme Court nominations only go through the Senate, so even a narrow Democratic majority would allow us to get some positive things done.

The policy implications of the election are obviously catastrophic. It's easy for people like me to sit here and try not to think about it. Believe me, I'm happy to distract myself with the World Series. But there will be real consequences for working Americans:

1. Extended unemployment benefits will likely not be renewed.
2. There will be no more stimulus funding, pretty much, at the end of this year. That means, no more middle class tax cut, no more new infrastructure projects, no extended food stamp and Medicaid benefits. Republicans won't even think about extending these programs. They'll claim that we can't afford them, but they'll also attempt to pass even more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
3. Energy reform is dead.
4. Immigration reform is dead.

The list could continue for a long time. There possibly could be some small positives out of next week's likely outcome. Perhaps the herd of conservative Democrats that hampered our governing agenda will be thinned out, and our party can once again be represented solely by those who are actually Democrats. Perhaps President Obama will have a nice new foil in Speaker Boehner, who if past is prologue, will probably be a pretty huge disaster. Obama can pin some of the blame on the bad economy on the Republicans, and he can use them as a contrast to his vision.

This all may be true, but it won't take away the pain and anguish many Americans will feel as a result of the impending Republican wave. The story of this election is almost completely written, but there still is one week left for you to do something. I hope you remember the stakes, you get out to vote, you get your friends out to vote, and you continue to stand up for the progressive values we've fought so hard for. Also remember that we've won some important legislative victories these past two years, and all of us need to do our best to make sure they are implemented succesfully.

The Strike Returns: What is Wrong with the Democratic Party?

2010-08-27T13:37:00.002-04:00

Good afternoon! After a month long absence, I am back to write an entry for this blog. In the meantime, thanks to The Big Picture for his thoughtful entry on the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" which I agree with wholeheartedly.

I was intending to write today about the state of the elections this fall, but I feel like to do that, I have to provide a little context. As things stand right now, I think the Republican Party is on track to regain control of the House of Representatives, and has a reasonable chance of taking over the Senate. I base these projections on the myriad of polls I've seen from individual races, including internal polls from both parties, as well as the GOP's steady leads in the generic congressional ballot. As you can see on the sidebar, I have too many "tossup" races listed to officially project control of the House, but as things stand now, the momentum is completely on the Republican side. As for the Senate, I think the Democrats could control anything between 49-54 seats.

Political scientists will tell you that the economy largely dictates the fate of the incumbent party. I think that, of course, is true this year. But there's more to the story. It's not just that the economy is bad, and getting worse. It's that the Democratic Party is handling the economic downturn in the worst possible way.

Democrats in Congress have passed some small measures to help get the economy back on track. But they have not shown any push or urgency in getting more jobs bills through. It's not just about improving the current jobs picture (which will be difficult to do before the November elections). It's also about showing people that the government is still competent to play a role in growing the economy and restoring prosperity to the middle class. Yes, I get that Republicans have been obstructionists. But it almost seems like the Democrats aren't even trying. Have you seen any Democrat, including the President, talk at all in the past three weeks about the urgency of acting to get the economy back on track? Have you seen any Democrat, including the President, articulate at any point in the last year exactly what we need to do to get the economy on track, and why we need to do it? It's been, frankly, disgusting to me that President Obama has been golfing and vacationing in Martha's Vineyard, while not offering a peep about the constant barrage of disturbing economic data. He has also made the CRUCIAL mistake of dilly dallying on his Federal Reserve nominees. The inaction of the Federal Reserve during the recent spate of bad economic news is just as troublesome as Congress' inability to act.

It's equally disturbing that despite the economic catastrophe unfolding, Democrats didn't consider cutting short the 6 week Congressional recess to, at the very least, show that they actually care about average Americans.

It's not just their silence that's problematic. The Democratic party has completely conceded the economic policy debate to the Republicans. I have seen more Democrats in the last month call for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich than I've seen advocate any liberal policy prescription, like a larger state-aid bill, public works projects, and cuts to the payroll tax. I've even seen many Democrats, like 10 of them, run advertisements trashing their own party while touting themselves as an "independent voice." If poll numbers show that the public prefers failed Republican policy solutions, Democrats have chosen not to articulate their position, but rather to bow to poll-crazy political consultants. Democrats across the country seem to think that they can only win by trashing their own party and succumbing to failed Republican economic policies.

This election is going to be brutal, there's little doubt about that at this point. But this is about so much more for the Democratic Party, and President Obama. When are Democrats going to realize that we can only win by fighting and advocating for the interest of the middle class? When the middle class sees that we're not out there fighting for them passionately and intelligently, they're not going to vote for us. When the middle class sees us trashing our own philosophy and ideals, they're going to think there's something serious wrong with us, and will probably never vote for our side again.

It may be too late for Democrats to change the fundamental direction of the upcoming election, but they can at least they should get their heads above water and get back to defending the core Democratic principle: doing what needs to be done to give hope, security and prosperity to working Americans.

The Big Picture: We Should All Be Strongly Supporting the Mosque Near Ground Zero

2010-08-20T12:03:00.002-04:00

The Park51 Mosque, approved by the appropriate regulatory commission in New York City several weeks ago, has attracted nationwide controversy due to its allegedly provocative nature. Many liberal defenders of the mosque have, in typical halting, self-doubting, weak-willed fashion, tried to argue that the mosque is not really "at" Ground Zero, but rather several blocks away, one among hundreds of buildings in the region, so this shouldn't be such a big deal. I think this is a very misguided argument because it is so defensive, with "it isn't a big deal" carrying the connotation that the mosque is something to be grudgingly tolerated, and the implication that if the mosque were actually more prominent at Ground Zero, that would be a bad thing. This argument will not be persuasive because it is very clear that the opposition is not actually being driven by those who would be fine with mosques everywhere in America except within sight of Ground Zero. Far from it. As the New York Times and many others have reported, this is part of a national movement to prevent mosques from being built everywhere in America. It is driven by prejudiced people who feel that Islam is a "cult" that does not deserve First Amendment protection, because they view Muslims as a dangerous, un-American Other that we need to fear, similar to how these people view Latinos, blacks, and Americans with descent from Asia, with the commonality being darker skin, different religion, different language. These people are white supremacists, or at the least are exploiting the belief in white supremacy for political gain, and they will not be satisfied until at the very least all these "Others" have been put back in their place, un-equal with self-proclaimed "Real Americans". Denying Muslims the right to build mosques, detaining people because they look like immigrants - this is about showing that white people are still superior, still in charge. Many are disturbed not only that these Others are asserting their equality and even supremacy (represented by President Obama), but are more generally disturbed that at the number of non-whites, non-English speakers, non-Christians and want to forcefully "encourage" those Others to leave. I think that the depth and breadth of these white supremacist anxieties has been enhanced by the anxiety of the Great Recession for working and lower-middle class whites. It has also been strengthened by the reinvigorated right-wing populist sense that Democratic government means liberals and "uppity" minorities, from the big cities and the universities and the banks too, empowering themselves and helping out all these Others, at the expense of "Real Americans". So that's where I think the anti-mosque criticism is coming from. Those who oppose the mosque but don't consider themselves anti-Muslim, anti-diversity, white supremacists should take a hard look at whose cause they are serving. Not only are they serving the white supremacists, but they are also enabling the weakening and undermining of America in a number of important ways, rather than embracing the Ground Zero Mosque as a positive good for America.

Building the mosque will be of great benefit to our national security, while preventing its building will make us less safe and threaten our troops. By building this mosque at the site where these extremists killed 3,000 innocent people, we would be sending an enormously powerful signal that Al Qaeda was wrong about America. Al Qaeda attracts recruits and sympathizers on the notion that America hates Islams and wants to oppress and kill Muslims, that we are a latter-day Crusades state. The invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, compounded by hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and the torture at Abu Ghraib and Bagram, greatly strengthened Al Qaeda's message. Nothing will undo the horrendous human cost, nor the destructive blow to our image. Still, building a mosque would present a very different side of America and be a paradigm-shattering shock to Muslims around the world who have looked at Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and military bases in Saudi Arabia, our support for oppressive dictators elsewhere in the Muslim world, and concluded that America is anti-Muslim. Building the mosque will at the least put some in doubt in the minds of many who would sympathize with the extremist anti-Americanism of Al Qaeda, and just the seeds of doubt help stop suicide bombers, who need to feel absolutely certain they are right to carry out their work.

Building the mosque will strengthen the hand of moderate Muslims, who get a chance to show that those who believe in democracy and human rights are not brainwashed saps, and that multiculturalism and an embrace of freedom are compatible with Islam. One of the greatest flaws in the whole neoconservative policy is that it unified Muslims in opposition to America and in opposition to anything we said we stood for, like democracy and human rights. It will greatly strengthen our national security if we put a dent in this unity, and stoke a debate between moderate and radical Muslims. In contrast, when opponents constantly say that the liberal Muslims building this mosque are "radical Islamic extremists" they are not only engaging in the deeply prejudiced racism of saying that all Muslims are the same as the most evil people in their ranks (do Christians really want that kind of racism applied to them, considering the despicable people who called themselves Christians?). They are also playing right into Al Qaeda's hands - Bin Laden's greatest dream is that Al Qaeda becomes the standard-bearer for all Muslims, that his perverted extremist version of Islam becomes orthodoxy. The last thing we want to do is to insist that all Muslims are radical extremists and our sworn enemies. More moderate Muslims will then see that America does hate all Muslims, just as Al Qaeda is saying, and move toward the Al Qaeda camp. So opposing the building of this mosque will strengthen those who hate Americans and that will have real and devastating consequences for American soldiers and aid workers in Muslim countries, and possibly American civilians at home. Those who oppose the mosque are putting their own political ambitions and their own white supremacist anxieties ahead of keeping Americans safe. Of course this is not surprising coming from a Republican Party that has intentionally undermined economic recovery to suit its own political ambitions and ideological dogma.

Building this mosque at Ground Zero is, as Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama have said, of vital importance to reaffirming the First Amendment and the principles of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of congregation upon which this nation was founded. Yes America was founded in large part by the greedy and land-hungry, the slaveowners and the takers of indigenous land for power and profit. But the part of the American tradition that created all that is good about this country, all that is free and democratic, comes from the people who came here because they were oppressed everywhere else for who they were and what they believed. We should not only defend the rights of Muslims and everyone else to freedom of religion and expression and congregation. We should be celebrating the building of the mosque at Ground Zero because it means that America is still the nation that draws its vitality from those who come here from everywhere, "yearning to breathe free" as it says on the Statue of Liberty. Furthermore, multiculturalism and the unencumbered, unrestricted expression of beliefs and values is the lifeblood of our culture and enriches us all. Refusing to build this mosque would strike a blow against the very elements that have given us what freedom, democracy, and vitality we have.

Finally, I feel particularly strongly about the importance of building this mosque because I am Jewish. I think that Jews, and really all people who have ever been or could ever be part of a religious minority, would be incredibly shortsighted if they opposed this mosque. As a Jew think it might not be the best idea to let the prejudices of a majority trample on the basic rights of a religious minority. Preventing the mosque at Ground Zero would greatly strengthen those who want to ban mosques everywhere in America. First of all, this would be deeply oppressive for Muslim-Americans. But what about Jewish-Americans, or Hindu-Americans, or Catholic-Americans, or Protestants of different denominations? Do we really want to go down the road of undermining First Amendment rights of different religious affiliations from the majority? As the famous quote from the Nazi era says, "First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist ... then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew ... then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Catholic ... finally when they came for the Protestants, there was no one left to speak up for me."

The Daily Strike-7/29/10-Special Announcement

2010-07-29T15:02:00.004-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Beginning tomorrow, I will be embarking first on a cross-country road trip, then on to three years at law school. As a result, I will no longer be able to write for this blog daily. I will come back periodically to write bigger picture entries (not to be confused with The Big Picture, who hopefully will also continue to contribute sporadically) and I will continually update my race rankings for this year's elections. So make sure you keep the blog as a bookmark, because you'll never know when we'll pop up again.

I originally started this blog as a way to catalog what I anticipated would be major accomplishments for the Obama administration. The first official entry to the blog was on January 29, 2009, just over a week after Obama's euphoric inauguration. I wasn't just hopeful about President Obama's legislative agenda. I thought we had entered into a new political paradigm. The economic theories of the Reagan/Bush years had been thoroughly discredited by a massive financial crisis. The politics of division and distraction had seemingly been overcome with an extraordinary candidate, one of the most inspiring American stories. The country was feeling extremely hopeful, which was remarkable given the economic conditions. People traveled miles and stood out in the bitter cold to witness a special moment in history, and the spirit of the day moved me deeply. People of all races and backgrounds gathered by the millions because we felt an immense amount of pride in our country and faith in our new President. I mean, what other event with 1.8 million people would lead to zero arrests??

After that euphoria, it's very hard to understand how we got to where we are today. Today, the unemployment rate is hovering just below 10%, but we can't even get a tiny jobs bill through Congress. The President of the United States, today, had to beg the Senate to approve a small business lending bill, and the bill was still filibustered by the full Republican conference. A bill that essentially is the main plank of the Republican platform, was blocked by the Republicans for basically no reason at all. Today, energy form is pretty much dead. Immigration reform is dead. Many of the old battles we thought we'd transcended, like race and social issues, are everyday items in an often embarrassing national conversation. We're three months before an election that will most likely produce heavy Democratic losses, which will kill any reasonable chance of creating the lasting change we were promised and so desperately needed.

So how did we get from there to here? That's what I've tried to explain daily in this blog, and it hasn't been pretty. Don't get me wrong, this has been the most productive Congress and the most progressive President in generations, and we have a lot to be thankful for. The list of accomplishments is quite impressive (you can view it on the right sidebar of your screen). But several obstacles got in the way of broader, sweeping change. Here are a list of reasons we are where we are:

1. The current Republican party is the craziest, most nihilistic, psycho political party imaginable. They are purposely obstructing progress for their own political gain. Their policy preferences are to massively redistribute money from the middle class to the wealthy. To today's Republicans, our nation's problems are the fault of the most vulnerable, while the only virtuous ones are those who make a lot of money for themselves while doing nothing to improve society. Why aren't the unemployed working hard enough to get jobs? Why are illegal immigrants ruining this country? Why is there so much black-on-white racism? It's hard to negotiate in good-faith with these people.

2. It's one thing to have a nihilistic minority party, but it's another thing to have that party contain major institutional power. Republicans, with a tiny minority in both the House and the Senate, have the institutional ability to basically put a stop to government. The root of the problem, of course, is the filibuster. The 60 vote threshold is fundamentally undemocratic, that we've mentioned a million times. I promise I'll think the same thing when the Republicans are in the majority again. Perhaps more bothersome, are the endless delays caused by the filibusters. Even if they don't have the votes to stop legislation, Republicans still have the ability to delay legislation and appointments, and thus run out the clock on the Democratic agenda. The small business bill is a great example. Republicans will not grant "unanimous consent" to any Democratic request to hold votes, so Democrats are constantly forced to invoke cloture, a process that can take up to 3 days. It also doesn't help that Majority Leader Reid refuses to keep the Senate in session when Republicans engage in these delay tactics.

3. Two groups have absolutley undue influence in our political system. The first is the corporate world and their army of lobbyists. A good swath of the Democratic party will vote against good bills or amendments just because the Chamber of Commerce, the NRA, hedge fund managers etc., told them to. It happens all the time. And the Democrats are supposed to be the good party! Some people try to minimize the influece money has on politics. They tell us money doesn't really change how citizens or legislators vote. I'll just point you to a poll out of Florida today that shows two billionaires, one of whom is a criminal, are leading the Republicans nomination for Governor and Democratic nomination for Senate respectively.

The other group with undue influence are small states. It doesn't seem right to me that one Senator from Nebraska can kill an entire unemployment benefits bill because his tiny state is lucky enough to have an unemployment rate. Even before we talk about the filibuster, the Senate is an undemocratic institution!

4. The last major problem is that the Democrats, and specifically President Obama, are not trying hard enough to sell a progressive agenda, despite the massive political capital they were given in the 2008 election. Obama and the Democrats had the opportunity to change the terms of debate on every major issue. Obama could have consistently, in every speech, argue that Bush's economic policies put us in this enormous ditch, and that we have to invest money now to get the economy moving again. He could have explained that the short-term deficit wasn't as important as job creation and that the long-term deficit was the product of reckless Republican tax cuts, endless wars, and unsustainable health care costs. Instead, the President and Congressional Democrats missed messages. They fed into Republican talking points about the deficit, to the point that they forced themsleves to scuttle important items on the agenda. They didn't fight hard consistently for more stimulus, which was desperately needed to counter the massive loss of demand in the economy. In fact, some Democrats in Congress decided that it would be easier to just act like Republicans! The Blue Dogs harped constantly about the deficit and intrusive government, but then would vote for major war spending bills without a whimper.

The public never got a coherent narrative of what the Democratic party was about, what it stands for, and what it will do to help their lives. As a result, they began to distrust Democratic policies and politicians.

I write about these difficulties not because I've lost hope. Barack Obama's election will always be proof that anything is possible in American politics. I write more to underscore how far we have to go before we make the change we need. It's not just politicians who have to change. All of us do. We have to stand up for our values, and we have to organize and inform our peers to put pressure on our representatives. That probably means I should get off the computer and start actually doing something with my life, right?

I want to thank everybody who helped with the blog, wrote comments, and read our entries. Please keep following my Twitter feed if you want my stream of consciousness thoughts on politics, and make sure you follow what Congress is doing as much as you can! Congress Matters is a great resource, as well as the websites for the House and the Senate.

Thanks again, and we'll see you again in the future!

The Daily Strike-7/28/10-Going Small

2010-07-28T20:05:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The President spent the day today in New Jersey and New York City, first talking jobs, then going to some elite fundraisers. Not exactly a good political juxtaposition.

THE SENATE: It's becoming very apparent that Congress won't be doing much of anything for the rest of this election year. Republicans seem pretty content to not only filibuster Democratic agenda items, but to grind the Senate to a halt until the Democratic majority is reduced or eliminated. Take the bill on the floor right now, the small business lending bill. The bill has been on the floor for almost a month. Republicans have refused to allow votes on amendments or the bill itself, despite the fact that the bill is basically a Republican idea. The party that talks daily about tax breaks to businesses doesn't want to allow a vote on a bill that gives money directly to small businesses. We've said it a million times, but Republicans knee-jerk opposition is becoming a disturbing matter of habit.

Tomorrow, finally, the Senate will vote whether to cut off debate on the small business bill, and hopefully will send it to the House quickly so that it can go straight to President Obama's desk.

Then there's the issue of energy. Majority Leader Reid has taken the idea of a comprehensive energy bill off the table for this session of Congress. He has instead proposed a much narrower bill, that will raise the liability cap for BP in relation to the oil spill, and will also contain some small investments in alternative energy. Reid was hoping to bring the bill to the floor early next week. But Republicans are howling in opposition even to this small measure, ostensibly because they are against new regulations on "hydro-flacking" which is a way to extract onshore natural gas. Is there any question whether they'll let this bill go through? I don't think so.

Given these restrictions, I think it's time that the President use some of his executive powers to make changes. For one, he could have the EPA place restrictions on carbon emissions. At the very least, the EPA could issue that threat to spur some sort of action on climate change. On the jobs front, Obama could put some backhanded political pressure on the federal reserve to take more measures to pump money into the economy short-term, or as Matthew Yglesias suggests, do some strategic talking.

THE HOUSE: While the Senate spent a day dilly-dallying, the House actually did some minorly important work. This morning, the House unanimously passed a bill that would bring parity to sentencing for crack and cocaine users. There has long been a policy that punishes crack users far more than cocaine users, which has a disparate impact on minorities. The Senate has already passed the bill, so it will go straight to President Obama for his signature.

The House also passed the first of 12 annual appropriations bills today, the bill funding Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. This is usually the least controversial of the spending bills, and today was no exception. The bill passed by a vote of 411-6. All of the no votes came from Republicans. The House will take up another spending bill tomorrow, though they will almost certainly not complete all 12 bills prior to the end of the fiscal year, which will require Congress to pass some continuing resolutions to keep the government funded.

That's it for today, we'll see you tomorrow, at which point we'll have a special announcement.

The Daily Strike-7/27/10-Undisclosed

2010-07-27T19:12:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike, on what's been a somewhat depressing day in politics.

THE SENATE: The Senate today failed to advance the campaign finance bill known as the DISCLOSE Act. The bill, which passed the House, would place new disclosure requirements on corporations and unions donated to political campaigns. Republicans decried the bill as as trampling on free speech, even though many of these same Republicans voted for a far more expansive campaign finance bill in 2002. The vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill (that's about 4 votes away from final passage, if you're keeping track) was 57-41, and it broke down strictly on party lines. Every Democrat voted for the bill, except for Majority Leader Reid, who voted no for procedural reasons. Every Republican voted no. Senators Lieberman (?-CT) and Ensign (R-NV) were absent.

Today's vote means that the bill is killed for the remainder of this Congress, and for the foreseeable future. As bad as our political system is now, it will only get worse, as corporations have unencumbered access to political candidates. Today's vote also proves that Republicans care far more about their own political interest than they do about the integrity of our democratic system, though you probably knew that already.

The Senate is limping towards the finish line of this month's session. Tomorrow, Senators will continue consideration of the Small Business Jobs bill, which would provide for loans to small businesses during the economic downturn. If only Democrats could find ways to add some other stimulus money to this bill, like money for state and local governments.

After the Senate finishes the work on that bill, they'll vote on the Kagan Supreme Court nomination next week and skip out of town, having done very little to address the myriad of problems facing the country.

THE HOUSE: The House voted today to give final approval to $60 billion to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For all the deficit hysteria we've seen over much smaller spending bills, this bill passed by a huge margin of 308-114. 102 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted against the war funding. Democrats had originally tried to attach domestic measure to the war funding bill, like aid to states, summer and youth jobs programs, and other jobs measures. Democrats were unable to get enough support for these items in the Senate.

It still amazes me that a tiny jobs bill gets bottled up in the Senate almost weekly, while a much larger funding bill for endless wars passes without a whimper.

The House will move on to consideration of appropriations bills over the next couple of days. The House will skip town at the end of the week, but hopefully they'll ratify whatever the Senate does on Small Business lending legislation.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The main event at the White House today was a meeting with bipartisan Congressional leadership about the rest of the legislative agenda this year. The meeting didn't produce much news, but we were able to glean some tension between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. Pelosi is furious at Reid for abandoning a comprehensive climate bill in favor of a scaled-back piece of energy legislation. Pelosi forced her vulnerable members to support a cap-and-trade bill with the promise that Reid would follow suit in the Senate, which will not happen. I obviously sympathize with Pelosi on this one, but I'm not sure what else Reid could have done. There clearly weren't 60 votes for the climate bill, and the White House has shown almost no leadership in advocating for the legislation.

That's it for today. See you tomorrow!

The Weekly Strike-7/26-8/1

2010-07-26T09:07:00.003-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike, where we'll preview the week in politics. It must be an exciting week in politics if the President will spend Wednesday on the set of The View!

THE WHITE HOUSE: The news dominating the airwaves this morning is over a series of Wikileaked articles from 2002-2009 that portray the Afghan war in a far more negative light than has been publicly known. The articles are often low level reports from the field, lamenting the Taliban's resurgence, the lack of resources for U.S. troops and commanders, and the seemingly ill-defined mission.

The White House is expressing anger about the leak itself, not the content of the leaked material. I think this is a major mistake. I'm somewhat sensitive to protecting state secrets, but I think the American people need complete disclosure when making judgments as to whether we should continue our fight in Afghanistan. We didn't need 92,000 pages of leaked materials to tell us that the situation there is precarious, but I think these papers might reinforce the country's broader angst about what is now America's longest war. The war in Afghanistan is a ticking time bomb for this administration. They can let the issue fester for awhile, hoping the surge works and the issue goes away, but if it doesn't, it will not only be bad for our country, but also very damaging politically. That's why I hope the 2011 deadline to begin troop withdrawals isn't an empty promise.

The schedule for the President this week seems to be pretty quiet so far. His only scheduled public appearance today is a ceremony at the White House commemorating the 20th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

THE SENATE: The world's most deliberative and unproductive body will take aim at two pieces of legislation this week. Tomorrow, Majority Leader Reid will try to cobble together the 60 votes needed to begin debate on the DISCLOSE Act. The bill, which has already passed the House, will place new rules on corporations financing political campaigns. Reid had hoped to finish the bill soon enough that the provisions would be in place for this fall's election, but that doesn't seem too likely at this point. Republicans, of course, are pretty unified in opposition to this measure. One of the moderates in the Senate, Scott Brown (MA), has already come out in opposition to the bill. Hopes for the Democrats will rest, as usual, with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. If Democrats can hold their ranks together and get one of those two Senators on board, the bill will advance.

The Senate will also presumably finish work on the Small Business lending bill. The Senate cut off debate on the bill last Thursday, which should set the stage for a final vote this week. I would expect the House to approve the legislation quickly thereafter and send it along to President Obama. With time running out before the midterm elections, this is one of the few bills Democrats may be able to pass that can help alleviate the jobs situation.

THE HOUSE: It looks like the House will finish its work period this Friday, and it won't be among it's most productive. However, this week's House schedule looks reasonably packed. Starting today, the House will consider various measures under suspension of the rules. Among those measures are bills that are part of the new so-called "Made in America" agenda, which is a House Democratic initiative to promote domestic industry and jobs. The House will take up bills to come up with a strategy for national manufacturing, and another bill that invests money in clean energy technology and exports.

The House will then proceed to consideration of two of the twelve annual appropriations bills, these ones funding Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, as well as Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. These bills will pass the House, but probably won't see the light of day in the Senate. I expect that all the appropriations bills will be packaged into an omnibus measure come December. The fiscal year ends September 30th, and I expect Congress to continue current funding levels through the fall elections.

Finally, the House will give final approval to the war funding bill. Liberals tried to attach domestic spending to the bill, but the Senate rejected these add-ons, which included funding for state and local governments, as well as summer jobs (might be a little late for that anyway). House leaders will thus be forced to vote simply on the war funding. I expect the bill to pass with the support of moderate Democrats and Republicans, but very few liberal Democrats.

That's it for now, see you tonight!

The Daily Strike-7/22/10-Energy Failed

2010-07-22T19:34:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Not surprisingly, the last major bill in Obama's first term agenda looks to be dead. Let's get to the day in politics.

THE SENATE: The Shirley Sherrod story seemed to die down a bit today, so our focused turned back to the world of policy. Unfortunately, the news is not good. Majority Leader Harry Reid, along with climate bill author John Kerry, announced today that they do not have the votes to take up a comprehensive energy bill that places a price on carbon. This is something most of us have known for awhile. There is just not much popular support to address climate change right now. People are too focused on the bad economy to care about something that we can't feel immediately. That doesn't mean the problem is going away though, and the more we put off addressing it, the worse it's gonna get. I should also note the the fact that John McCain put a cap-and-trade bill as a major item on his Presidential campaign platform. Now, zero Republicans would support even a minor climate change bill. It's amazing what the raw calculations of politics will do to people.

Majority Leader Reid will instead bring up a small bill that addresses the oil spill, invests money in alternative energy, and "will ween us off of foreign oil." I have my doubts about even this tiny bill passing before the August recess. Of course, Senators would NEVER suspend their 5 week recess to work on this issue.

The Senate took two non-controversial votes today, one to recognize the 20th anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and another to endorse sanctions against the Burmese government. The first bill passed unanimously, while only Senator Enzi (R-WY) voted against the second. The Senate might take a few votes related to the small business lending bill this evening as well.

THE HOUSE: The House gave final approval to the unemployment insurance extension package by a vote of 272-152. 31 Republicans voted for the bill, while inexplicably 10 Democrats voted against it.

Speaking of these Democrats, allow me to rant for a second. Some of these so-called fiscally conservative Democrats are now calling for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to be extended. So much for their care about the ballooning deficit. It's all a giant sham. One Democrat, Rep. Connolly (VA), talked today about how the economy was too fragile to stop these tax cuts. That's in disagreement with this statement about unemployment benefits:

“We’re no longer in a recession; we’re in a recovery,” the Virginia Democrat said. “So now we do need to have a higher standard when we call for new spending. And that higher standard has to include, ‘What’s the offset?’”
Who said that? One Gerry Connolly, two weeks ago! Concern for the deficit apparently goes out the window if the benefits go to people who don't need them at all. The blatant hypocrisy just sickens me, and even worse, the media will still refer to these conservative Democrats as "deficit hawks."

Anyways, back to unemployment insurance. The President received the bill and signed it into law this evening. The 2.5 million Americans receiving unemployment benefits will get retroactive payments in the next couple of weeks.

The House also passed a bill today that reforms the national flood insurance program to cover multiperil situations.

That's it for tonight, we'll be back Monday!

The Daily Strike-7/21/10-Overshadowed

2010-07-21T19:58:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Today was supposed to be a day of great pomp and circumstance for the President, but it didn't quite turn out that way. Let's get to the day in politics.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The White House was consumed today with the unfortunate story of Shirley Sherrod, which we addressed yesterday. After right-wing media nut Andrew Breitbart posted an out-of-context video of her at an NAACP conference, she was promptly let go by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The mainstream media, nor the administration, even considered vetting Breitbart's claim. Thankfully, the administration admitted its mistake today. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs apologized on behalf of the administration, and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack offered Sherrod her job back. Understandably, after this display, Sherrod needs time to figure out whether she wants to return to her old job. I hope, for the country's sake, that she does. Sherrod is actually a hero. Her speech actually indicated a realization 24 years ago that the plight of the poor in this country was confined to one race, and this has guided her work as a public servant. CNN reports that Sherrod's father was killed by a member of the KKK, and was not prosecuted. Sherrod used that experience as an impetus to stay in the Deep South and work for social change, and that's exactly what she's done. It was truly a shameful display by Breitbart, the mainstream media, and the administration, and I hope it never happens again.

This news overshadowed what was supposed to be a rather historic day. President Obama signed the sweeping financial reform legislation into law today at a ceremony in Washington DC (ironically at the Ronald Reagan building). Obama was surrounded by the authors of the bill, Barney Frank (MA) and Chris Dodd (CT) as well as the Congressional leadership. The bill's signing is just the beginning, especially since the bill success depends on successful implementation. Hopefully, Obama will begin this implementation process by appointing Elizabeth Warren, who led the TARP investigation committee, as head of the new Consumer Protection Agency housed within the Federal Reserve.

This bill, in many ways, is an appropriate representation of this administration. A major policy accomplishment marred by disappointing compromises, and overshadowed by the still struggling economy.

THE SENATE: The Senate finally finished work on the unemployment insurance extension bill today. Republicans refused to hold an immediate vote, and instead insisted on voting on some political "gotcha" amendments. Let's run through them, because they give a good sense of where each Senator's priorities are.

1. The first amendment, offered by Senator Brown (MA), would have paid for the extension with unspent stimulus funds. Brown may not be smart enough to think about this, but we're pretty limited in the stimulus fund we have now. There is no good reason to take money away from job investment. The amendment failed 42-56. Democrats Lincoln (AR) and Nelson (NE) joined every Republican in support.

2. Next was an amendment from Senator Coburn (R-OK), that would have required all spending that violates PAYGO budgeting rules to be posted on a special website. I don't really have a problem with this, but like the 49 Democratic Senators who voted no on this amendment, I just don't trust Tom Coburn. Democratic Senators Feingold (WI), Hagan (NC), Klobuchar (MN), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (NE), Nelson (FL), Pryor (AR), Tester (MT) and Webb (VA) voted with the GOP.

3. A similar amendment that would require the federal government to post information on the federal debt, also from Senator Coburn, got 54 votes, but was 6 votes shy of the 67 needed to suspend the rules and consider the amendment.

4. The most important amendment, in my view, was offered by Senator DeMint (R-SC). His amendment would have permanently ended the estate tax, which only affects heirs to millionaires (2% of all estates), thus adding billions to the deficit. Amazingly, these self-proclaimed "deficit hawks" absolutely don't care about the deficit at all. They just don't want to spend money helping average Americans. They're perfectly ok protecting the country's richest families and passing the debt onto our children and grandchildren. Faux fiscal conservative Democrats Lincoln (AR) and Nelson (NE) voted for this abominable amendment along with 37 Republicans. Republicans Collins (ME), Snowe (ME) and Voinovich (OH) voted with 56 Democrats against the amendment. I hope the media takes notice whenever any of these Senators proclaim to be deficit hawks.

5. DeMint also sought to include an amendment that would bar the U.S. from challenging the Arizona immigration law in federal court. Thankfully, the amendment was defeated 43-55. Democratic immigration hawks Baucus (MT), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), and Tester (MT) voted yes with most of the GOP. Republicans Johanns (NE...didn't see this one coming!) and Voinovich voted with the Democrats.

The bill finally passed this evening 59-39. Once again, Republicans Collins and Snowe (ME) joined the Democrats in voting yes, while Ben Nelson voted no with the Republicans. Senators Bayh (IN) and Vitter (LA) did not vote. The bill goes back to the House tomorrow, where it will be rubber stamped and sent to President Obama for his signature later this week. When the bill is signed, it should take about two weeks for retroactive benefit checks to be sent to the unemployed.

THE HOUSE: The House passed a series of bills today under suspension of the rules as it waited the Senate to finish its work. One of the bills was to prevent interstate transport of animal crush videos, and yes, three Republicans voted against it.

That's it for tonight, we'll see you tomorrow.

The Daily Strike-7/20/10-Relief, At Last

2010-07-20T18:25:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. It was another busy July day in politics, so let's get to it.

THE SENATE: Thanks to the newest Senator, Carte Goodwin of West Virginia (D), the Senate was finally able to break a logjam on the unemployment extension bill. As a result, suffering American families will finally get some much-needed relief. Goodwin joined 57 other Democrats, as well as Republicans Snowe and Collins of Maine to cut off debate on the bill. Democrat Ben Nelson (NE) and every other Republican refused to spend $34 billion to give much needed assistance to those who have borne the brunt of the very recession caused by Republican economic policies.

The vote on the bill itself will come tomorrow, though it is certain to pass, since cloture has already been invoked. The bill will then head to the House where it will be rubber stamped Thursday and sent to the President for his signature.

The bill would have passed anyway, but the President's pushback against Republican obstruction on this bill was wise and helpful. Those who think it's ok to balloon the deficit by giving tax breaks to the rich while refusing to vote for a minor bill that would help struggling Americans need to be called out.

The Senate will move next to the long-stalled small business loan bill. Democrats should force Republicans to explain why they are holding this bill up.

Away from the floor, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by a vote of 13-6. Every Democrat on the committee supported her nomination, including some who were less than impressed with her confirmation hearings. The only Republican on the committee to support the nomination was Lindsey Graham (SC), who also supported Sonia Sotomayor last year. Graham's support all but assures Kagan's nomination when she comes to the Senate floor in a couple of weeks. My guess is that she'll get about 69 votes, the same amount Sotomayor received last summer.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The President today met and held a joint press availability with new British Prime Minister David Cameron. This was Cameron's first trip to the White House as Prime Minister. The two leaders played nice, emphasizing their agreement on economic policy, climate change, Afghanistan, and Israel. The biggest point of contention, apparently, was Cameron's discomfort with Obama's excessive criticism of BP. BP, of course, is a major British corporation. I have very little sympathy for Cameron's view in this case. Cameron and Obama also disagreed as to whether there should be an investigation into BP's possible involvement in the release of the Lockerbie bomber last year.

I've always thought that even though Cameron is a conservative, he and Obama are actually pretty similar ideologically. I expect that they'll continue to have a good working relationship.

The biggest story from the White House today though involved a former USDA employee. The employee, an African American Woman, made a speech at the NAACP in which she talked about being resistant to helping white farmers 24 years ago when her career began in Georgia. Conservative media mogul Andrew Breitbart showed the video completely out of context to make it seem like the employee, Shirley Sherrod, still held those views currently.

Sherrod was forced to resign, under pressure from USDA head Tom Vilsack, with support from the White House. This is a complete shame. The White House should not be taking cues from Andrew Breitbart, a known liar. Sherrod should be reinstated immediately.

That's it for this evening, see you tomorrow!

The Daily Strike-7/19/10-Real People

2010-07-19T20:25:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Make sure you're all caught up in the week in politics by reading our Weekly Strike. Tonight's entry will be a quick one.

UNEMPLOYMENT: For a long time here at the Strike, we've lamented the fact that President Obama hasn't been able to make his message relatable to average voters. His speeches have often come across as professorial and abstract. We've also lamented his lack of focus and resolve on the issue of unemployment, which is the largest issue facing his Presidency. Today, he took a bold step at alleviating our concerns. In a morning address from the White House Rose Garden, the President lambasted the Republicans for blocking an extension of unemployment benefits. Instead of rattling off a series of numbers, he brought in real Americans who have been hurt by the Republicans' obstruction. Behind every political battle are people whose livelihoods, and often survival, are dependent on government action. Oftentimes we forget that, and seem to act like it's all just a game. Republicans certainly have done that these past few weeks. In an attempt to slow down the Democratic agenda and prove their faux deficit hawk bonfides, they have caused men and women to suffer immensely. Finally, President Obama conveyed that message forcefully to the American people. I thought it was very well done, and I hope it continues.

I also hope this effort doesn't come too late. The President has failed to create a compelling narrative for his economic policies, and people seem prone to blame the party in power for everything that's continuing to go wrong with the economy. For that reason, the fundamentals of the fall campaign seem pretty set. But at the very least, Obama is starting to make Republican obstruction feel real to the American people.

WEST VIRGINIA: It looks like we'll have another Senate election this year afterall. The West Virginia legislature approved a bill late tonight that will provide for a November election for the remaining two years of Senator Robert Byrd's term. The interim Senator, Carte Goodwin, will not run for reelection. The obvious Democratic candidate is Governor Joe Manchin, and since he was such a big part in calling for an election, I expect him to enter the race. The best Republican out there is Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, though she is somewhat less well known than the popular Manchin. Early polls have shown Manchin winning a hypothetical match up pretty handily, though West Virginia is an increasingly conservative state, so I wouldn't consider the seat safe for the Democrats by any means. I'll rate it as Lean Democratic.

That's it for tonight. See you tomorrow!

The Weekly Strike-7/19-7/25

2010-07-19T09:30:00.002-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. It promises to be a pretty busy week in politics, so let's get right to it.

THE SENATE: Even after the passage of landmark Wall Street Reform last week, most eyes will again be focused on the United States Senate. Tomorrow, the newest Senator, Carte Goodwin of West Virginia, will be sworn into office by Vice President Biden. Soon afterward, the Senate will vote on the long-stalled bill to extend unemployment benefits to those most hurt by the recession. Democrats should finally have the 60 votes necessary to advance the bill. If the Senate passes the House-passed bill unchanged, the President will sign it into law this week, and the benefits will go into effect retroactively.

The Senate will also try to finish a bill providing loans to small businesses, though Republicans have been successful so far in obstructing the bill's consideration.

Over in the committee realm, the Senate Judiciary panel will vote on the nomination of Elena Kagan to be a Supreme Court Justice. Since we've heard pretty much nothing on her nomination since her confirmation hearings a few weeks ago, I expect her to be confirmed quite easily. All 12 Democrats on the committee almost certainly will support her nomination (even former critic Arlen Specter has announced his support). Of the 7 Republicans on the committee, only Lindsay Graham (SC) might cross party lines on Kagan's behalf. A vote in the full Senate is expected during the first week in August.

Majority Leader Reid wants to bring two other important bills up before that time, though I'm certainly skeptical. One bill would be a scaled-down energy bill that focused on investments in clean energy paired with carbon pricing for the utilities sector. Republicans may vote to allow consideration of the bill just so they can highlight their opposition to it, but I don't see any Republicans crossing over to support the legislation during an election year. So far, Democrat Ben Nelson (NE) has already voiced his opposition. The newest West Virginia Senator didn't sound very enthusiastic about the bill either.

Democrats also hoped to move on the House-passed campaign finance bill (the DISCLOSE Act), but with moderate Republicans Brown (MA) and Snowe (ME) in opposition, the bill's chances are looking pretty dim. Thus, with financial reform complete, and the Senate still dealing with constant obstruction and stagnation, we may have seen the last of the major pieces of legislation in the 111th Congress.

THE HOUSE: The House has a much more quiet week, as they continue to await action from their Senate counterparts. After doing suspension bills today and tomorrow, the House will take up a bill that requires the national flood insurance program to enable the purchase of "multiperil" coverage. The House will also take up the unemployment bill if the Senate makes any changes to it.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The President will start the week with a well-timed push for the unemployment insurance extension. Apparently, he will (for the first time in recent memory) tell the stories of real Americans who have been hurt by the Republicans obstruction. He should have been doing this much earlier, so that he could create a narrative about the Republicans only looking out for their wealthy friends, while he is protecting the working man hurt by the recession. Anything he does now might be too late to make a difference in the mind of voters ahead of the election. The President will also meet today with former Senator and astronaut John Glenn (D-OH) to discuss space policy.

Later in the week, the President will sign the financial reform bill into law at a large White House signing ceremony. He also plans to visit Illinois to campaign for the Democrat running for Obama's old Senate seat.

That's it for now, see you this evening.

The Daily Strike-7/15/10-Check It Off The List

2010-07-15T21:06:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. This was probably the best day for President Obama in three months. He finally won approval of one of his major legislative priorities, and it appears that oil has finally stopped spilling into the gulf. So I'll try to not be as morbid as I was the past few days.

FINANCIAL REGULATIONS: The Senate today gave final approval to the most sweeping financial reforms since the Great Depression. The culmination of a year-long effort to help prevent another financial crisis is a major victory for President Obama, and cements the 111th Congress as one of the most productive in history, even despite the unprecedented GOP obstruction. In fact, unlike the health care bill, this piece of legislation strengthened over time, with the inclusion of strict derivatives regulation, and more authority for regulators to shut down the biggest banks. The reason that many liberals like myself aren't jumping for joy is that this doesn't signify a fundamental shift in the Obama presidency. Yes, he has accomplished a lot, but he has yet to settle on a compelling governing narrative that proves his devotion to the progressive cause. And most importantly, it's hard to celebrate anything when the jobs situation is as bad as it is.

The bill cleared three separate hurdles today. The vote to cut off debate was 60-38. As expected, Republican Brown (MA), Collins (ME) and Snowe (ME) voted yes, while Democrat Russ Feingold remained steadfast in his opposition from the left. Senator Crapo (ID) did not vote. On the two next votes, to waive Budget Act restrictions, and on final passage, the vote was 60-39, with Crapo (ID) present and voting no. The bill heads to President Obama's desk for his signature, which is expected to take place next week with much pomp and circumstance.

The Senate will swear in the new Democratic Senator from West Virginia when it reconvenes on Tuesday (we still don't know who that will be). Afterwards, they will vote to cut off debate on the unemployment extension bill, which is long overdue. Hopefully work on that bill can be completed by Wednesday, so that the Senate also has time to take up a Small Business Loan measure.

THE HOUSE: The House today passed a bill to reform the flood insurance program. It's about as simple as it sounds, really, though I don't know exactly what the reforms are. The bill passed by an overwhelming margin of 329-90. All opposition, save for Rep. Stupak (MI-remember him?) came from Republicans.

That's it for a short entry tonight. We'll be back on Monday morning.

The Daily Strike-7/14/10-Democrats in Disarray

2010-07-14T19:36:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The title of today's blog entry has been the title to a million articles over the last year, and almost none of them actually showed Democrats in disarray. But today, we see a party truly running around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off.

DEMOCRATIC FAMILY FEUD: It all started with a candid, and true, comment from White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs this Sunday. He stated the obvious, that there are enough seats in play for the Republicans to retake the House. House Democrats have made a huge fuss about this comment, thinking that Gibbs gave the Republicans fundraising ammunition. The White House responded by defending themselves, saying that they've done fundraisers for House candidates etc. House Democrats...well...it doesn't really matter. Both entities are at fault for what's going on right now.

Gibbs is right that Republicans have a good shot at retaking the House. The reason is that the economy is in the dumps, and Democratic leaders are just throwing in the towel as the election season approaches. White House Advisor David Axelrod said this weekend that there is "not an appetite" for more jobs bills. Really? Maybe there would be if you DID something about it!! You're the President of the United States. I understand Obama can't control Congress, but he's not making any effort whatsoever on the jobs front right now. Forget what's happened over the last year and a half. The President could have used the recent poor jobs numbers for a renewed massive push for jobs legislation. He could have explained every single day that there are 5 unemployed people per every available job, and that if those people don't have any money, they can't spend at local businesses, which causes the broader economy to suffer. He could threaten to keep Congress in session (as is his power as President) until Congress does something about jobs. But, no. He just wants to stand back and passively say that Congress can't do anything about 10% employment.

House Democrats should similiarly not blame Obama's spokesman. While they have been the far more productive of the two chambers of Congress, many members are running scared, and are consequently hurting their own party. Today, 59 House Democrats sent a, frankly, offensive letter to leadership saying that they won't vote for any non-emergency spending if it doesn't include offsets. They are saying that we can't kick the can down the road anymore when it comes to the national debt. This is not only horrible policy, since we absolutely must spend money now to rescue the economy. It's horrible politics too, and I'll bet you that many of these 59 members will lose their seats because the economy continues to go south come November. There is not a majority in the House to do even basic things to rescue the economy. That is abhorrent to me.

Both sides here need to stop bickering, find their focus, get a sense of renewed purpose, and get to work. It may be too late to do anything meaningful to jumpstart the economy before the election, but it's not too late to try, and it certainly won't help to sit around playing the blame game.

I'll say this though, at least they're not as bad as the United States Senate!

THE SENATE: Speaking of the Senate, the upper chamber will vote tomorrow at 11am on the Financial Reform conference report. The bill will get exactly 60 votes, because Senator Grassley (R-IA), a supporter of the earlier Senate bill, announced his opposition today. The vote should pave the way for President Obama to sign the legislation into law next week.

The Senate spent the day considering a bill to provide loans to small businesses. Senators will presumably begin voting on amendments to that bill tomorrow night.

THE HOUSE: The House passed one piece of substantive legislation today. By a vote of 290-131, the House agreed to a bill that will allow for federal employees to telecommute up to 20 hours per pay period. The bill was a response to this past winter's snowstorms, which caused the federal government to basically shut down for the week. 245 Democrats and 45 Republicans supported the bill, while 2 Democrats and 129 Republicans voted no.

That's it for now, we'll see you tomorrow.

The Daily Strike-7/13/10-60 Assured

2010-07-13T20:52:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. I will keep this entry short since I got home more than an hour late and I want to watch the All Star Game. But enough about me!

FINREG: The conference report accompanying the Financial Regulation bill is on the verge of passing this Thursday. Today, Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) was the 60th Senator to publicly declare support for the bill, which will assure that the bill makes it to President Obama's desk next week. Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) filed cloture on the bill, which sets up a vote Thursday afternoon.

I'm excited about this bill's passage, mostly because it represents the first serious regulation of the financial industry since the 1930's. We've been going in the opposite direction ever since. As many other commentators have noted, the bill is designed for us to better handle a future crisis, not so much to prevent one. A lot of the bill's success depends on its implementation. The new consumer protection agency within the Federal Reserve must be bold and ambitious, for example. I'm mostly afraid that a future Republican President will be able to water down these agencies without enough institutional protection in place.

In other Senate news, West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin will announce the replacement to the late Senator Byrd on Friday evening. By next week, this should give the Democrats the votes (hopefully) to pass a much-needed extension of unemployment benefits.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The biggest news today from the White House is that Jacob Lew was selected to be the next Director of the OMB, the same title he held during the later years of the Clinton Administration. This seems like a good choice. Even though correlation certainly doesn't imply causation, Lew presided over the only budget surpluses in the last 40 years.

THE HOUSE: The House just dealt with some suspension bills today, they'll get down to serious legislative business tomorrow.

That's it for now! Comments: Leave them!

The Daily Strike-7/12/10-FinReg Closer

2010-07-12T19:11:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Make sure you get caught up on the week in politics in this morning's Weekly Strike.

THE SENATE: Before I give a brief election update, there is some news to report from the United States Senate, sort of. The financial regulation bill's conference report appears on the verge of passing, which would send the overhaul directly to the President's desk. Two Republicans, Senators Brown (MA) and Snowe (ME) announced that they will support the bill. With the support of Senator Collins (ME), that gives Democrats three sure Republican votes. The Democrats currently control 58 seats, while the vacant seat in West Virginia remains at the whim of Governor Joe Manchin (D). So far, only Senator Feingold has been the only Democrat to voice official opposition to the bill. Today, though, we found out that America's favorite corporate shill, Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) is also on the fence, which would potentially temporarily keep the Democrats from the 60 vote threshold. Nelson says that he has concerns with the power given to the head of the new consumer protection agency. This has been a policy proposal for over a year, he decided to make a fuss about this NOW? Really, Nelson just wants attention from the media and his beloved corporate lobbyists. I think he'll come around after he gets his moment in the spotlight. Even if he doesn't, the new Democratic Senator will be sworn in next week and will presumably push us over the top.

The Senate did take time today to confirm the nomination of Sharon Johnson Coleman to be a District Court Judge in Illinois. Tomorrow, the Senate will continue consideration of a Small Business lending bill.

ELECTION UPDATE: I'll keep this short, because it's pretty depressing. Election 2010 would be a major bloodbath for the Democratic Party if it were held today. Even though the media has focused on voter enthusiasm, candidates, gaffes, and amorphous concerns about the deficit, the real deciding factor this fall will be the state of the economy. If the recovery remains sluggish, and we have no reason to believe it will improve greatly in the next 4 months, the incumbent party (the Democrats) will pay a large price. There is a time and place for a post mortem of how Democrats got into this situation, but I'll save that for another entry. For now, I'll just give my updated predictions.

If the election were held today, the House would be slightly favored to go Republican. The Republicans must gain 39 seats to regain the majority, and if the political climate stays the way it is now, they will have a pretty decent path to get there. I'd put the Republican chances of a House takeover at slightly above 50/50. I will not be changing individual race ratings on my chart (to your right) since I haven't seen much polling in individual districts. We'll go district-by-district when the election season heats up.

The Senate looks slightly more promising, though mostly because the Republicans have picked some truly awful candidates. I am moving three Lean Democrat races to the "Toss Up" column to reflect polls I've seen in the past few weeks in California, Wisconsin and Washington. This moves the tossup list to an unusually high 10. Since the national environment leans Republican, I expect them to take the majority of these tossup states, but not all of them. If they took 7 of the 10 tossup seats, along with 4 Democratic-held seats that they're already favored to win, they will be at 49 seats, just short of the majority. If they win 9 or 10 of the tossup seats, they'll regain the majority. I'd put the odds of that at about 25%.

As far as Governor's races go, Democrats are in for an old-style Texas whooping. Because of a slew of termed out Democratic governors, and the national political environment, I expect Democrats to lose a net of around 7-8 state houses, which will hurt our efforts during the 2011 redistricting process.

I wish I could bring you more promising news, but alas, things are looking pretty nasty out there. I will change these predictions as events merit.

The Weekly Strike-7/12-7/18

2010-07-12T09:16:00.003-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. Now that the World Cup is over, and baseball season is on a brief hiatus, I can turn my full focus to politics. Lucky for you!

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: The theme of the week will be the ability (or lack thereof) of the United States Senate to complete some very important unfinished business. Still outstanding are an extension of unemployment benefits that failed by a single vote at the end of June, and the conference report accompanying the Financial Reform bill. Each bill was about one vote short at the end of the last session, and that vote could be the potential appointee of Governor Joe Manchin (D-WV), to replace the late Senator Byrd. However, Manchin is proving to be a bit of a pain in the neck. Since he's angling to run for the Senate seat himself this year, he's approaching this "strategically" meaning he's actually just dithering. The longer Manchin waits, the longer these pieces of legislation will languish, most likely.

On the unemployment bill, 57 of 58 Democrats, excluding Ben Nelson (NE) voted to end debate, as did Republicans Snowe and Collins of Maine. With the new West Virginia Senator, that could be law within days, giving essential relief to those afflicted by the joblessness crisis. On financial reform, Democrats have the firm support of Republican Susan Collins, and tepid support of Senators Snowe and Brown (MA). Senator Cantwell (WA), who voted against the original bill, has announced her support, leaving Senator Feingold (WI) as the only Democratic holdout. If everyone else votes as expected, this leaves Democrats with exactly 60 votes, possibly 61 depending on the ever-so non-dependable Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who voted yes the first time. Since the House has already passed the conference report, the Senate pretty much needs to an affirmative vote, lest they want to go through the arduous process of reconvening the conference committee to make even further changes. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Republicans played the Lucy/football routine with Democratic leaders.

The Senate also will try to complete work on a bill that provides for increased loans to small businesses, and will consider, but probably not doing anything, on a potential climate/energy bill that Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) hopes to take up next week. The bill will only include subsidies for alternative energy, and will most likely not include a meaningful cap on carbon emissions.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, due to Republican delays, will probably not vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan this week. That should come next week, with a final full Senate vote coming at the end of the month. Kagan's confirmation is looking like the only sure thing in this bleak-looking Senate session.

THE HOUSE: The House, as usual, will be in a major holding pattern this week waiting on their Senate counterparts. After working on suspensions tomorrow and Wednesday, the House will consider two substantive bills. The first would allow government agencies to come up with policies that maximize workers' ability to tele-commute, provided that it doesn't hurt productivity. The bill is expected to save the Federal Government a little bit of money. The bill got an overwhelming number of votes a couple of weeks ago, but failed to get the 2/3rds vote required to pass under suspension of the rules. They'll try again on Thursday. Also, the House will consider a bill that reforms National Flood Insurance.

THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama will be closely monitoring this week's Senate happenings, but he also has a few other items on his agenda. Today, he will meet with with a member of his Council on Foreign Relations, and with President Fernandez of the Domincan Republic. Nothing else is known yet about what's on the President's schedule.

That's it for now, leave some comments!

The Daily Strike-7/8/10-Depressing

2010-07-08T19:34:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. To understand why I'm depressed about politics tonight, I bring you three things I read today (with appropriate credit due to The Big Picture).

1. The first is this poll summary from Democracy Corps, which does polling for Democratic causes. Quite simply, the numbers are awful. Yes, Democrats trail in the generic Congressional ballot. Yes, Republicans are actually less disliked than Democrats at this point. None of that is particularly surprising in this political climate. Some of the other numbers are just downright depressing. More people, by far, have favorable opinions of the NRA than just about any other political actor, including President Obama. "Big Corporations" is rated more favorably than the health care bill. And by a disturbingly large margin, people think that "cutting government spending and lowering taxes" is a better economic stimulus than "investments in new jobs."

This represents a massive failure in the war of ideas. He hasn't properly identified the perpetrators of this economic crisis: big corporations and finance. He hasn't explained why we need to make long-term investments to spur job growth. When he has said some good things, he then undermines himself by feeding into the conservative narrative (remember the discretionary spending freeze?) Without offering that vision consistently and coherently, people are stuck with the general impression that things are bad, and that liberals are in charge, so therefore liberal policies are bad.

2. This piece pretty much speaks for itself. Basically, the recession has increased poverty and homelessness significantly, and has caused millions of people to suffer. I link to this also to make the point that when Republicans and Ben Nelson don't vote to extend unemployment benefits, they're not just hurting a bunch of lazy people who can't get their asses to a job interview. They're ignoring an all-out crisis.

3. Finally, there's this article by the nation's Eric Alterman, which argues that a progressive Presidency is pretty much impossible. He argues that while Obama certainly has disappointed in many areas, the real barriers to progress are ridiculous institutional obstacles. He covers pretty much everything: the undemocratic Senate, the right-wing media, the corporate buy-out of our politicians, the mainstream consensus around bad economic policies etc. It's very sobering, but it's an important reminder how much we truly have to change in this country before we can finally tackle our worst problems. I'm afraid some of these barriers may be too difficult to overcome in the forseeable future.

Have I depressed you enough yet? At least you can go to the TV and find out where LeBron James will play next year! T-Minus 37 minutes!

OTHER TIDBITS: Before I go, I should mention that West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin has inexplicably has arranged for the special election to replace Senator Robert Byrd to take place this November instead of 2012, as had been originally planned. Manchin clearly wants to run for the seat himself, and seems to think that running this year would be to his advantage. While Manchin is popular in the state, West Virginia is increasingly conservative, and this is a Republican year, so Manchin is anything but a shoo-in. It's possible that Manchin could potentially cost Democrats a majority in the Senate because of his selfish ambition. Let's hope not.

That's it for now. See you next Monday when Congress gets back into session.

The Daily Strike-7/7/10-Recess Appointment

2010-07-07T19:53:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Congress is out of town on recess, and the President's schedule has been pretty light. In fact, most even in the political world are focused on the LeBron James sweepstakes. So, we'll keep this short.

BERWICK: President Obama used a recess appointment to nominate Donald Berwick to be the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Republicans had threatened to block Mr. Berwick (who is a friend of The Strike's place of employment), because he once said some pretty nice things about the British National Health System. Oh, and he also said that health care obviously must be rationed, the question is how to do so effectively. Any sane person would understand these statements to be non-controversial. However, the wacko wing of the Republican Party, led by Sarah Palin on her Twitter account, wanted to use Berwick's nomination to engage in a fight over health insurance reform. President Obama was very wise to steer clear of this fight. Recess appointments aren't ideal, but this job is critically important. The CMS administrator must oversee the implementation of major portions of the new health care law, including major changes to government health systems.

Berwick's nomination is good until the end of the next session of the Senate, which will be sometime in late 2011. The Republicans will probably have many more seats than they do now, so offhand I'd say Berwick better get to work quickly.

That's it for today, we'll see you tomorrow.

The Weekly Strike-7/6-7/11

2010-07-06T09:39:00.003-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. It's sweltering in DC, and lucky for them, members of Congress are out of town. Even if they were here, they'd be better off than the unemployed people at whom they've thumbed their noses.

THE WHITE HOUSE: After a quiet holiday weekend, the White House gets back in gear today as President Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama and Bibi (as he's affectionately known) haven't been on the best of terms. Obama met with the Prime Minister at a terse meeting in May, in which the press was not allowed to take pictures (some sign of sacrilege apparently). The administration was rightly angry that Netanyahu authorized the building of new settlements in East Jerusalem. Both men will use this meeting as a chance to restart diplomatic relations.

If Netanyahu were a smart, rational person, which doesn't seem to be his strong suit, he would help President Obama push for a land-for-peace agreement with the Palestinian people. He would also assure the U.S. leadership that Israel was properly concerned with the human rights situation in the Gaza Strip. Unfortunately, I don't really see this happening.

The rest of the President's schedule this week is unknown, but I would be pretty shocked if he didn't give a speech on the economy given last week's poor jobs report.

CONGRESS: Speaking of jobs, Congress takes the week off having done absolutely nothing to alleviate the jobs crisis in America. Last week's jobs report, which showed minuscule growth in private sector employment, hasn't seemed to get the attention of enough members of Congress. Most Republicans are intent to block action on any and all jobs measures, ostensibly because they care about the deficit, but more realistically because they think it is politically advantageous to them. Conservative Democrats concerned about our fiscal health have shown very little interest in even the slightest measures to alleviate the pain and suffering of the unemployed. They are preventing Congress from taking any action whatsoever.

If people didn't already realize that the jobs situation was an absolute crisis, they should now. This is what needs to be done in the short-term:

-President Obama needs to put on a Bush, Iraq-war style political campaign for a jobs relief package that includes primarily aid to state and local governments and an extension of unemployment benefits. This campaign must involve a whirlwind tour of speeches, expressing the urgency of the situation, and branding this bill as the best solution.

-In exchange for the votes of Blue Dog Democrats, Obama should package this deal with future cuts to the deficit (to take place three or four years down the line). These cuts should be a combination of progressive tax increases, and spending cuts to defense and non-essential mandatory spending.

-The leaders of the House and Senate should hold votes on this measure as soon as possible, even if they don't have the votes to pass it. No backroom negotiations, no deals...just see where everyone stands. If the vote fails, leaders should move on to Plan B:

-The House and the Senate could pass a budget resolution that contains reconciliation instructions for a jobs bill. With these instructions, the bill could pass the House and Senate on a simple majority vote, and be signed into law as soon as possible. Democrats could take comfort knowing that this spending would inject demand into the economy immediately.

This, of course, won't happen for a variety of reasons. But I just wanted to show how easy it COULD be if Democratic leaders gave as much care and concern to the jobs situation as is currently warranted. More likely, we'll see pretty much nothing done before the November elections. If the economy, as expected, continues to flutter along with minimal job gains, Democrats will suffer absolutely massive losses in November.

That's it for now, I'll see you tonight.

The Daily Strike-7/1/10-Supplemental Madness

2010-07-01T20:42:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The Senate skipped out of town yesterday having not finished: a) war funding, b) unemployment benefits and c) financial regulation. Late last night, Majority Leader Reid tried one last time to pass an extension of unemployment benefits, but he failed by a single vote. Republicans Snowe and Collins of Maine both voted yes, but Democrat Ben Nelson (NE) broke with his party and singlehandedly caused mass suffering for millions of people. The plan should be able to pass when the new West Virginia Senator is sworn in, but that won't happen until after the July recess. Now on to the rest of the day in politics.

THE HOUSE: The House is trying to finish up a supplemental war funding bill, and the Democratic leadership is using all sorts of interesting parliamentary maneuvers to include key domestic funding, such as aid to state and local governments, money for summer jobs programs, and Pell Grants. The problem for House leaders is that a majority of House members don't support BOTH the war funding and the domestic spending. So Democrats have resorted to some cleaver trickery. According to a rule adopted by the House this evening, the war funding would be passed and sent to the President, only if all of the other domestic spending is also approved. If the domestic spending is rejected, the war funding too will be rejected. Thus, by voting for the domestic spending, members are actually "deeming" the war funding passed. My guess is that the amendments will be agreed to, and that the war measure will be sent to the President for his approval. I'm not quite sure exactly how this works. I guess the Senate would then have to vote on the domestic spending separately (which won't happen, of course, for another couple of weeks). Also included in this bill (under the rule) is a budget enforcement resolution that sets spending targets for Fiscal Year 2011. This is in place of a normal budget resolution, which House Democrats didn't want to pass, because it would have foreseen record deficits. (I guess we should just pretend they don't exist?).

It looks like the House will be taking votes late into the night, so I'll have to update you tomorrow.

Prior to consideration of this measure, the House passed rather easily the same extension of unemployment that died yesterday in the Senate. The final vote was 270-153, with 29 Republicans voting yes, and a pathetic 11 Democrats voting no. The Senate will try to concur when they return on July 12th, but by that time, millions of Americans will already have gone without needed unemployment assistance.

The House will adjourn after votes end later tonight or early tomorrow morning.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: President Obama gave a speech today at American University outlining his plans for comprehensive immigration reform. The speech was prototypical Obama. He talked about how the issue has been demagogued by the Republicans, and he specifically mentioned the new law in Arizona. He also criticized the left (unfairly in my view) for having unreasonable expectations about illegal immigration, and for not being serious enough about securing the border. I understand politically why Obama would pay close attention to this issue. He does want to bring Latino voters to the polls. However, the political risks seem to outweigh the potential rewards. Jobless Americans are looking for people to blame for their malaise, and if the issue of immigration comes front and center, immigrants will be an easy scapegoat target.

That's it for tonight! See you tomorrow!

The Daily Strike-6/30/10-Reaching 60

2010-06-30T19:18:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The theme of the day was getting to 60 votes in the United States Senate. What a surprise.

FINANCIAL REGULATION: Moments ago, the House passed the conference report accompanying the Wall Street reform legislation by, the most sweeping rewrite of our financial system since the Great Depression. The final vote was a healthy 237-192. The bill surprisingly got the support of three Republicans, Reps. Cao (LA), Castle (DE) and Jones (NC). The following Democrats opposed the bill. Call their offices and complain accordingly: Berry (AR), Boren (OK), Boucher (VA), Bright (AL), Chandler (KY), Childers (MS), Copper (TN), Critz (PA), Cuellar (TX), Davis (TN), Edwards (TX), Kaptur (OH) (perhaps the lone opposition from the left), Kirkpatrick (AZ), McIntyre (NC), Mitchell (AZ), Owens (NY), Perriello (VA) (that's sad, he's taken some other courageous votes during his freshman term), Ross (AR), and Skelton (MO). Mostly your standard list of Blue Dogs. It's sure real "maverick-y" of them to stand for Wall Street and against the American people.

Prior to a vote on final passage, Democrats beat back a Republican amendment that would send the bill back to the conference committee with instructions to add a stricter audit of the Federal Reserve. The motion failed 198-229, with all Republicans and 23 Democrats voting yes.

The only stop left before the President's desk is the United States Senate, though it looks like consideration there will be delayed until after the July 4th recess. Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), who has been holding negotiations hostage and has one several special carve-outs, says that he "looks forward to reviewing the bill" over the July recess. What a tool, to put it delicately. So here's the math. 56 Democrats are pretty certain to support the bill, and one (Feingold) is certain to oppose it. Republicans Collins and Snowe of Maine are also likely supporters at this point. When West Virginia's new Democratic Senator is sworn in, presumably in the next couple of weeks, they will probably support the bill as well, which puts the magic number at 59. The 60th vote would either have to come from Brown, Democrat Maria Cantwell who opposes the bill from the left, or Chuck Grassley (R-IA) who voted for the bill last time around. Chances are that they'll get one of these Senators to budge.

THE SENATE: Majority Leader Reid (NV) is trying one last time to pass an extension of unemployment benefits, and it appears he is still one vote short. 57 Democrats, as well as Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine, would support the extension, well Democrat Nelson (NE) has voiced his opposition. Either Democrats will have to wait for the new West Virginia Senator to arrive, or they'll have to try to convince another Republican to abandon their party leadership and stand up for struggling families. Because of Republican obstruction over the past month, over 1 million people have lost unemployment benefits. I think Republicans are of the mind that these people are lazy and are just not looking hard enough for a job. Sane people realize that it's tough to find work when hundreds of people are applying to every available job.

The Senate most likely will not vote on this extension until Friday, when they'll also presumably vote on a small business lending bill. The Senate takes a break tomorrow to pay respects to the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV).

The Senate did find time today to unanimously approve the nomination of David Petraeus to be the next commander in Afghanistan. See, the Senate can indeed move quickly when it wants to.

KAGAN: Senators finished questioning Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan today, and the hearings were notable for being, well, entirely uneventful. Kagan faced sharp questions from Republicans about gun rights, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and many other issues. In total, Kagan answerd 500 questions over two days, and didn't give Republicans any real ammunition against her.

I think Kagan is well on her way to gaining confirmation. A vote in the Judiciary Committee will occur in mid-July, with a vote in front of the full Senate slated for just before the August recess.

OBAMA: President Obama held a town hall meeting today in Racine, WI, where he talked about the economy. Obama previewed some fall campaign themes. He attacked Republicans for wanting to move the country backward, and he chastised House Minority Leader Boehner for suggesting that the financial reform bill is "throwing a nuclear weapon at an ant." Obama was sharp and feisty, which is good to see. Because the economy will likely still be in the doldrums through the November elections, the Democrats' only hope is to draw sharp contrasts with the Republicans.

That's it for today, see you tomorrow!

The Daily Strike-6/29/10-What Can Brown Do To You?

2010-06-29T18:28:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Once again, not a proud day in Congress. But that's not really news anymore, is it.

FINANCIAL REGULATIONS: The Wall Street reform bill had to go back to a House-Senate conference committee, because Democrats didn't have enough votes to break a GOP filibuster on the previously agreed-to conference report. Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown, who got all sorts of carve outs in the bill to buy off his vote, pulled his support because he didn't approve of a $19 billion fee on big banks. Brown, of course, campaigned against these sort of political shenanigans and backroom deals, but I guess protecting his frich friends on Wall Street comes first and foremost.

If Democrats Russ Feingold (WI) and Maria Cantwell (WA) didn't decide to oppose the bill from the left, the Democrats could tell Brown to you know what. But evidently Cantwell and Feingold are being so stubborn that they're willing to see the bill get made worse. That's exactly what happened today. The House-Senate conference just approved a revised version of the conference report that removes the bank tax, and instead uses leftover money from the TARP bailout program, as well as various FDIC fees. Inexplicably, they seemed to have made this deal without getting the firm support of any of the Republicans they need to get 60 votes. But if all goes well, it is still possible that the bill could pass both chambers by the end of the week. In fact, late word is that the House will take up the conference report tomorrow.

KAGAN: Today Senators asked their first set of questions to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. There wasn't much news out of today's questioning, mostly because Kagan is so polished and isn't going to say anything too controversial. She did admit that her political leanings are progressive/Democratic, and that she still does have moral problems with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

On Stare Decisis, she said that she almost always is deferential to precedence, but there are some circumstances where settled law should be changed. None of these answers will make the front pages of any newspapers, I can guarantee you that.

One thing I didn't realize about Kagan is that she is extremely funny. Republican Senator Graham (R-SC) asked Kagan where she was this past Christmas, during the failed terrorist plot on the Detroit-bound airliner. Kagan quipped that since she is Jewish, she was probably at a Chinese restaurant. When Senator Specter pressed her on allowing cameras in the courtroom, she said that she would have to do her hair more often. Awesome.

CLIMATE CHANGE: The President held a bipartisan meeting at the White House today to discuss his push for a comprehensive energy bill. The meeting offered no surprises. Republicans insisted that Obama take any price on carbon off the table. Obama, and his Democratic allies, countered that pricing carbon is the whole point! Nothing from this meeting gives me any optimism about a climate bill passing the United States Senate this year, especially since zero Republicans seem willing to play ball.

THE SENATE: The Senate voted 66-33 to move to a bill that will spur lending to small businesses. Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) has filled the amendment tree, meaning he is trying to prevent Republicans from delaying the bill with endless amendments. Hopefully, Reid can finish the bill by tomorrow evening so that the Senate can take up the Financial Regulation conference report Thursday and Friday.

All Democrats voted yes on the procedural vote, as did Republicans Bond (MO), Brown (MA), Collins (ME), Grassley (IA), LeMieux (FL), Lugar (IN), Snowe (ME) and Voinovich (OH).

THE HOUSE: The House voted on some suspension bills today. Speaker Pelosi tried to pass a standalone extension of unemployment benefits as a suspension bill, but it failed to received the necessary 2/3rds vote. Democrats will have to bring up the extension under regular order. Democrats in both chambers, having failed to pass a larger package of unemployment insurance and tax extenders, want to get moving on unemployment by the end of the week. 15 Democrats in the House voted against extending benefits, while 30 Republicans voted yes (more than I would have thought).

That's it for today, we'll see you tomorrow!

The Daily Strike-6/28/10-Wall Street Reform Complications

2010-06-28T18:42:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Make sure you catch up on the week in politics in the Weekly Strike, which is below. It's a super busy one, especially in the United States Senate.

THE SENATE: The death of Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), combined with the late addition of an $18 billion bank tax has thrown the Wall Street reform compromise, struck last week in a conference committee, into some serious flux. The measure got 61 votes when it passed the Senate in May. 4 Republicans supported the bill, while two Democrats opposed it because it didn't go far enough. In the conference committee, House Banking Chair Barney Frank added a small bank tax at the last minute to offset some of the bill's implementation costs. Inexplicably, he did so without seeing how it would impact the bill's delicate Senate coalition. The Republicans who supported the bill, Senators Brown (MA), Collins (ME), Grassley (IA), and Snowe (ME) know that they have a lot of power, and they're not afraid to abuse. All of these Republicans have now said that this tax provision could cause them to oppose the bill. If any of these Senators defected, and the two Democrats opposed (Feingold and Cantwell) didn't change their minds, the Democrats would be a vote short.

There are a few ways to rectify this problem. West Viriginia Governor Joe Manchin has announced that Byrd's successor will be appointed for the rest of the term, and not just to this year's election. Democrats had been concerned about seating Byrd's replacement before the July 3rd cutoff, because they wanted to avoid protecting another vulnerable seat this year. Apparently, there was some sort of loophole in the West Virginia election law that gives some discretion to the Governor as to when to call the next election. Governor Manchin said that since no candidates would meet the state's filing deadline, no election can be held this year. Therefore, Manchin can appoint the Senator immediately. Presumably, this Senator will support the Wall Street reform measure.

If this Senator is appointed, Democrats would still be about 3 votes short. If the Republicans decide they will bring down the conference report because of the bank tax, Democrats would have to send the bill back to conference to remove that provision, which would be an arduous process. If they could get the support of just one Republican, even with the bank tax, then they could try to convince Senators Feingold and Cantwell to at least vote to invoke cloture on the conference report. Feingold seemed pretty adamantly opposed to that idea when it was presented to him this afternoon. Hopefully the Republican supporters of the bill are just causing some sort of temporary fuss. The issue will eventually work itself out, but it may not happen by the administration's self-imposed July deadline.

Meanwhile, the Senate took just one vote today, confirming the nomination of Gary Feinerman to be a District Judge in Illinois by a unanimous vote. The Senate also unanimously agreed to make Daniel Inouye, the longest tenured Senator in the wake of Byrd's death, the next President Pro Tempore, which puts him behind Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden in the line of Presidential succession. The Senate will begin work on a measure to boost loans to small businesses tomorrow.

KAGAN: The hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan began today, and it was a snooze-fest. Today was just for opening statements, for Senators on the committee, and at the end of the day, for Kagan herself. The most notable part of the hearing in my view was the GOP's sustained attacks on Thurgood Marshall, the Justice that Kagan worked for in the 1980's. They seemed to want to portray Marshall, a hero of the Civil Rights movement, as a judicial activist. Once again, the GOP is making quite a play for minority voters!

The nomination's importance was brought into full focus today after the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, incorporated the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental right under the 14th amendment. Conservatives have been fighting substantive due process and incorporation for decades, but of course, that wouldn't apply to their precious guns. As a result of this ruling, local gun ordinances will likely be ruled unconstitutional. Great.

That's it for today, we'll see you again tomorrow!

The Weekly Strike-6/28-7/4

2010-06-28T09:41:00.005-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. It is such an extraordinarily action packed week in Washington, that we may not be able to get to everything. But we'll try!

THE SENATE: We start with the sad news this morning that Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) has passed away at the age of 92. Byrd was the longest serving member of Congress in our country's history, and he has been West Virginia's Senator since my parents were toddlers. Byrd's legacy in my view is mixed. He started out his career as a segregationist former member of the KKK who filibustered civil rights bills. He later repudiated his past views and said that there is no room for discrimination in our country. By the time he was in his twilight years, he was a strong supporter of President Barack Obama, and a solid Democrat on every major issue. I was particularly moved by Byrd's strong opposition to the Iraq War in 2002, when every Republican and most Democrats were acting as cheerleaders for President Bush. His position wasn't popular at the time, but it was principled.

Byrd will also be known for being a Senate institutionalist. He cared about the Senate's rules and procedures, and knew more about them than anyone else. Byrd served as Majority Leader during the Carter Presidency, and as Minority Leader for much of the Reagan years. From 1989-1995, and 2007 to his death, he served as the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, a position that put him 3rd in line to the Presidency. In one of his last act's, he cast a deciding vote for health reform, uttering "this one's for Teddy" as he voted on the Senate floor. While he can never be forgiven for his past views on race, he made some enormous positive contributions to our country.

Moving from the obituary to the crass political realities, the focus now switches to Byrd's replacement. West Virginia's Governor Joe Manchin, a Democrat, will pick the next Senator, most likely as a placeholder for Manchin himself, who has long been interested in serving in the world's most deliberative body. The question now is when the next election will be. State law says that if a vacancy occurs 2.5 years prior to the scheduled election, then a special election will be held during the upcoming November elections. Byrd's passing came just before that July 3rd cutoff, so it would appear as if Byrd's successor would only serve until the next Senator was elected this year. However, there are some ambiguities in the law. Manchin could decide to wait to declare the vacancy until next Saturday, which would put the next election in 2012. Democratic leaders do not want to have to defend another difficult seat in this fall's elections.

There are two complications here. The first is that Democrats might need another vote this week when the Senate takes up the conference report on the financial regulation bill. The bill got 61 votes when it originally passed in May, though not all of the "yes" votes seem pinned down at this point, especially Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), who is using his swing-vote status to make a fuss over various provisions. If Brown were to switch to the no column, Democrats would either need to seat Byrd's replacement, or convince one of their two holdouts from the left, Senators Feingold and Cantwell, to vote yes. It is also possible that Byrd's death moves consideration of the conference report until after the July 4th recess. The other complication is whether Manchin thinks he has a better chance of winning this fall or in 2012. I frankly don't think even a popular governor like Manchin would be a shoo-in in an increasingly conservative state this election year.

One thing we do know for sure is that Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) is the most senior Democrat in the Senate, and is likely to be the next President Pro Tempore.

As for the Senate's schedule this week, we do still expect to see consideration of the aforementioned conference report before the chamber adjourns on Friday. Today, the Senate will begin consideration of a House-passed bill designed to spur lending to small business.

Overshadowed in all of the news recently is the nomination of Elena Kagan to be a Supreme Court Justice. The hearings for Kagan's nomination will take place starting today, and continuing throughout the week. I don't anticipate Kagan having too tough of a time. She is a very polished orator, and has argued cases before the Supreme Court as Obama's Solicitor General. She shouldn't have any difficulties standing up to Republican misfits, who have yet to find their footing in opposition. We'll have continuing coverage of Kagan's hearings as they progress this week.

THE HOUSE: The House also has a busy schedule as it wraps up before the recess. Today and tomorrow, the House will deal with a large slew of suspension bills. Most likely on Wednesday, the House will take up the financial regulation conference report. I don't anticipate the conference report running into too much trouble in the House. If Nancy Pelosi could pull together 218 votes for a slightly unpopular health care bill, she can surely do so for a far more popular Wall Street reform measure.

The House also will presumably take up the war funding bill, though it's still unclear whether Democrats will try to attach some jobs-related measures. My recommendation would be to attach at least an extension of unemployment benefits to the war funding bill, but we'll see what House leaders have in mind.

THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama has returned to Washington after an eventful G20 summit this weekend in Toronto. Leaders of the G20 struck a deal that calls for significant deficit reduction in member countries by 2013. President Obama seemed alone in making the case that governments should not stifle the economic recovery by premature worries about rising deficits and debt. I wish Obama had made that case more effectively to Congress and the American people this past week, when a modest jobs measure was killed in the Senate due to misguided deficit concerns.

The President has the day off today, but will surely be keeping an eye on the Kagan nomination, and the final push for financial regulation.

Yes, it is quite a week in Washington.

The Daily Strike-6/24/10-A Flaw in Our Democracy

2010-06-24T18:55:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. It was actually one of the busiest days in Congress for awhile, but certainly not the best.

THE SENATE: Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) tried one more time to pass a package of tax extenders, which included an extension of unemployment benefits. Once again, and perhaps for the final time, he has failed. The vote was 57-41, which in our perverse system of government these days means that the bill failed. Every Republican voted against the bill, and it shouldn't come as any surprise. As many others have pointed out today, Republicans have institutional power to make the majority fail. If they do so, the economy will get worse, and voters will get angry at the governing party. This will immensely benefit Republicans in this fall's elections.

Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the one Democrat complicit in this monstrosity. Despite Nelson's past votes to protect the estates of billionaires, and keep tax breaks to oil companies, he was apparently too concerned about the deficit to vote for emergency recession measures. Majority Leader Reid voted no so he could bring up the bill again, but for now, it's looking likely that Democrats will give up. They might try to pass the bill in separate parts, starting with an extension of unemployment benefits. The Senate will turn next week to the House-passed bill which encourages lending to small businesses (which was coincidentally a measure included in this bill).

There is something fundamentally wrong with a democracy when a minority of 41 can sabotage the agenda of a large majority without facing any recourse. In fact, they'll benefit from the economy's failure in November's elections. President Obama and the Democrats need to make very clear to the American people who is responsible for 1.2 million Americans losing unemployment insurance.

The Senate did find time today to pass the conference report for the Iran sanctions bill, which has enjoyed large bipartisan support. The vote today, in fact, was 99-0. The bill builds on sanctions passed in 1996 designed to stop Iran's development of nuclear weapons.

THE HOUSE: The House had a very productive day, far more so than their Senate counterparts. The House today finally passed a bill that helps undo the damage of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. The bill will put new requirements on corporate and labor campaign contributions. The bill passed by a narrow margin of 219-206. The only Republicans supporting the bill were Castle (DE) (the bill's co-sponsor) and Cao (LA).,

36 Democrats opposed the bill. The opposition was a mixture of Blue Dogs who were scared to vote against the interest of the power brokers at the Chamber of Commerce, and liberal members who were upset that the NRA got a special exemption in the bill. The list of dissenting Democrats is as follows (skip down a paragraph if you don't care!):

Barrow (GA), Bean (IL), Bishop (GA), Boren (OK), Boyd (FL), Bright (AL), Butterfield (NC), Childers (MS), Clarke (NY), Critz (PA), Dahlkemper (PA), Davis (IL), Davis (TN), Donnelly (IN), Edwards (MD), Fudge (OH), Hastings (FL), Herseth Sandlin (SD), Hill (IN), Holden (PA), Kilpatrick (MI), Kratovil (MD), Marshall (GA), McCarthy (NY), McIntyre (NC), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ), Nye (VA), Owens (NY), Payne (NJ), Peterson (MN), Rush (IL), Taylor (MS), Thompson (MS), Waters (CA) and Watt (NC).

The House also put their stamp of approval on two bills headed directly to the President's desk. The Iran sanctions conference report passed the House 408-8, with opposition coming from Republicans Flake (AZ) and Paul (TX) and Democrats Baird (WA), Baldwin (WI), Blumenauer (OR), Conyers (MI), Kucinich (OH) and Stark (CA). President Obama will sign the bill into law this coming week.

The House also passed the so-called "Doc-Fix" bill that fixes reimbursement rates to Medicare providers through November. The Senate had passed a fix when it became clear that the broader extenders bill was headed downhill. The vote on this measure was 417-1, with only Democrat George Miller (CA) voting no (not sure why).

Next week, both chambers are expected to take up the final version of the Wall Street Reform bill, which while weakened significantly, will be a major legislative accomplishment.

Until then, enjoy your weekend!

The Daily Strike-6/23/10-Fired

2010-06-23T19:54:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. It was quite a momentous day in politics, but it was even more momentous in sports, as the United States advanced to the next round of the World Cup with an extra-time goal against Algeria. It was awesome.

MCCHRYSTAL: The President "accepted the resignation" today of General Stanley McChrystal as the lead commander in Afghanistan. McChrystal was in hot water for mocking several administration officials in a Rolling Stone article. Obama, rightly, believed that this act crossed the line. The President can't have a general in world's most difficult conflict who uses poor judgment, nor can he have one who threatens the sacrosanct chain of command. As the President said in an afternoon press event, disagreement is healthy, but disunity is not.

The President chose General David Petraeus, one of America's most popular military figures, to take control of the quagmire in Afghanistan. Petraeus will leave his current post as the head of Central Command. Conservatives and moderates were giddy at the choice, citing Petraeus' supposed surge success in Iraq. But the surge was partly successful due to exogenous factors, such as the Sunni awakening in the summer of 2007. Petraeus seems like a competent general, but he is being handed a war with a flawed strategy and no end in sight. I hope Petraeus is able to turn things around.

Because Petraeus is so widely respected, he is likely to gain Senate confirmation to his post almost immediately. His hearing will most likely be next week, coincidentally at the same time as the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan (talk about a story that's fallen off the map!).

THE SENATE: There seems to be some possible light at the end of the tunnel for the long-stalled tax extenders/unemployment bill in the Senate. Today, Senator Reid (D-NV) filed cloture on a third version of the bill, which inexplicably cuts more funding for Medicaid and rolls back some of the revenue provisions. The changes are designed to win the votes of Maine moderates Snowe and Collins, though the two Republican Senators have yet to voice their support. It remains to be seen whether Reid will be able to corral the votes.

The Democrats beat back an absurd, hypocritical amendment today, offered by Senator DeMint (R-SC) that would permanently extend the low tax rate on Capital Gains. All of the self-proclaimed deficit hawks in the Senate (i.e. every single Republican Senator besides Voinovich of Ohio, plus Ben Nelson of Nebraska) voted to put a major dent in our deficit and debt. And apparently no one will call them out for this blatant hypocrisy! Luckily, the amendment failed 40-57.

THE HOUSE: The House today overwhelmingly passed a bill that gives the newly formed Oil Spill commission full subpoena power. The only dissenting vote was from Ron Paul (R-TX). The House will take up the DISCLOSE Act, which sets new limits on campaign expenditures. We'll have more on that bill tomorrow.

CONFERENCE: House and Senate conferees are trying to finish negotiations on the Wall Street Reform bill, yet they're stuck on a few sticking points. House Democrats, led by the New York delegation and some moderates want to gut the language on derivatives offered by Senator Lincoln (D-AR). Removing this provision would be bad policy, and it also might jeopardize the bill's chances in the Senate. Meanwhile, Democrats have had to tread carefully in order to keep the votes of the four Republicans who supported the bill, Senators Brown (MA), Collins (ME), Grassley (IA) and Snowe (ME). Conferees will try to come to a conclusion by Friday so that final votes can be held in each chamber next week.

That's it for now, see you tomorrow!

The Daily Strike-6/22/10-Insubordination

2010-06-22T19:32:00.004-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Today was the first day in a long time that a news story other than the oil spill dominated Washington. I guess that's good?

MCCHRYSTAL: The top General in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, is in hot water, and for good reason. In an ill-advised interview to a freelance reporter with The Rolling Stone, McChrystal made a variety of disparaging comments about those above him in the chain of command. Among the targets of his criticism (some of it conveyed through aides), were President Obama, Vice President Biden, Ambassador to Afghanistan Elkenberry, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and National Security Advisor Jim Jones. McChrystal said that Obama was not prepared for their first meeting together, and that he came away from that meeting "unimpressed." He made some not-so-veiled references to his disagreements with Vice President Biden, who opposed the troop buildup. He referred to Jones as a "clown" stuck in the 1980's.

I'm not the type of guy who believes strongly in authority structures. That is, except when it comes to civilian control of the military. Civilian command of the military is fundamental to democracy. Commanders serve at the pleasure of the President, and expected to serve with nothing but honor and loyalty. If the General has a problem with someone, he must convey it privately, lest this sacrosanct chain of command be interrupted. By all measures, McChrystal should be fired. This, in fact, is an offense that can get you in trouble in military courts.

McChrystal has been criticized by pretty much everyone, including members of both parties, Defense Secretary Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, and late this afternoon, the President himself. Obama said that he is very disturbed by this interview, but that he wanted to talk with McChrystal by making any decisions. Rumor has it that McChrystal has put his resignation on the table, and it's up to Obama whether to accept it.

This isn't just about some stupid comments to a magazine. Obama can't let himself be bullied around by the military brass, like previous Democratic Presidents have been. Others have been afraid of standing up to military leaders because they think they'll be accused of being anti-military. McChrystal can't be allowed to get away with undermining the President. The President is counting on him to execute his strategy for Afghanistan, and he needs his full commitment and support. I hope McChrystal is no longer a commander by tomorrow.

OIL MORATORIUM: In more bad news for the White House today, a District Court judge filed an injunction against the administration's deepwater drilling moratorium. This is a horribly bad decision, because we need to figure out what went wrong and how to drill safely before we cause more damage to the environment. The judge who filed the injunction is a Reagan appointee who has a lot of stock invested in oil companies. Go figure. The administration is appealing the decision.

THE SENATE: The Senate is in a holding pattern as Democratic leaders try to figure out how to pass this long-stalled extenders package. I heard rumors this morning that Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) was ready to throw in the towel on this bill, which made me cringe. I read articles this afternoon, though, that indicated that Democrats are still trying to pass the bill, and are looking to negotiate with Maine moderates Snowe and Collins. The most likely concession would be cuts in Medicaid aid to states. Making devastating cuts out of vague concern for the deficit is short-sighted and nihilistic, but if it's the only way we can get unemployment benefits extended and other aid to state governments, then so be it. I'm just hoping they can get something done before the July 4th recess, which begins next Friday.

THE HOUSE: The House just dealt with some suspension bills today. Tomorrow, they will vote on a measure that would give the President's Oil Spill commission full subpoena power. On Thursday, they'll finally take up the DISCLOSE Act, the campaign finance bill we discussed yesterday. Sources say that Democrats should have enough votes to pass the bill when it comes to the floor.

That's it for tonight, see you tomorrow.

The Weekly Strike-6/21-6/27

2010-06-21T09:35:00.003-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. We hope you all had a great weekend and are ready to dive back into the depressing world of politics.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The President begins his week not with any of the myriad of issues on his plate, but rather by giving a speech in Ward 8 of Washington, DC on the importance of fatherhood. A similar speech he gave on Father's Day 2008, in Chicago, was one of my favorite of his speeches. At that point, I thought his challenge of deadbeat Dads could really help him break down the cultural divide that has killed Democrats for generations. I guess he's still trying.

Other than that, the President will hold a meeting Wednesday at the White House with members of both parties to discuss comprehensive energy legislation. The President is really trying to push something through by the end of the summer, but I just don't see that happening. For one thing, the Senate only has 30 days left in session before it's August recess, and it still must deal with the current extenders package, war funding, the Financial Regulation conference report, and the Elena Kagan nomination. The way the Senate works these days, I doubt they'll even be able to start consideration of a climate bill. Not to mention the fact that Democrats are nowhere near agreement on how to proceed.The lead negotiators of the bill, Senators Lieberman (CT) and Kerry (MA) both insist that some sort of bill that prices carbon is possible, but I just don't see where the 60 votes are. Republicans no matter what will insist that the bill represents a national energy tax, and coal state Democrats are happy to team up with their Republican rivals on this one.

This weekend, the President will travel to the G20 summit in Toronto, where he will discuss the global economy with world leaders. This will be his first meeting with the new Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Cameron, since Cameron assumed office last month.

THE SENATE: The Senate will start today with votes on three District Court nominees. These nominees are finally starting to move through the Senate after numerous Republican delay tactics. The Senate will then somehow try to finish work on the tax extenders bill, which includes an extension of unemployment insurance. Twice last week, the Senate failed to achieve cloture on two separate versions of the bill, so I guess they'll have to keep negotiating. I fear the fate of struggling Americans falls in the hands of moderate Republicans Snowe (ME), Collins (ME) and Brown (MA), who will be able to extract some serious concessions. I know I covered this extensively last week, but I'll reiterate how much of a shame it is that the Senate can't move this basic package of recession safety net programs. It's very easy to be obsessed with the deficit when you make a secure $150,000 a year, with a pension on the horizon, and you don't even know how to use an ATM card.

It's possible that the Senate will take up the conference report on Financial Regulation if conferees can finish their work this week. More likely, the bill will come up next week, or just after the July recess.

THE HOUSE: The House once again has a busy schedule. After dealing with suspension bills tomorrow and Wednesday, the House will try once again to take up the DISCLOSE Act, which sets new requirements for corporations donating to political campaigns. The bill had to be pulled last week after objections were made to a compromise made with the NRA that exempted the gun organization from the bill's regulations. Hopefully they'll work out this issue by the end of the week.

It's also possible that the House will take up the Senate-passed war funding bill. Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) has been trying to delay the bill until the Senate finishes its extenders package (good for him!). But if the Pentagon says they need money, they'll usually get it. What remains to be seen is whether Obey can succeed in adding funding for state and local governments to prevent layoffs to teachers and public service employees.

We may also see the House take up the conference report on the Iran sanctions bill, which is expected to get broad bipartisan support.

That's it for now, leave some comments!

The Daily Strike-6/17/10-Apologies

2010-06-17T19:17:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. There are a lot of serious issues out there right now, most notably the continuing negligence and contempt Congress is showing to the unemployed. But I'll devote tonight's entry to a story that will simply dominate a couple of news cycles.

BARTON: Yesterday, as we mentioned, President Obama was able to get BP to voluntarily put $20 billion into an escrow fund to compensate victims of the massive oil spill. Today, a key Republican reacted to that news by giving Democrats a major political gift. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), is the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. When it came time for Barton to give an opening statement at a hearing with BP CEO Tony Heyward, he condemned yesterday's deal as a "shakedown" and apologized to BP. Barton said, "I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown ."

Both Democrats and Republicans heavily criticized the remark for being extraordinarily tone-deaf and ludicrous. The fact that he is apologizing to the group that screwed up the livelihoods of millions of Americans, and not demanding that THEY apologize is pretty mind boggling. Yet, Barton seems to be reflecting the consensus opinion of many Republicans. Other GOP reps have called yesterday's deal "Chicago-style" deal-making and "redistribution of wealth." Part of it is that Republicans just want to find some way to blame this on President Obama. But a lot of it is that Republicans reflexively defend large corporations no matter how guilty they are.

Republican leaders threatened to remove Barton from his position if he did not retract his statements, and he did so this afternoon. But Democrats seem armed with new ammunition tying Republicans to one of the least popular corporations in the country right now. I'm sure they'll find some way to screw it up.

THE SENATE: This might be one of the worst days in Congress this year. We start in the Senate, where even after leaders paired down the tax extenders/unemployment bill, they failed to gain the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate. The final tally, which just came in a few minutes ago, was 56-40. Democrats had already decreased the unemployment benefits and had shortened an extension of the so-called "doc fix." The bill also had been stripped of COBRA benefits for laid off workers. Even with these revisions, they couldn't pass this bill. All in the midst of 9.7% unemployment. There's not much more to say on this other than that it disgusts me. The vote tally hasn't been published yet, but based on statements it looks like Senator Ben Nelson (NE) is the Democratic holdout. It's possible that there were a couple more. Of course, no Republicans came around to support this legislation, ostensibly because of misguided concerns about adding to the deficit in the short-term. Here's my Kanye moment: The Senate does not care about unemployed people.

I'm not sure what the future holds for this bill. They'll probably have to widdle it down even more to the point that it won't be effective. As of right now, no more votes are scheduled for this week. The general public won't know exactly why this bill got bottled up in Congress, so they'll blame the governing party, and will proceed to elect people who will absolutely never vote to extend unemployment benefits.

The Senate also rejected a Republican substitute that would have cut funding in the bill across the board and offset spending with unused stimulus money. The amendment failed 41-57 along party lines, though Nelson (NE) did vote with the GOP. I can't even talk about the Senate anymore, it makes me too angry.

(Late Edit: Senator Lieberman, one of the most hypocritical deficit hawks, also voted against the bill. I hate him.)

THE HOUSE: The situation in the House isn't much better. The House did finalize a second piece of legislation today designed to spur small business lending. The legislation was approved 241-181. 3 Republicans crossed over to vote yes, while 13 Democrats voted no. No matter what the legislation is these days, a certain group of conservative Democrats pretty much automatically vote against their party.

The House was scheduled to move next to the campaign finance bill sponsored by Reps. Van Hollen (D-MD) and Castle (R-DE). However, Speaker Pelosi was forced to withdraw the bill from the floor due to concerns from both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Blue Dogs. The CBC was upset that the NRA got a special carve out while groups like the NAACP would still be forced into new stringent disclosure requirements. Blue Dogs didn't want to vote for a bill that's opposed by so many key interest groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As a result, this bill will not come up until next week, at the earliest.

To put it mildly, this is not a day to be particularly proud of our democratic institutions.

The Daily Strike-6/16/10-Escrow

2010-06-16T18:53:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. I hope you caught the President's address last night. It has been pretty widely panned from both the left and the right in the last 24 hours, and I think rightly so. The President did not make a convincing case for energy reform. He did not go into specifics as to why we need to put a price on carbon. I had more thoughts on the speech in my Twitter feed, but for now, I'll get to the good news. Oh, and then I'll lay into the United States Senate for awhile.

ESCROW: The President won a pretty huge victory today when he got BP to agree to a $20 billion escrow fund to compensate victims of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The payments will be administered by Kenneth Feinberg, who was in charge of compensating victims of the September 11th attacks. BP, notably, will also suspend dividends to shareholders this year, and will throw down an additional $100 million to help oil workers hurt by the administration's 6 month moratorium on deep water drilling.

Besides actually stopping the spill, this is probably the best thing the President could have done. I bet he wishes he agreed to this deal yesterday. The only thing I'll say is that BP and the White House should have come to this agreement much sooner.

After announcing the agreement, the chairman of the BP board asserted that the company cares about "the small people." I probably would have phrased it just a bit differently. For his part, the President said that he asked shareholders to keep the victims in mind who have had their livelihoods completely destroyed.

It also seems like President Obama is finally starting outreach to key Senators as he tries to get momentum for some sort of climate bill. Today he met with Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts. I think the chances of actually getting a progressive climate bill this year, are unfortunately, very low.

THE SENATE: Oh, the United States Senate. I'm just not sure it could get much worse than this. Today, the Senate failed to cut off debate on the tax extenders bill, which includes unemployment benefits. This time, it wasn't even the filibuster that killed it. The bill only got 45 votes, with 52 voting no. 12 Democrats voted against giving people help during a deep recession, and it wasn't just moderates. Liberals such as Senators Feingold (WI), Kohl (WI) and Menendez (NJ) joined your usual cast of ConservaDems: Bayh (IN), Begich (AK), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT), McCaskill (MO), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), and Webb (VA). In order for the bill to pass, Democratic leaders will be forced to allay misguided concerns about the deficit. This means cutting unemployment benefits and aid to state governments. It is unconscienable that our Senate has become deficit-obsessed when we read stories daily about schools closing and people unable to find work. Ezra KIein writes up a phenomenal summation of the policy implications of this vote, which you can read here. I'll just add that it doesn't complete shock me that so many Senators voted no today. None of them have felt the brunt of this recession. They're all making six figures, and raking in donations from the financial industry. Their friends too are well-connected, as are those they spend most of their day with (staffers, donors etc.). It's becoming crystal clear that most Senators just don't care about bringing down the 9.7% unemployment rate. If it were about the deficit, these same Senators would have voted to eliminate oil subsidies, or would have raised taxes in corporate dividends. What we're seeing is just a fundamental failure of democracy.

The Senate did have time to vote on a couple of amendments to the bill. One by Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) extends the homebuyer's tax credit through the end of this year. A companion amendment from Senator Isakson (R-GA) that would have used stimulus money to pay for this extension narrowly failed.

THE HOUSE: The House continued work on the 2nd part of its Small Business package, which they'll wrap up tomorrow. I'm still not sure whether they'll get to the DISCLOSE Act this week. The Act, as we mentioned, would set new rules on campaign donations in response to this year's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.

I should also mention that House and Senate conferees continue to work out their differences on the Wall Street reform bill. It seems like things are moving along, and it still looks like we could get a vote in both chambers before the July 4th recess.

One complication, which absolutely amazes me, is that several New York Democrats are threatening to withhold their votes if reform becomes too stringent, especially on derivatives. As Rep. Joe Crowley said, " "Those of us in New York represent not only Main Street, but Wall Street, as well."

I guess that's today's Democratic Party. Fight tooth and nail to protect Wall Street, ignore the plight of the unemployed. Shoot me.

The Daily Strike-6/15/10-The Oval Office Address

2010-06-15T19:31:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. We're coming to you just before the President makes a nationally televised speech to the nation on the oil spill along the Gulf Coast. According to early reports, the President will talk about the administration's response to the spill, ongoing federal efforts to rebuild suffering industries what he plans to ask from BP executives at a meeting tomorrow. He's also likely to use the opportunity to call for comprehensive energy legislation before this year's midterm elections. The naysayers are rightly pointing out how much of an heavy lift this will be, but he might as well use this opportunity to go for bold change. To hear my thoughts on the speech in real time, follow my Twitter account. Here's the rest of the day in politics:

THE SENATE: The Senate continued work on the extenders bill (the bill that extends expiring tax breaks and unemployment insurance). Yesterday, Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) filed cloture on the bill, though he withdrew the motion today, most likely realizing that he doesn't have 60 votes to give basic safety net protection to millions of Americans during a recession. He will have to give in to the unreasonable demands of moderate Democrats and Republicans, and not surprisingly, he'll be dealing with the usual suspects, like Senators Nelson (D-NE), Snowe (R-ME) and Collins (R-ME). Until Reid can reach some sort of deal, the debate will continue indefinitely. While it continues, Senators will vote on amendments like they did today.

The first couple of amendments dealt with the oil spill issue. Senator Sanders (I-VT) wisely proposed removing millions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies. You'd think with all the deficit hawks in Congress, this would be a no-brainer. But you're forgetting that these self-proclaimed deficit hawks only care about spending when it goes to the poor or middle class! The amendment failed by a vote of 35-61. Every Republican voted against the amendment, as did the following corporate Democrats who have a lot of explaining to do: Akaka (HI), Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Begich (AK), Bennet (CO), Bingaman (NM), Conrad (ND), Dodd (CT), Dorgan (ND), Hagan (NC), Inouye (HI), Kerry (MA), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Tester (MT), Udall (CO), Udall (NM), Warner (VA) and Webb (VA).

Next was an amendment from Senator Vitter (R-LA) that would have sought to ensure that any revenues from the oil trust fund would be used to pay off the deficit and not go into any new spending. The amendment failed by a vote of 48-49, with Vitter getting the support of 9 Democrats.

The final amendment, from Senator Franken (D-MN) establishes a Office of the Homeowner Advocate for the purposes of informing people of their options under the Home Affordable Modification Program. The amendment passed 63-33, with the support of every Democrat besides Conrad (ND) and Nelson (NE). Republicans Brown (MA), Burr (NC), Collins (ME), Graham (SC), Grassley (IA), Murkowski (AK), Snowe (ME) and Vitter (LA).

The Senate also approved three District Court nominees today, which leaves about 30 seats vacant! Don't you just love the Senate?

THE HOUSE: The House today passed an important bill to spur small business lending by a vote of 247-170. 5 Republicans crossed over to support the bill, while 8 Democrats voted no, out of concern that the bill would add to the deficit. This is a pretty unambitious proposal to accelerate lending to business so that they can invest in capital. I'm surprised (sort of) that it faced such opposition.

More interesting, though, was the Republican motion to recommit that preceded the vote on final passage. Republicans used the motion to bring up a vote on whether to overturn the individual mandate in the new health care law. Republicans have been harping about the provision being unconstitutional and evil. Of course, by eliminating the individual mandate, the entire law would be undermined. Insurance prices would go up, because while companies would be required to cover people with preexisting conditions, healthy people would not be getting into the insurance pool. Republicans, though, were mostly interested in scoring a political point. And they did a pretty good job, on first glance. 21 Democrats crossed over to support repeal, all of whom voted against health care in the first place. Rep. Cao (R-LA) was the lone Republican voting no. Let's just hope that the 21 Democrats who voted yes today are the first to be defeated in this November's election. Here's the list in case you're interested: Altmire (PA), Boren (OK), Boucher (VA), Bright (AL), Chandler (KY), Childers (MS), Critz (PA), Davis (TN), Edwards (TX), Holden (PA), Marshall (GA), McIntyre (NC), Minnick (ID), Nye (VA), Peterson (MN), Ross (AR), Shuler (NC), Skelton (MO), Tanner (TN), Taylor (MS) and Teague (NM).

That's it for tonight. Head over to my Twitter account for my reaction to the speech.

The Weekly Strike-6/14-6/20

2010-06-14T09:05:00.003-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. It looks like this is the week President Obama will try to take full charge of the oil spill response. Let's get to the week in politics.

THE WHITE HOUSE: After facing complaints that he has been slow to react to the devastating oil spill in the gulf coast, the President this week will take matters into his own hands. Today and tomorrow, he will be traveling to the Gulf Coast states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana to again tour the devastation. When he returns, he will address the nation from the Oval Office, his first such address as President. There is no setting more Presidential than an Oval Office address, and it seems like President Obama wants to prove to the American people that he is ready to be a true leader in cleaning up this mess.

Along with the change of style, the administration is also pursuing a change in policy. The Obama administration will ask BP executives at a Wednesday meeting to set up an escrow account, worth up to $20 billion, to fully repay victims of the disaster. BP is publicly mum on whether they will accept this plan, but my guess is that they'll be publicly ho-hum, while fighting tooth-and-nail in private. I'm frankly more interested in what comes out of this meeting than I am with the President's speech tomorrow night. This is where we'll learn whether the Obama administration can get sucker-punch a corporation that has been thoroughly discredited in public.

I'm also pleased to see that the President is taking some leadership on the jobs issue. This Saturday night, Obama sent a letter to Congressional leaders asking them to approve $50 billion in emergency funding for states and localities to prevent layoffs to teachers, firefighters and policemen. It's unclear whether Democrats on Capital Hill can move this funding quickly. They'd probably have to include it in the current jobs legislation, now on the Senate floor, or as part of a larger war-funding measure. Nothing could do more immediately to stave off a double-dip recession than emergency spending to protect state employees. It may not make sense to brain-dead conservatives, but it's not exactly a great investment in our future when kids are forced to sit in classes with 100 other students, police forces can't protect neighborhoods, and thousands of workers don't have any money to spend.

This funding will be universally opposed by Republicans, who have taken up the mantle of deficit-peacocks this election season. The big problem, once again, will be Blue Dog Democrats, whose misguided concerns about the debt will lead them to oppose this common-sense jobs measure, which in turn will keep joblessness high and doom their chances for reelection. To win over some Blue Dogs, the best option might be to couple this emergency funding with steps two or three years down the road that reduce the deficit. This way, you can do something about the jobs situation now, but also improve our fiscal balance sheet in the long-term.

THE SENATE: The Senate this week will continue to slog through the bill to extend a variety of tax provisions, as well as long-term unemployment benefits. The bill has been hung up while Democrats seek to find spending offsets and make other changes. There will be no votes on the bill today or tomorrow, so the earliest we could see final action on this bill probably won't be until Thursday or Friday.

The Senate will also take up some District Court nominees tomorrow.

THE HOUSE: The House gavels in today for a busy week of work. After dealing with suspension bills today and tomorrow, the House will take up a measure designed to spur lending to small businesses. This is a bill pushed heavily by the White House in recent weeks. I expect the bill to pass, with little to no Republican support. I would love to see how they explain away this one!

The House also might take action on a couple of other key pieces of legislation. It's possible we could see consideration of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that would require corporations to stand by their advertisements of political candidates. This bill is in response to the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case. It's possible we could see the House take up the war-funding bill by the end of the week as well.

That's it for now, see you tonight!

The Daily Strike-6/10/10-Good Disaproval

2010-06-10T19:07:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Today may be the first day I'm legitimately excited that something failed in the 111th Congress. That's worth celebrating, I guess.

THE SENATE: By a vote of 47-53, the Senate failed to pass a GOP-sponsored resolution that would seek to prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, as it is now required to do under law. Ostensibly, the GOP (and their dirty Democratic allies) said that Congress should be in charge of regulating greenhouse gases, not EPA "bureaucrats." The problem is that no GOP Senator so far has signed on to any such piece of legislation. What they really want is for greenhouse gases NOT to be regulated at all. Essentially, this resolution is doing the bidding of the oil and coal industries.

Every single Republican voted for the resolution, which is discouraging, because we would need at least one of their votes to get a comprehensive energy bill that sets a price on carbon. Perhaps more encouraging were the "Dirty Half-Dozen" Democrats who voted yes, mostly to protect dirty industries in their home states. Here is the list of Democrats, so you can call and harass them: Bayh (IN), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), and Rockefeller (WV).

While I'm glad this resolution was defeated, the close vote shows that there simply isn't the will in Congress, even despite the oil spill. I don't know what kind of disaster will force our political leaders to address this dire problem, but I hope they do so before it is too late.

If Congress doesn't act by the end of this year, the Obama administration should take the political hit and regulate greenhouse gases through the EPA.

The Senate will move back to the tax extenders/unemployment bill next Tuesday. After all the extremely hard work they've done creating jobs, they deserve a four day weekend (I hope you know what I'm being sarcastic).

THE HOUSE: The House today passed a bill that reforms the Federal Housing Administration. The bill is designed, according to the Majority Whip's office: (a) to minimize the default risk to the MMIF and to homeowners; and (b) to meet the housing needs of the borrowers that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) single family program is designed to serve. The bill passed by an overwhelming margin of 406-4. No votes came from Republicans Broun (GA), Flake (AZ) and Paul (TX), as well as (somewhat questionably) Democrat Mike Honda (CA).

The House has adjourned for the week, and will take up a small business loan program and a separate small business tax credit bill when it returns next Tuesday.

THE WHITE HOUSE: For some reason, there has been a lot of conservative clamor recently about how President Obama hasn't met with BP CEO Tony Heyward to discuss the oil spill cleanup. Apparently, Obama has taken these complaints to heart. He will meet with Heyward at the White House next week, though I'm not quite sure exactly what the meeting will accomplish.

The President did meet today with families of those who died when the oil rig exploded in April. He offered his condolences and promised to do all he could to prevent such a disaster in the future.

That's it for today. We'll see you on Monday morning!

The Daily Strike-6/9/10-Election Redux

2010-06-09T19:34:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Primary election season is about half-way done, and it's been an interesting one. Let's get to it.

ELECTION: Last night, primary elections were held across the country, and there were more than a few notable races. The biggest disappointment of the night came in Arkansas, where incumbent Centrist Democrat Blanche Lincoln held off a challenge from the labor-backed Lt. Governor Bill Halter. I was rooting for Halter mostly because I think we should hold Democrats accountable who do the bidding of corporations. Lincoln has been a major thorn in the side of Democrats on almost every issue since President Obama took office (with the exception of her recent work on financial regulation). Truth be told, the election last night doesn't matter very much, because both candidates would lose big to Republican nominee Rep. John Boozman. I would be shocked of Boozman is not the next Senator from Arkansas.

In Nevada, Democrats have seemingly caught a pretty nice break. Republicans have nominated tea-party candidate Sharron Angle, who has all kinds of interesting views (she's against putting fluoride in our water supply) to run against Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV). Reid is very unpopular, and would lose to a decent Republican this year, but he may be saved by Angle's nuttiness. I have upgraded Reid's chances in our Senate Rankings to "Toss Up."

In California, two female former executives won big. Carly Fiorina, who left Hewlett Packard in disgrace and recently said that concerns about global warming are akin to "concerns about the weather" will face Senator Barbara Boxer. I think Boxer is a favorite against Fiorina, even though she's not rating very highly in the polls these days. Meg Whitman, formerly of EBAY, will run against Democratic Attorney General, and former Governor, Jerry Brown in the race for the statehouse. I believe Brown to be a slight favorite due to his name recognition, but Whitman is certainly capable of pouring millions of her own money into the race.

Out in South Carolina, there will be a runoff in the Republican race for Governor between Congressman Gresham Barrett (who voted for Tarp! Gasp!) and tea-party favorite Nikki Haley, who seems to have withstood a potential sex scandal. Haley was close to winning the race outright last night, and I would suspect that she'll route Barrett in the runoff.

In the night's only general election race, Republican Tom Graves won a House seat in Georgia, replacing Nathan Deal, who quit Congress to run for Governor. Graves was up against another Republican, as no Democrats were able to qualify for the runoff. Graves will take his seat this week, which will give Republicans 178 House seats (vs. 255 for the Democrats, with 2 vacancies).

I changed some election rankings on the right side of the screen after last night's results. Let me know what you think!

THE SENATE: The Senate, shockingly, is making progress on the long forestalled jobs bill that we've covered extensively on this blog. The bill would extend expiring tax breaks and unemployment benefits. The Senate version includes a reduction in a proposed tax on financial transactions, supplemented by a tax increase on oil companies. Today, the Senate voted on a several amendments to the bill.

The first amendment, offered by Senator Cardin (D-MD) would have allowed the children of those who work for the federal government to get access to their parents' health care until they are 26 (similar to the provision in the health care law). Apparently, Senators are wealthy enough that this benefit doesn't matter to them as much as it would say, to a janitor in some federal building. The amendment got 57 votes, three short of what it would have needed to overcome budget restrictions. All Republicans, as well as Senator Feingold (WI), voted no.

Senators killed two Republican amendments, one from Senator Roberts (KS) that would have exempted pediatric medical devices from the new tax on medical equipment, and another from Senator Cornyn that would have required more transparency into the holders of U.S. debt.

The most crucial amendment was offered by Senators Sessions (R-AL) and McCaskill (D-MO). It would freeze non-defense discretionary spending for three years, which goes beyond the proposed freeze offered by President Obama. The amendment failed to get the 60 votes needed to advance. The final tally was 57-41, with all Republicans and Democrats Bayh (IN), Begich (AK), Bennet (CO), Cantwell (WA), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Klobuchar (MN), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Nelson (NE), Nelson (FL), Shaheen (NH), Udall (CO), Warner (VA) and Webb (VA) voted yes.

The Senate will take an unfortunate break from this bill tomorrow while they consider an ill-advised resolution stripping the EPA from the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. We'll have more on that tomorrow. I hope President Obama takes a more active role in seeing this jobs bill through to its conclusion as soon as possible.

THE HOUSE: The House took a couple of procedural votes today relating to the upcoming House-Senate conference on the Wall Street reform legislation. Republicans offered a non-binding motion to instruct conferees that recommends the removal of a few Senate provisions, and asks that the bill be made available online 72 hours prior to a vote. The motion was rejected 198-217.

The House moves tomorrow to a bill reforming the Federal Housing Administration.

That's it for tonight. See you tomorrow!

The Daily Strike-6/8/10-Another Election Night And...Jobs

2010-06-08T19:38:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. We'll be keeping a close eye on the various primary elections taking place tonight. If you want my instant commentary and clever witticisms, you can check out the Twitter feed. Otherwise, we'll save our analysis when we know the results tomorrow night. Unfortunately for us on the East Coast, the really interesting results won't come in until after 10pm.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The President's marquee event today was a town hall with Senior Citizens near The Strike's old home in Wheaton, MD. The President tested out a new pitch today, arguing that if Republicans win this November, they will try and roll back the most popular elements, like ending the donut hole for prescription drugs for seniors, and tax breaks for small businesses. This strategy I think is a good one, because I still think people aren't aware of the immediate benefits of health reform. It also sets up a good contrast between Obama and the Republican alternative. It creates tangible consequences in voters' minds.

I wish President Obama would use these good political skills to help spur job creation. After last week's disappointing jobs numbers, it has become even more imperative that President Obama and Congressional Democrats beat back the conventional wisdom that we can't spend money to create jobs right now. The Big Picture and I had a long conversation about this yesterday, and we agreed that it's a major stain on Obama's Presidency. He has not made a single push for a stalled bill in Congress that would extend expiring tax breaks and unemployment insurance. He hasn't been out front about securing money to avoid layoffs to teachers. He hasn't talked at all recently either about near-term strategies for creating jobs (beyond small business tax cuts), nor on long-term strategies, like massive investments in clean energy. Luckily, left-wing activists have begun to put pressure on the administration on this issue. I think we all realize that Obama's presidency is doomed if the jobs picture doesn't improve markedly. The job situation is still dire, and we can't have a President who is willing to accept 10% of employment.

THE SENATE: The Senate today began consideration of the aforementioned tax extender/unemployment bill. The Senate will take up the House version of the bill (passed two weeks ago), but they will modify it significantly. Among the modifications are more money to states for Medicaid (Good), watering down the tax on financial transactions (Bad), and higher taxes on oil companies (Good). The Senate will start voting on amendments to the bill tomorrow.

THE HOUSE: It was just suspension bills in the House today, they'll get going on serious legislative business tomorrow.

That's it for us. See you tomorrow night! Leave comments!

The Weekly Strike-6/7-6/13

2010-06-07T16:14:00.000-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. We apologize for the delay in getting this posted, but there seems to have been a problem with Blogger this morning. Now, on to the week in politics.

THE WHITE HOUSE: Congress is back in session this week, but the political world’s collective minds will be focused on two things: how the President continues dealing with the oil spill and other crises, and some very important primary elections tomorrow night. Let’s start with the former. The President continues to put himself out there on the oil spill. Today, he holds a high profile meeting with his cabinet and Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen to discuss the latest efforts to mitigate the spill. I’ve tried to ignore the media obsession about whether President Obama is sufficiently angry about the spill, but I’m glad to see that he’s become more directly involved in the last week or so in coordinating cleanup efforts. It looks like the latest effort to cap the well has been partially successful, though stopping the spill completely probably won’t take place until August.

The President goes to Michigan this afternoon to speak a high school graduation ceremony at a school that won a “Race to the Top” grant for innovative, accountable education. Also on his schedule this week is a stop at a senior center in Wheaton, MD to talk about health reform. I’m sure he’ll address the story about how a startup insurance company in Virginia is closing because of the “uncertainty” caused by health insurance reform. Or maybe it’s that their company sucks and they’re looking for someone to blame.

The President will also be closely involved this week in trying to speed up conference negotiations on the Wall Street reform bill. The House is expected to name negotiators this week, and the conference is slated to start next week. President Obama wants to finish the bill before the G20 summit in Toronto at the end of the month, so that he can help promote U.S. initiatives to the global community. According to the New York Times, the top issues in conference will be the derivatives language authored by Senator Lincoln (AR), the so-called Volcker rule, and the interchange fees that retailers pay issuers of credit and debit cards.

ELECTIONS: Tomorrow night is election night, and there are some very interesting races happening all over the country. The most important, perhaps, is an Arkansas, where incumbent Senator Lincoln is locked in a tight primary runoff with Lt. Governor Bill Halter. Halter, buoyed by support from liberal groups and organized labor, has taken a small lead in the polls, and I expect him to win due to his more enthusiastic base. Lincoln would be the third incumbent Senator this year to lose a primary race for reelection.

In California, Republican voters will choose the nominees for Senator (to run against Barbara Boxer) and Governor. Odds are that the nods will go to Carly Fiorina, eccentric former head of Hewlett-Packard, and Meg Whitman, former CEO of EBAY. I think Boxer is hoping for the gaffe-prone Fiorina to win. It would be sweet for Boxer to beat someone this fall who dismisses global warming as “concerns about the weather.”

Over in Nevada, voters will choose the nominee to face Majority Leader Harry Reid in this November’s Senate elections. Reid has looked dead in the water for a long time, but he has seen a recent surge in the polls, which has been matched by the demise of his most well-funded challenger, Sue Lowden. Lowden has never recovered from her bizarre statement that people should barter with their doctors, and is now expected to lose to tea party favorite, and political novice Sharron Angle. I think Reid would be even money to beat an untested Angle in the fall, despite his unpopularity.

THE HOUSE: The House will deal with suspension bills starting tomorrow, with substantive legislation to come up later in the week. The House will vote on a bill to reform the Federal Housing Administration. That bill would increase the maximum premium to be paid by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to support troubled mortgages. The House also might take up a bill that would authorize new loans to small businesses. I expect both bills to face unanimous Republican opposition. The House still must consider a Senate-passed war funding bill in the next couple of weeks, but it is not yet on the floor schedule.

THE SENATE: The Senate will vote today on a few District Court nominees. Starting tomorrow, they will consider a Republican-sponsored resolution that would strip the EPA of its ability to regulate greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court has mandated that the EPA must establish rules to regulate these gases, but they have been hesitant to do so while Congress considers a comprehensive energy bill. The bill is being brought to the floor under the “Congressional Review Act,” meaning it can not be filibustered. Republicans, though, should not have enough votes to pass this misguided measure. I wish they would focus instead on passing a comprehensive energy bill, instead of actively trying to make things worse.

That’s it for today, we’ll see you for a brief entry tonight!

The Daily Strike-6/4/10-Fake Scandals

2010-06-03T18:51:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. It was a slow news day, which seems amazing given the breadth of crises we're facing these days. I can tell you that Obama is traveling to India in November, and that BP has apparently successfully sliced the pipe in its latest effort to do something or other.

SCANDAL: There has been an alarming amount of DC chatter about two "scandals" that actually are nothing at all. President Obama floated potential job offers to both Rep. Joe Sestak (PA) and State House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (CO) to get them to avoid challenging incumbent Democrats in this year's Senate primaries. Even if this was something Bush did, I would never have thought of it as a big deal. It seems perfectly normal, if somewhat unethical, that a President would try to make a deal to avoid a divisive primary. The top Republican on the House Government Reform committee, who would become chairman if the GOP retakes the House this November, is repeatedly calling for investigations and special prosecutors, and the press is eating it up. It's pretty difficult to watch.

I will say this though: the President's strategy absolutely worked. He pledged loyalty to current Senators in exchange for their support for key pieces of legislation. I'm not sure that Senators Specter (PA) and Bennet (CO) would have been such staunch Obama supporters if they weren't depending on White House support. Thankfully, the President wasn't able to knock any of these primary challengers out of their races. This forced the current Senators to court their base, and thus pushed them leftward. Put simply, loyalty is a good political strategy, and so is pressure from the base!

THE WHITE HOUSE: The President today met with one of his political adversaries, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona. The two of them reportedly did not spend much time discussing Arizona's new immigration law, though President Obama did pledge to send troops to protect the Arizona border. Brewer described the meeting as cordial.

The President also went to two separate events today at each of his daugther's schools. Isn't he such a good Dad?

That's it for now. On a personal note, we are very proud here of Mother Strike, who will be hosting and introducing the House Speaker at an event tomorrow in San Francisco.

The Daily Strike-6/2/10-Campaign Speech

2010-06-02T18:52:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Excuse no entry last night, but I should get a pass for my birthday. It's also a Congressional recess, so things are a bit slow this week.

SPEECH: President Obama gave what amounted to his first speech of the 2010 midterm election campaign. The speech was a robust defense of his accomplishments, and a sharp critique of the Republican party. He noted that change can be scary, but it is necessary given the magnitude of the problems we face. He talked about how Republicans have reflexively opposed everything he's done in the last year, even things they should be supporting like small business tax breaks. It comes from, Obama said, a worldview that government should have little or no role in our lives. He mentioned all of the government programs that give the American people more "prosperity and security" like Social Security, Medicare and the FDIC. He also used the oil spill as a rally call for a comprehensive energy plan.

This is more like it! The President finally is explaining his governing philosophy, and what his ultimate goal is: giving families security to allow them to pursue their dreams. I'm just afraid that he's been too caught up in the mire of other issues recently (not completely his fault) like the oil spill, and recent international conflicts for this speech to gain any immediate attention among the electorate. He will have to sustain this message through November, and he has to get every Democrat on board. Only by making a sustained, persuasive case for why we need government to help solve our most pressing problems will the Obama truly be a transformative President.

PRIMARY OBSERVATIONS: I was particularly pleased with the results of two primary elections last night in Alabama. In the Governor's race, Rep. Artur Davis, an African American Congressman got trounced in the Democratic primary by Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks (who is white). Davis ran a positively stupid campaign. He blew off Alabama's African American leaders because he wanted to appeal to white voters, but in doing so, he alienated his potential base. He also came out strongly against President Obama's health care plan. It was a position against not only the popular opinion of his poor, black Congressional district, but also the district's interests. It was a shallow political calculation. Sparks, on the other hand, came out strongly in support of not only the health care bill, but the public option. He also won the endorsement of the state's African American groups. Sparks ended up carrying all of the majority-black counties in the state. This is a great lesson that you can't abandon your base, and you can't start campaigning for a general election until you make it through the primary. It's also a strong rebuke to Davis' anti-health care stance among the Democratic electorate of Alabama. His position was particularly irritating, because it forced Democrats to pry away other votes from more conservative members.

In Alabama's 5th Congressional District, party-switching Republican Rep. Parker Griffith lost by a wide margin in his primary election. He wasn't even able to force the leading candidate into a runoff. Switching parties can get you the support of the Washington political establishment, but it doesn't reflect well to voters, who are good at spotting political opportunists.

That's it for tonight, we'll see you tomorrow!

The Weekly Strike-6/1-6/6

2010-06-01T09:17:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Weekly Strike, where we preview the week in politics. Congress is out of session, and that's very unfortunate if you are a) unemployed, b) without health insurance or c) a doctor who treats Medicare patients. Because Congress didn't act, all of these people will be facing a pretty tough week. But fear not, at least you can read my blog.

THE WHITE HOUSE: All of the action this week will be at the White House, where President Obama is dealing with quite a myriad of problems. First and foremost is the continuing devastation of the oil spill in the Gulf. After this week's "Top Kill" operation failed, BP and the administration are looking for answers. I think it's about time President Obama take on a larger role. Today, he meets with the head of the newly formed oil spill commission at the White House. Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder is headed down to the Gulf Coast to survey the scene. There are reports that the administration could be considering law suits against BP for malfeasance. I hope, if only for political reasons, that the administration goes down this path.

The tragedy about this situation is that BP has been an utter failure at stopping the spill, yet they are the only ones who have the access and machinery to fix the problem. I think the government needs to come in and take over the operation. This is a great lesson, though, in our economic system. BP gets all the rewards of massive profits by drilling in the gulf, yet the risk is socialized, with the after effects wreaking havoc on a large part of the country. Even if BP accepts full liability, which so far doesn't seem too likely, the economic and environmental damage will be with us for years to come.

The President also must deal with another crisis in the Middle East. This weekend, Israeli forces stopped a Flotilla, which was bringing supplies to Gaza. The Flotilla was full of Turkish and European activists, who apparently set up the high profile confrontation to gain some publicity for their cause. This does NOT excuse the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces, which reacted to a minor provocation with violence, reportedly killing 11 people in the process. President Obama wants to patch up our somewhat strained relationship with Israel, but he needs to come out against this abhorrent behavior forcefully.

RECESS: I'll also be looking this week to see how the Congressional recess goes for members traveling back home. I don't expect any town hall style outbursts, mostly because the health care issue is settled. I do expect some tough questioning for Democratic members, especially from older, white constituents. Democrats have been instructed to highlight the instant benefits of the health care law to seniors. They've also been told to highlight contrasts with their Republican opponents, especially on the economy. If Democrats are to have any success this year (success is defined as not losing a catastrophic number of seats), they will need the help of all candidates in crafting a narrative. The narrative has to highlight how the Democrats brought the economy back from the brink, while the Republicans who drove us into the ditch just want to sit back and blame others. If Democrats try to throw each other on the bus by saying "I stood up to my party and voted against" this or that, they'll fall as one.

That's it for now. See you tonight!

The Daily Strike-5/28/10-Getting Out of Town/DADT

2010-05-28T18:29:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. I will not be talking about the media-generated fake Joe Sestak scandal. Nor will I talk about President Obama's visit to the Gulf Coast. A few items of note after we left you last night:

DADT: It turned out to be a monumental night in the House of Representatives Thursday. The House passed an amendment offered by Iraq War Veteran Patrick Murphy (D-PA) that rescinds the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, effective after the Pentagon finishes its review of the proposed changes. With a similarly positive vote in the Senate Armed Services committee last night, it's looking more and more likely that the policy will be overturned, which is a major victory for the LGBT community.

The vote last night was 234-194. Non-member delegates (from DC, Guam etc.) were allowed to vote since it was an amendment. Every Republican opposed the amendment, except for Reps. Biggert (IL), Cao (LA), Djou (HI), Paul (TX) and Ros-Lehtinen (FL). The only real surprise there is Paul, who as recently as last year was supportive of DADT. Ros-Lehtinen is an otherwise conservative member who has always been supportive of gay rights. Djou cast his first controversial vote in Congress by voting with the Democrats.

Here is the list of Democrats who voted in opposition. It reads like your average Blue Dog roster:

Berry (AR), Bishop (GA), Boucher (VA), Bright (AL), Carney (PA), Childers (MS), Costello (IL), Critz (PA), Davis (TN), Donnelly (IN), Edwards (TX), Etheridge (NC), Gene Green (TX), Lipinski (IL), Marshall (GA), McIntyre (NC), Ortiz (TX), Peterson (MN), Rahall (WV), Ross (AR), Shuler (NC), Skelton (MO), Spratt (SC), Tanner (TN) and Taylor (MS).

The full bill, which authorizes defense programs for next year, passed later today by a vote of 229-186, with 9 Republicans voting yes and 26 Democrats voting no (mostly because of the DADT amendment). The one part of the bill I'm not happy with is additional funding for the unnecessary F-35 fighter jets. Obama has threatened to veto any bill that contains that program, and rightly so. It amazes me that 100 Democrats, many of whom were crying about deficit spending for unemployment benefits, wouldn't vote to cut an expensive, unnecessary defense program.

JOBS BILL: The House was finally able to agree on a jobs bill, though it was drastically scaled down to appease the misplaced worries of deficit hawks. The bill extends expiring tax provisions and unemployment insurance through the end of the year. It also includes the so-called "doc fix." What's extremely unfortunate is that leaders took out expanded Medicaid funding for states, as well as an extension of COBRA health insurance. Critical programs that will give struggling Americans needed security in trying times was cut just to appease some faux deficit hawks. The bill was passed in two parts, by votes of 215-204 and 245-171.

Despite promising that the Senate would stay in session to complete the jobs bill, Majority Leader Reid decided to let members skip town yesterday. This means that unemployment benefits will expire for some at the beginning of next week. Pretty disgusting.

The House also finally passed a bill that funds math and science education, the America COMPETES Act by a vote of 262-150. All no votes came from Republicans. This was the bill that had been held up because of a Republican poison pill porn amendment.

That's it for now, have a great holiday weekend! And see you Tuesday!

The Daily Strike-5/27/10-Letting Down the Struggling American Family

2010-05-27T18:34:00.004-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. It was a very busy day in politics, so let's get right to it.

PRESS CONFERENCE: The President held his first open press conference in about 10 months today at the White House. President Obama wanted to show the media and the American people that he is on top of the response to the oil spill in the gulf. The President was adamant that he takes full responsibility for some of the government's missteps, including initially giving too much trust and authority to BP in the aftermath of the disaster. He even tried to insert some emotion into the press conference by saying that he is angered by the spill, and has even talked to his daughter about it. The President also addressed questions on Afghanistan (from Helen Thomas), on the supposed scandal about offering Joe Sestak a job if he would leave the Pennsylvania Senate race, and a variety of other topics.

I still think the President needs to be more forceful in turning this oil spill to force a change in our energy policy. The enemy here isn't necessarily just BP, but rather our addiction to foreign oil. Obama is not drawing the connection, and he should be. Having said that, those who are suggesting that this is "Obama's Katrina," as are many in the mainstream media, are absolutely full of themselves. The difference between this spill and Katrina is that during Katrina, people were starving and dying by the thousands in a major American city while the federal government offered virtually no help. The oil spill is an environmental disaster that shouldn't be minimized, but it is not a Katrina.

DYING JOBS BILL: Democrats in Congress are not doing the people's work, and I believe they will get punished for it. House leaders were unable to corral the votes for even a scaled-down version of a jobs bill that extends expiring tax breaks, as well as unemployment and COBRA insurance. The usual suspects are at play here. The Blue Dog Coalition won't agree to the bill because they're concerned about how much it will add to the deficit. I wrote about this extensively yesterday; I just find that reasoning so shameful.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) had said that he would wait for the House to act before the Senate goes on recess. It looks like Reid is abandoning that plan. Senate Democrats instead might try to pass a temporary extension of benefits for the next couple of weeks until Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess. I'll note again that President Obama has made absolutely no push for this measure, which is inexcusable given its policy importance and political importance. He could have drawn a great contrast between those who want to help people hurt by the recession, and those who want to adhere to a strict ideology, but he completely missed that opportunity.

THE SENATE: Despite deficit concerns, the Senate of course was still able to pass an $80 billion war funding measure. Cloture was invoked on the bill today by a vote of 69-29, with "no" votes coming from Republicans and anti-war Democrat Russ Feingold (WI). Prior to a vote on final passage, Democrats were able to beat back three separate Republican amendments to add more National Guard troops to the Arizona border. Democrats also united to defeat a Coburn (OK) amendment that would have required the money to be offset using unused stimulus funds. The vote on that amendment was 45-53, with Democrats Bayh (IN), Kohl (WI), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO) and Nelson (NE) voting yes.

The Senate soundly defeated an amendment that would call for a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan. The amendment, offered by Feingold, only got 18 votes. It seems like Congress by and large is patient with the President's strategy in Afghanistan.

THE HOUSE: The House has spent the day working on the Defense Authorization Bill, which sets policy guidelines for the Pentagon. The big amendment will be the DADT amendment, offered by Rep. Murphy (D-PA). Speaker Pelosi has expressed confidence that the amendment will pass. I expect the vote to occur some time late this evening. Because Republicans are so adamantly opposed to the amendment, I expect them to vote against the bill en masse.

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 today to rescind the ban on gays in the military, so it looks like this actually has a chance of happening this year. Every Democrat on the committee voted yes, except for Senator Webb (VA), and every Republican voted no, except for Senator Collins (ME).

That's it for tonight. Call your Congressman and tell them to pass a jobs bill!

The Daily Strike-5/26/10-Destructive Deficit Obsession

2010-05-26T18:52:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. It seems like the Gulf oil spill is still dominating the news. Right now, they are apparently trying out the "top kill" strategy, which consists of something I don't have the capacity to understand. It's a great name though. I think President Obama's response to the spill has been less than exemplary, mostly because he hasn't kept consistent pressure on BP, he hasn't been a forceful advocate of raising the liability cap for BP, and he still insists on offshore drilling as a viable policy. But we'll save that discussion for another day.

JOBS BILL: House Democrats had to postpone consideration of a large jobs measure because of concerns from members of their own caucus. As you know, the bill contains a package of extensions to expiring tax cuts, plus extensions to unemployment and COBRA, safety net programs which have been proven to be stimulative. Conservative Democrats in the House are upset because even though part of the bill is paid for by new fees on financial transactions (which is great), much of the spending will increase the federal deficit. These deficit fears are fundamentally misguided and wrong, and it's painful to see in the Democratic party.

First of all, the best way to decrease the deficit is to get the economy moving, get people working, and get tax dollars flowing to all levels of government. We can only do that if we add demand into the economy, which this bill does. Second of all, opposing this bill is a massive political loser. People may say they care about the deficit, but concerns about the deficit really are underlying concerns about the economy and jobs. Do Democrats really think that if they allow people's unemployment benefits to expire, they'll be ok with it because the deficit went down .0001%? I don't think so.

This is a failure of leadership from every corner of the Democratic party. The President has not been forceful in explaining why we need to continue using fiscal policy to sustain our recovery. He has not publicly advocated for this bill at all. House and Senate Democrats are playing chicken with each other because they aren't sure if the other chamber will go along with whatever passes. Somebody has to show some leadership and get this bill passed before next week, when benefits will run out for millions of Americans.

As a result of the delay on this bill, there was little action on the floor of either the House or Senate today. The House just dealt with a few suspension bills, while the Senate debated a separate war funding bill. Speaking of that war funding bill, the Obama White House has sent frustratingly mixed signals as to whether they support attaching emergency funding for teachers to the bill. Yet another issue on which I think President Obama needs to show a little courage and resolve.

DADT: There haven't been any votes in Congress yet this week on whether to overturn the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. But we did get some good news today, as Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), hardly anyone's favorite progressive, came out in favor of the compromise proposal to undue the 17 year old law. His vote could be key to insuring the repeal's inclusion in this year's Defense Authorization Bill, which will hit the House floor tomorrow.

That's it for today, we'll see you again tomorrow!

The Daily Strike-5/25/10-Frank Meeting

2010-05-25T18:31:00.004-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Make sure you catch up on The Big Picture's entry on the Democrats' missed opportunities. It is a tough read, but I think very prescient.

MEETING: Today, President Obama met with the Senate Republican Conference to discuss areas they can work together in the coming year. It seems like the meeting got pretty contentious. Republican Senator Bob Corker (TN) apparently confronted Obama for preaching about bipartisanship while undercutting bipartisan negotiations on financial reform. To Obama's credit, I think Corker has a point. The Democrats abandoned broad bipartisan negotiations in order to make the bill stronger. Of course, it's still not strong enough, but it's better than it would have been if we had watered it down for the likes of Bob Corker. Obama also asked for Republicans' help in passing a supplemental war funding bill this week. On this measure, I expect him to get some support.

I think the relationship between Obama and Senate Republicans is a lost cause, and thus it doesn't make sense for Obama to attempt any outreach. He has been rebuffed too many times. While he still has large Democratic majorities, he should focus on governing.

LEGISLATIVE WRANGLING: There wasn't much action on the floors of either House of Congress today, though negotiations/bickering on a couple of issues ensued. Democrats and the administration announced a deal that would allow for a near repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as part of this year's Defense Authorization Bill. The Pentagon signed off on the compromise, even though it is currently conducting a "study" on the matter. Democrats picked up the support of GOP Senator Susan Collins (ME) today, but they still probably aren't close to 60 votes that they'd need to advance the amendment in the Senate.

On the seemingly never-ending oil spill in the gulf, President Obama is amping up the pressure on BP, and the Republicans are trying to lay the blame on Obama. Senate Democrats have tried numerous times to pass a bill that would raise the liability cap for BP, but Republicans have, as I would have expected, every single time.

And on the issue of immigration, the President announced today that he will send an additional 1,200 national guard troops to protect the border in Arizona. This was met with tepid approval by Republicans, who demanded that Obama send even more troops. Apparently, John McCain was especially testy on this issue during the Obama/Republican luncheon. I'm sure it has nothing to do with his primary challenge from former Rep. J.D. Hayworth.

ON THE FLOOR: On the Senate floor, Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) has filed cloture on the emergency war funding bill. There are several amendments pending, and many of them will get votes in the next couple of days. Some of them deal with contentious issues like secret holds, border security and a drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. We'll keep an eye on amendment votes.

Over in the House, it was just suspension bills today. They'll start their busy legislative week in earnest tomorrow.

That's it for now, leave comments!

The Democrats' (Intentionally) Blown Opportunity

2010-05-24T20:44:00.005-04:00

When Barack Obama was inaugurated last year, he enjoyed the extremely rare benefits of the Three Big Truths of early '09 - broad and deep personal support, broad and deep rejection of George W. Bush and the Republican Party, and the economic crisis seeming to shatter conventional economic wisdom. He should have done a much better job of persuading the American people that the Great Recession was caused by corporate power and economic libertarianism run amok. He needed to convince people that the pro-corporate, neoliberal policy agenda of the previous three decades was why they were either losing their job or in danger of losing it, why they were losing their health insurance or were in danger of losing it, why their kids couldn't afford college, why their wages weren't covering bills and they kept falling further behind and going into debt. He should have explained that transferring our society's resources from long-term investments in opportunity and security for most Americans to short-term windfalls for the top 1% was why most people were struggling. More, he needed to say that it didn't have to be this way, and showed people in a clear and compelling way why we needed to deficit-spend to invest in jobs and health care and education and green energy, and that we needed to cut corporate power down to a size where it could be managed and was not so destructive. With his personal popularity high, people eager for a new direction, and a 60-vote majority in the Senate, Obama could have done what needed to be done if he persuasively argued these things, who convinced people why deficits-for-jobs was the smart move for them. Yes the Obama Presidency has rung up a number of achievements, but what really matters is how that stacks up to what a) needs to be done, and b) could have been done if he had been a better and bolder persuader.

The bittersweet thing about being a liberal is that even when you lose the argument and the policy goes the wrong way, you're going to soon get another chance because that wrong policy will have failed and there will be an opportunity to explain the cause of the failure and why our way will make them better. In the last couple months, there have been plenty of opportunities for Obama to make up for much of failure of persuasion in '09. The criminal double-dealings of Goldman Sachs, in combination with the ugly contrast between the incredible profits of Wall Street giants even as most Americans are struggling - these events provided a golden opportunity for Obama to crusade against Wall Street and its entire culture, and cut it down to size. This was the perfect opportunity to expose why Wall Street's practices and incentive structures are terribly damaging to most of America and to the long term future of most of us. Obama had all the evidence there to make a compelling case that the financial industry was too big and powerful, and that the incentives of quarterly profits above all else was so distorting our priorities that they were stifling the "New Foundation". Most convincingly, he could have showed that unemployment, loss of pension, and foreclosures were caused by the power and interests of Wall Street, and the only way to solve these problems, to make people's lives more secure and less painful, was to break up the big banks, to end the Finance Above All culture. But Obama did nothing of the sort. Many others like Robert Reich have pointed out the substantive flaws in his approach, but it's also very dispiriting to recognize that this golden opportunity to expose how damaging Wall Street is to most Americans, and how it could be fixed, was lost.

Similarly, the coal miners' deaths in West Virginia and the BP Oil Spill have been devastating textbook example of why the pro-corporate, libertarian agenda is actively destructive to people's lives. Obama should have used the corporations' responsiblity for death and destruction as emotionally compelling evidence to persuade people that these corporations have too much political and economic power and need to be reined in. These disasters also show that the de-regulatory libertarianism that sounds so good in theory is, in practice, homicidal. The equation is simple: weak government = mine collapse/oil spill, death, horrible economic consequences. strong government = no death, no horrible economic consequences.

Additionally, both of these disasters provided an incredible opportunity to create momentum for addressing climate change and green energy. Obama should have shown how our addiction to fossil fuels, and the government's aiding and abetting that addiction, was responsible for this horrible death and destruction. As fossil fuels get scarcer and scarcer, we will need to make ever more dangerous and risky efforts to extract them, and these kind of disasters become more and more likely. Obama should have used these disasters to expose this fact, and to say that we HAVE to quickly switch to green energy. It's not too far a jump to say that we need to invest in better infrastructure. Finally, this can be tied back to jobs - we need to create good jobs in green energy and good infrastructure. That's where the millions of missing jobs will come from.

A great way to make these arguments is to put the other side on the defensive. Force Wall Street to justify its existence and its power, in the face of all the evidence of its destructiveness. Force the libertarians to explain how they can oppose government, in the face of the evidence that strong government is the difference between life and death. Force the fossil fuel companies to explain how we can continue with the status quo when we see the horrible consequences, and when there are clearly good alternatives. Force all the born-again deficit hawks to explain what they plan to do about the millions of missing jobs, to show that they have a better plan.

Making this case is not just about a change in content but in tone and in pace. They have to always be on the defensive, never able to catch their breath, while we continue to make our positive case, blanket the country with it, and give no time or space for the defenders of the status to come up with their typical specious counter-arguments or more likely distractions. When you're debating with someone and you have the better argument, the only way to blow that is to allow the other person a lot of time and to let him make a bunch of distracting points. You win by leaping at the opportunity and pressing on with the force of your argument relentlessly until the other side is completely discredited and loses its power.

It's hard to believe that Barack Obama and the Democrats aren't aware of all these blown opportunities, and aren't aware that the way to actually make change is to relentless pursue victory rather than the slack passive style he engages in. Nevertheless they continue the same mediocre style, settling for small victories when the big substantive victories, that could actually change society and people's fundamentals views, are left on the table, achievable but not even attempted. So that makes me question Obama's motives and how much he actually WANTS to see changed. We knew that he was a moderate in the sense of his willingness to compromise, his belief that change is accomplished through conciliation rather than conflict. All of that is acceptable and even good as long as he actually wants to solve the gigantic problems we face, and thinks that the moderate strategy is the best way to get there. But when golden opportunities to fix problems are consistently blown, I have question whether he believes in even trying to solve the huge problems. Many people say that Obama can't be FDR or LBJ because of Congress or the media or the deficit or other reasons. But when he doesn't take advantage of opportunities, it seems increasingly clear that Obama does not WANT to be FDR or LBJ even when he can. I have shed the illusions that I had about him and his motives and goals. I thought he was not of the Conventional Wisdom crowd, but it seems that he is.

The Daily Strike-5/24/10-Finishing Touches

2010-05-24T19:42:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. We'll keep this very brief, since I just wrote the Weekly Strike a few hours ago. I'm also fairly hopeful we'll see a Big Picture entry in the near future.

THE SENATE: The Senate took a couple final votes today on non-binding "Motions to Instruct Conferees" in the financial regulation bill. These suggestions won't actually influence conference negotiations on the bill, but they are an opportunity for Senators to register views on various issues.

The first vote was on a motion offered by Senator Hutchison (R-TX) would protect the military from new rules on proprietary trading. Not a lot of people vote against the military, so the motion passed 87-4. Only Democrats Cantwell (WA), Feingold (WI), Independent Sanders (VT) and Republican Bunning (R-KY) voted no.

Next was a motion from Senator Brownback that would exempt auto companies from some of the regulations in this bill. I'm sympathetic to the auto industry, but it's a slipper slope before we start allowing exemptions for all kinds of industries. The motion carried 60-30, with all no votes coming from Democrats.

That's it for now, we'll see you tomorrow.

The Weekly Strike-5/24-5/29

2010-05-24T12:22:00.002-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Daily Strike. Lady Strike and I are pretty much all moved in, so I can report back for blog duty.

BUSY WEEK IN CONGRESS: This is going to be a busy week in Congress, and the issues debated will be contentious, and at points, bitterly ideological. Before next week's Memorial Day recess, Congress must deal with two spending bills. The first will fund continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Liberal Democrats, in the House especially, do not want to vote for this (rightly, of course). This means that Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid will need to get some significant Republican support. This could be difficult though, because the administration has requested funding for laid off teachers to be attached to the war spending bill. I'm not entirely sure where the votes would be for both of those items, quite frankly. The bill will start in the United States Senate, where the teacher funding will be debated as an amendment. Sources say that the amendment has no chance of passing. Of COURSE it is ok to funnel billions of dollars a year to never-ending wars, but not ok to prevent massive layoffs to teachers that will destroy this country's future.

There's also the question of whether to pay for the war funding. Most members think it is acceptable to pay for wars through deficit spending, though fiscal hawks like Senator Coburn (R-OK) will try to find ways to pay for the bill. I don't anticipate any of his ideas passing muster with the full Senate, but he could be successful at delaying the process to the end of the week. When all is said and done, I expect the war funding to be approved by both Houses in the Friday/Saturday range.

Before the Senate takes up the war funding bill, they'll vote on some non-binding motions to instruct conferees on the recently passed financial reform measure. We'll have more details on those motions this evening.

The House will have its busiest work week in months, even before they get to the war funding measure. After suspension bills today and tomorrow, the House will take up amendments to a Senate-passed bill that extends expiring tax breaks and unemployment/COBRA benefits through the end of the year. The bill also includes a 5 year "doc fix" that will fix payment rates to Medicare physicians. The bill will probably pass by a very narrow margin, because many House Democrats have deficit-itis and don't want to vote even for crucial safety net measures if it is not paid for. Only part of the bill is paid for, most of it is designated as "emergency spending." I'm fairly certain that every Republican will oppose this measure. If Democrats had any political courage, they would chastise Republicans for cutting off your unemployment insurance during a recession. But I bet most of the conversation this week instead will be about how much this bill adds to the deficit. I hope and pray that the Senate takes up the bill before the end of the week, but I'm afraid it might wait to weigh in until after the Memorial Day recess.

Next up for the House will be the Defense Authorization bill, which will set policies for the Pentagon in Fiscal Year 2011. Isn't there some defense policy that is particularly controversial? Oh yes, the gays! Democrat Patrick Murphy (D-PA) will try to include an amendment to repeal the 1993 Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy when this bill comes up for a vote. I'm not sure whether Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, will have the votes, but I sure hope he does. It would help if the administration was more supportive of the effort to repeal DADT, but instead they've been sending mixed signals.

The House will also try go vote on a stalled bill that authorizes funding for science and math education. The bill has been held up because Republicans have tried to include an unrelated "porn" amendment. If the House is waiting around for the Senate to finish its work, it may even take up the DISCLOSE Act, which would put new regulations on campaign spending. The DISCLOSE Act is a response to this year's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.

We'll keep you up-to-date on these important pieces of legislation. The House will also swear in its newest member this week. Charles Djou, a Republican, was elected to finish the term of Rep. Neil Abercrombie in Hawaii's 1st District. Djou only got 39% of the vote, but because there was no primary election, he was up against two opponents who split the Democratic vote. There are now 432 members of the House, with vacancies in New York (Massa, the tickler), Georgia (where Nathan Deal is running for Governor) and Indiana (Souder, the philanderer). With Djou's victory, the Republicans now control 177 seats, the Democrats 255.

The President will be keeping an eye on this legislative action, though today he is holding a series of meetings relating to the aftermath of the BP oil spill.

That's it for now, see you tonight!

The Daily Strike-5/20/10-Senate Passes Wall Street Reform

2010-05-20T18:19:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Lots of news to get to today, and yes, I promise I'll talk about crazy Rand Paul.

FINANCIAL REFORM: President Obama is on the verge of another major policy accomplishment. This evening, the Senate passed by a vote of 59-39 a relatively strong Wall Street reform bill. A conference with the House is expected to take place in the next few weeks, and insiders say that Obama should get a bill to his desk by July 4th.

The most important vote, to cut off debate on the bill, took place this afternoon. After yesterday's vote, Senator Reid was two votes shy of invoking cloture. Senator Specter was absent, so his presence today brought leaders one step closer. The final vote came from a most unlikely source: new Republican Senator Scott Brown (MA). Brown had previously indicated to Reid that he would support cutting off debate, but then he voted against the Majority Leader at the last second. Brown's concerns were apparently assuaged before today's vote. Just like yesterday, two liberal Democrats voted against cloture: Senators Feingold (WI) and Cantwell (WA).

Unlike previous legislation, this bill has gotten stronger through the amendment process. I'm not happy that it doesn't have a consumer protection agency independent of the Federal Reserve. I also am unhappy that it won't include the most ambitious amendments, like the Volcker rule (Merkley-Levin hasn't yet come up for a vote) or a full reinstatement of Glass-Stegall restrictions. But like other pieces of legislation passed during the Obama presidency, it marks a giant step forward in reigning in the excesses of the financial industry, when all government has done in the past 30 years is propagate those excesses. Perhaps what makes me most pleased is that, for once, lobbyists for the financial industry are not happy. Their unhappiness brings me immense joy.

As with most pieces of legislation these days, I expect the final package to look a lot more like what the Senate just passed than what the House approved last December. That means, for instance, no independent Consumer Protection Agency, but stronger regulation of derivatives.

The Senate will now move on to consider an emergency bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama had promised that he would include money for the wars in his regular budget, but that didn't happen, so this money still gets the "emergency" designation. As a result, the spending is not paid for. This should cause a problem with fiscal hawks like Senator Coburn (R-OK), who is planning to filibuster the bill. I also expect some opposition from the anti-war left (Senator Feingold, I'm sure). I expect the bill to pass some time next week with 65-70 votes.

RAND PAUL: Rand Paul, son of libertarian icon Ron Paul and Kentucky GOP Senate nominee, has gotten himself into some serious trouble. He has said to several sources, including MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, that he does not support the part of the Civil Rights Act that bans discrimination in private businesses. It may be morally reprehensible to segregate lunch counters, Paul argues, but it shouldn't be illegal, because the government shouldn't decide what private businesses can or can't do.

A lot of people have reacted to this article by saying that Paul is not racist, he's just an ideologically rigid libertarian. I'm not sure the latter is better than the former. If you are so rigid in your ideology that you think it's ok to turn blacks away from businesses, you are morally reprehensible, period. The best piece on saw on this today was from Adam Serwer at The Americna Prospect. Paul is living in this libertarian fantasy world, where racism will magically be solved through market forces. Rand Paul will stop shopping at racist places, so they'll have to let blacks in, right? That's an interesting theory, but unfortunately it's contradicted by American history. As Serwer said, it didn't work, and it won't work.

I also think Democrats should take Paul's assertion to their logical extensions. Does he believe businesses should be able to employ child labor? Does he believe in workplace safety laws? Does he believe you should be able to be fired for any reason? I hope Democrats take this opportunity to expose once and for all the idiocy of economic libertarianism.

That's it for today. I'm moving this weekend, so I'll see you from Baltimore next week!

The Daily Strike-5/19/10-Financial Reform Hiccup

2010-05-19T20:02:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. We had quite an election night last night, with overall positive results for our side. More on that in a moment.

FINANCIAL REFORM: The Senate today took a vote on whether to limit debate on the Wall Street Reform bill. The vote was 57-42, three votes short of the 60 it needed to advance. Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) voted no for procedural reasons (so he could bring up the motion again tomorrow), and Arlen Specter missed the vote after last night's election, so Democrats remain two votes shy. Two Republicans, Senators Snowe (ME) and Collins (ME), voted to end debate. The problem was that two generally liberal, but often renegade Democrats, voted no. Russ Feingold (WI) said that the bill did not pass the test of whether it would prevent another financial collapse. I agree with him on this point, but to me that's not reason enough to filibuster the bill. It would still be the most significant overhaul of our financial sector since the New Deal Era. Maria Cantwell (WA) voted no for a couple of reasons. For one, Democrats have so far refused to allow a vote on her amendment to reinstate Glass-Stegall restrictions (which I support). She also apparently doesn't think the derivatives language goes far enough.

Again, I'm sympathetic to those who think the bill doesn't go far enough. In fact, Senators Dodd (CT) and Reid (NV) have frequently rebuffed Democratic efforts to strengthen the bill. On the other hand, delaying passage of the bill won't likely make it any better, in my view. (The Big Picture disagrees, and cites this article as evidence). I also have sympathy for party leaders who are responsible for getting legislation through in a timely manner.

Majority Leader Reid has scheduled a re-vote for tomorrow afternoon. My guess is that he will offer Maria Cantwell some sort of deal to get her on board (maybe a vote on her amendment). If he doesn't succeed, he'll have to pry away another Republican. He claims that Senator Brown (MA) told him that he would support cloture, but withdrew his support at the last minute.

The Senate did take a couple of other votes on amendments today. A good amendment offered by Senator Whitehouse (D-RI), which would have closed a loophole that allows credit card companies to avoid state interest rate caps, failed by a vote of 35-60. Chalk up another win for the big banks. I don't understand how any self-respecting Democrat can vote against that amendment.

Should the Senate vote to cut off debate tomorrow, the Senate would proceed to vote on amendments on Friday and possibly over the weekend. A vote on final passage would most likely happen early next week. The Senate still needs to pass a war funding bill by the Memorial Day recess, so they need to keep the ball rolling.

THE HOUSE: House Democrats failed to hold their own members in line when Republicans offered a poison pill porn-related amendment to a science investment bill last week. Democrats decided to try again with the bill, this time under suspension of the rules so that Republicans couldn't offer amendments. Of course, under suspension of the rules, a 2/3rds majority is necessary. The vote was 261-148, about 29 votes short. Only 15 Republicans supported a deficit-neutral increase in investments in science and math education. Democrats will have to find another way to pass this bill in the next couple of weeks. Tomorrow, they'll take up a bill full of tax break and unemployment insurance extensions. We'll have full details in tomorrow night's entry.

ELECTION DAY: It turned out to be quite an election night last night, and an overall very solid night for Democrats. In Kentucky, Ron Paul's son Rand won the Republican nomination in the election to replace retiring Republican Jim Bunning. Rand Paul is sort of a nut, so his nomination gives the Democrats a decent chance to capture a Republican-held seat. For example, today Paul insisted that he would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His die hard libertarian views, including some that may not mesh well with Kentucky's social conservatives (pot legalization!), could make this race winnable for the Democratic nominee, Attorney General Jack Conway.

In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak won a resounding victory of incumbent party-switching Democrat Arlen Specter. Congressman Sestak did a very effective job reminding voters about Specter's Republican past, and he was buoyed by strong support among grassroots progressives. I think Sestak will be a more competitive candidate this fall against Republican nominee Pat Toomey.

Perhaps the best and most surprising result of the night came in the special election in Western Pennsylvania to replace the late Jack Murtha. Democrat Mark Critz, who polls showed was in a close race with Republican Tim Burns, cruised to a 12 point victory, and will take his seat in Congress tomorrow. As we noted yesterday, Democrats had no business winning this seat in the current political environment. This was the only district that voted for John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2008. It is largely made up of older, white voters, and President Obama is polling very poorly there. If Republicans can't win an open seat like this, they will have a hard time winning the majority in November. Yes, Critz did run against many important Democratic policies, but his victory helps dispel the media narrative that the GOP is destined for a massive landslide in the midterm elections.

I'm also very pleased that Lt. Governor Bill Halter has pushed incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln into a run-off in Arkansas' Senate primary. No doubt some of Halter's support came from right-wingers who wanted to express disapproval of Lincoln, but a large segment of his support comes from organized labor, who was rightly outraged that Lincoln abandoned Democratic positions on the Employee Free Choice Act and the public option. Also, Halter's success will force Lincoln to keep tailoring her policy positions to the Democratic primary electorate, at least for the next few weeks. As a direct result of last night's election, Lincoln's strong language regulating financial derivatives survived in the Wall Street reform bill.

That's it for tonight. Leave us your thoughts on Wall Street reform or last night's elections!

The Daily Strike-5/18/10-Financial Reform Endgame

2010-05-18T18:25:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. It's Election Night tonight in several states, and there are some very important races out there. We'll be covering the races tomorrow night, and in real-time on Twitter. I need to get everything done before the Sharks play at 10pm.

FINANCIAL REGULATIONS: A lot to report today on the Wall Street reform bill as we countdown to a cloture vote either tomorrow or Thursday. Democrats removed a key barrier to passage today by coming up with an agreement to basically prohibit State Attorney Generals from enacting regulations stronger than those done at the federal level. The agreement was negotiated by moderate Democrat Tom Carper (D-DE). This is a big disappointment, as states could have been the laboratories for aggressive crackdowns on the worst financial practices. The Carper amendment passed by a vote of 80-18. "No" votes all came from Democrats. A GOP alternative to the Carper amendment failed by 43-55.

The only other amendment considered on the floor today was from Senator Gregg (R-NH) and it would have prohibited more bailouts to "irresponsible state governments." Give me a break. If Gregg weren't a pea-brain, he'd realize that most states aren't "irresponsible" but rather are lacking in tax revenue because of the Republican recession. As a result, millions of teachers and firefighters (not exactly faceless bureaucrats) have been laid off. Thankfully, the Gregg amendment failed by a vote of 47-50 (60 votes were needed). It's too bad that the following Democrats voted for this piece of you know what: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Feingold (WI), McCaskill (MO), Shaheen (NH) and Tester (MT).

Republicans seem to believe that they no longer have the votes to block the bill. Instead, their new strategy is to defeat Democratic attempts to make the bill stronger. Republicans have objected requests to consider some very progressive amendments. Senators Levin (MI) and Merkley (OR) have offered an amendment to enact the so-called Volcker rule. Senator Dorgan (ND) has offered an amendment to ban naked credit default swaps, and was able to get a vote for it only after some procedural wrangling (ask me about it if you're interested!). The sponsors of these amendments have hinted that they may not support cloture unless their amendments receive votes. I don't take these threats too seriously, but it's one obstacle Majority Leader Reid (NV) must jump through before he can get final passage.

In other news, President Obama was in Youngstown, OH to tout recent economic progress, and the House spent the day on suspension bills. We'll see you tomorrow with Financial Regulation and Election updates!

The Weekly Strike-5/18-5/23

2010-05-18T09:03:00.003-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. Thank you for your indulgence during my vacation. I am well-rested and eager to blog. And I missed a lot.

FINANCIAL REGULATION: The Senate is in the home stretch of its consideration of the Wall Street reform bill. Last night, Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) filed cloture on the bill, meaning a vote to cut off debate will come Wednesday. A vote on final passage could happen by the end of the week. It looks as though there will be more than enough votes to get this bill across the finish line. When all is said and done, I expect the bill to pass with about 65 votes.

Unlike every other major bill considered during the Obama Presidency, the amendment process seems to have made the bill stronger, not weaker. For example, last week, the Senate surprisingly approved an amendment from Senator Durbin (D-IL) to limit fees for ATM cards. The Senate will take up several more amendments before consideration of the bill wraps up. Among the key amendments left is one offered by Senator McCain (R-AZ) and Cantwell (D-WA) that would re-institute Glass-Stegall separation of banks and other financial institutions. I would be pleasantly shocked if that passed. We'll keep you posted on the amendments, but you can get a run down of what we missed last week by checking out the Senate website.

This bill would be a solid first step in reigning in the excesses of our financial system, though it does not do enough. It puts regulatory authority in the same hands of those who oversaw the crisis in 2008, and it does not fundamentally change the shape of our troubled financial sector.

Nevertheless, it's seeming more and more likely that President Obama will have another notch on his belt in the next few weeks.

THE HOUSE: The House has a relatively busy schedule this week as well. Starting yesterday, they began debate on a series of suspension bills. Tomorrow, the House will take up a key Senate-passed measure that extends expiring tax breaks, unemployment insurance, and COBRA coverage through the end of this year. The House is amending the package, but I'm not sure yet what they're changing. It's possible that they've found a way to pay for these extensions, though doing so would be ill-advised in my view.

The House will also complete consideration of the American Competes Reauthorization Act, a bill that provides research and development funding for Math and Science. The bill hit a snag last week when Democrats couldn't beat back a Republican poison-pill amendment dealing with pornography. I really wish rank-and-file Democrats would be more disciplined on these procedural votes.

ELECTION DAY: Today is Election Day in three states, and there are several key races to watch. The only Republican/Democrat contest of the day comes in Pennsylvania's 12th District, where Democrat Mark Critz and Republican Tim Burns are vying to replace the late John Murtha. Polls show the race to be dead even, so we could be in for a long election night. By all measures, Democrats have no business winning this seat in the current political environment. The district is the only one in the country that voted for John Kerry in 2004, and John McCain in 2008. But Critz has proven to be a relatively strong candidate.

There are also huge Senate primaries in three states. In Pennsylvania, incumbent party-switcher Arlen Specter is locked in a tight race with Congressman Joe Sestak for the Democratic Senate nomination. Polls show Sestak surging, but Specter could benefit from large turnout among unions and the ill-advised endorsement from President Obama. If I had to put money on it, I'd say that Sestak pulls it out. I really hope that Specter keeps up his liberal streak even if he loses his primary race.

In Arkansas, incumbent Blanche Lincoln is locked in a tight battle with Lt. Governor Bill Halter for the Democratic nomination. Lincoln is favored mostly due to the incumbency factor, but Halter has a shot if he can get high turnout among the few liberal voters that exist in Arkansas. Lincoln's primary challenge has pushed her to the left over the past few weeks. She authored very strong regulations of derivatives that have somehow made it through the Senate so far unscathed. The Republican nomination to face Lincoln (or Halter) features a large slew of candidates, and is most likely headed for a run-off.

In Kentucky, Democrats will choose between Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo and State Attorney General Jack Conway. Conway seems like a better choice to me; he has more progressive policy views, but Mongiardo has taken a small lead in recent polls. On the Republican side, it looks like Ron Paul's son Rand will destroy his Republican establishment opponent, Secretary of State Trey Grayson.

We will keep you informed of what happens this evening! Leave us some comments.

The Daily Strike-5/11/10-What Happens While I'm Gone

2010-05-11T23:50:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to a brief Weekly Strike. I can't even get away for a few days without some major, major stuff happening in politics. Let's run it down very quickly.

1. Across the pond in Britain, David Cameron, the leader of the Conservatives, will become the next Prime Minister. His party didn't win a majority, so they will have to govern with the center-left Liberal Democrats. I suspect that Cameron and Obama are actually pretty similar ideologically (isn't that kinda sad?) and that they'll get along very well.

2. Two incumbent members of Congress have lost primary elections in the last couple of days, another sign of the massive anti-incumbent mood in the electorate right now. In Utah, Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) lost in his party's state convention, a bizarre process in which the nominee is chosen by Republican activists. Apparently, Bennett is too liberal because he voted for TARP and supported eliminating Medicaid and the employer tax benefit in his health care plan.

Tonight, incumbent Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan lost to state Senator Mike Oliverio in West Virginia. Mollohan was attacked by his Democratic opponent for supporting the health care bill and not being steadfast enough in opposition to Cap-and-Trade, which is lethal politically in coal-rich West Virginia. That's not the type of primary defeat I'm too thrilled about.

3. The financial reform bill is moving along in the Senate. Bernie Sanders' amendment to audit the Federal Reserve ended up passing unanimously, which is very interesting. Democrats were also succesful in beating a McCain amendment to include reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

That's it for now, I will go back to enjoying the sights of Vancouver. See you later!

BREAKING STRIKE: Obama Nominates Elena Kagan to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

2010-05-09T23:07:00.002-04:00

Good evening. I am on vacation, so entries will be very spotty this week. I thought I'd chime in on the apparent nomination of Elena Kagan, the current Solicitor General and former Dean of Harvard Law School, to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. This pick is not surprising, as Kagan was seen as a favorite since Justice Stevens announced his retirement last month. However, the choice is somewhat of a disappointment to me. Kagan is very strong on LGBT issues. She took a brave stand against military recruiters at Harvard because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. She also will probably be a reliable liberal on social issues. My concerns with her are that:

a) she seems to be a believer in strong executive power, which as we saw in the Bush administration, can be extremely detrimental to democracy.

b) She did some consulting work for Goldman Sachs. Not only is that politically toxic right now, but I don't want someone on the Supreme Court who would potentially side with a business like Goldman Sachs over the millions of average Americans that they have defrauded.

Liberals will probably end up accepting her nomination in the end. But I will note that it's very possible her pick will move the court to the right.

The Daily Strike-5/6/10-All About Wall Street

2010-05-06T20:32:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike, writing to you tonight from San Francisco. This will be our last entry until Monday, and posts will be spotty next week since I'll be on vacation.

LATE BREAKING UPDATE: It looks like the Brown-Kaufman amendment to break up the banks has failed by a vote of 33-61, a major disappointment. No word on the vote tally yet. I had no idea they would be voting on this tonight when I wrote this entry. Very, very unfortunate.

FINANCIAL REGULATION: Wall Street went into a bit of a tailspin today, at one point the Dow was down nearly 1,000 points, though it later recovered. Some blame this on a computer glitch, while others attribute it to factors in Europe like the debt crisis. No matter what the cause, today's big losses are a reminder that our economy is still extraordinarily fragile, and that we need to keep pushing reforms to protect our financial system.

Luckily, the Senate is making some progress on that front. The Senate took two votes on amendments today. The first, offered by Senator Tester (D-MT), sought to change the definition that corporations use for "assessments." Not really sure what that will do, but it passed by a vote of 98-0.

Next, the Senate rejected the Republican alternative to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Offered by Senator Shelby (R-AL), the alternative would limit the power and scope of the agency. The White House and Democratic leaders denounced the plan as being even worse than the status quo. The amendment failed by a vote of 38-61. Every Democrat opposed the alternative, as did Republicans Grassley (IA) and Snowe (ME). I'm pretty surprised that Grassley crossed the aisle, though he did so last month when he supported Senator Lincoln's derivatives measure.

Almost as important as the amendments considered on the floor today were the announcements of amendments to be voted upon early next week. The amendment by Senator Sanders (I-VT) to audit the Federal Reserve got a boost today when Senator Dodd (D-CT) announced his support. Dodd had secured a change to the amendment that he said would protect the independence of the Fed. The other very encouraging news today is that Senator Reid (D-NV) will most likely allow a vote on the Brown-Kaufmann amendment that would cap the size of the big banks. Reid even indicated that he would vote for the amendment himself. Reid's vote probably hinges on how strongly the administration comes out in opposition to the amendment. I'm holding out hope that Obama sees the light some time in the next week, but I'm not holding my breath.

More amendment votes will take place starting Tuesday. Of course the United States Senate can take a 4 day weekend during a long-winded debate on a critical issue. In fact, today Majority Whip Durbin (IL) said that he doesn't think they can finish the bill by next Friday.

THE HOUSE: The House was busy today considering a bill that would provide cash rebates to people who weatherize their homes. This important piece of legislation passed by a vote of 246-161. 7 Democrats voted against the measure (for reasons entirely unclear to me), and 12 brave Republicans voted for it. The bill will surely die on arrival in the United States Senate, but I'm glad the House had a chance to take it up. Perhaps the bill can be included in a broader energy bill later this year.

The House also approved a Republican motion to recommit that seeks to assure that the bill will not add to the federal deficit. The motion passed by a wide margin of 346-68.

And a quick update before we go on the General Election in Great Britain. Exit Polls show that the Conservative Party will win a plurality of seats in the parliament, but probably not enough to ensure a majority. This should create some very interesting negotiations. Stay tuned.

See you next week!

The Big Picture: Why I'm a radical

2010-05-05T21:40:00.002-04:00

Building off the post below about how the crucial issues of Wall Street are off the table - as you can read in this from Ezra Klein:

"They both appear to agree that the proper response to the financial crisis is a bill that focuses on the ability of regulators to detect risk and dismantle failing firms. Reshaping Wall Street -- either by putting more government into it in the form of size caps and leverage limits and taxes, or taking the government out of it -- doesn't really seem to be on either party's agenda."

-Something has done an incredible amount to destroy our society

and reshaping it isn't even ON THE AGENDA of EITHER major party

-this is where people like Noam Chomsky are dead right when they talk about how close the parties are on the fundamental questions of the distribution of power

-how the crucial questions of the distribution of power and resource aren't even allowed to be debated

I would advise our readers to read the book 13 Bankers by Simon Johnson and James Kwak and read their website baselinescenario.com. A post today reflects my thinking on this, especially the parts in bold:

The second problem, again in Krugman’s words:

“The reforms currently on the table . . . only deal with part of the problem: they would make finance safer, but they might not make it smaller. . . .
“We’ve been devoting far too large a share of our wealth, far too much of the nation’s talent, to the business of devising and peddling complex financial schemes — schemes that have a tendency to blow up the economy.”

This is the long-term challenge (see my charts here). Finance is an intermediate input. At the margin, every little innovation that makes markets more liquid does provide a small benefit to the economy in the form of better capital allocation; but in many cases those benefits are not enough to justify their transaction costs, let alone the negative systemic externalities we saw recently. The flowering of finance in the past three decades gave us the illusion of growing real GDP — especially in the past decade, when GDP growth was dominated by finance and real estate. Now we need to rebalance the economy toward productive activities.

The bad news is that the administration and Democrats in Congress will face a strong temptation to pass the reform bill and declare victory. The conventional wisdom is that you don’t get re-elected by saying, “We passed a bill that is pretty good, but doesn’t solve the root problems, so we need to do more in the future.” It’s better politically to say you fixed the problem once and for all, then cross your fingers and hope for the best.

The good news is that there seems to be a growing number of voices saying that we need structural change in the financial sector. Besides Krugman and Arianna Huffington, Martin Wolf has chimed in as well, arguing that making the current system safer, though necessary, is insufficient:

“The financial system would remain a doomsday machine. There are three difficulties. First, there is no sound basis for deciding how much capital is enough. Second, . . . it is profitable to take risks whose upside accrues to oneself and whose downside accrues to others. So the safer regulators try to make the system, the more risk it can take on. Finally, it is easy to create the desired risk via regulatory arbitrage.”

Serious academic economics is also questioning the value of a large financial system. A paper byNicola Gennaioli, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny (cited by Krugman here) shows how excessive production of securities (the phenomenon of the past decade) can be caused by mistakes in risk perception, making the financial system more fragile as a result. (As a another result, the social benefits of innovation can be outweighed by the social costs.)

So in the long term, I agree with Krugman: “These [current] reforms should be only the first step. We also need to cut finance down to size.” Given that whatever comes out of Congress will be imperfect in anyone’s eyes, whether the Obama administration agrees will be of crucial importance."

The problem is that based on appointments and decisions I have no confidence that Obama is anywhere close to the right side on this issue. And the people and institutions that destroyed security and opportunity for most Americans, stealing it to finance their lavish lifestyle, getting bailed out while everyone else suffered, will continue to keep their wealth and power. Neither political party will do anything about it. The answer is to move the Democratic Party to the left so that it actually stands for doing something. That's the right move substantively, and it's the only way to avoid crushing defeats in the midterm. But too many Democrats are so caught up in the Wall Street Knows Best worldview, as well as the high-paying jobs in the finance sector that await them, that they won't do what's right on the merits or politically. We can bemoan this, or we can make them see the light, through organizing, primary campaigns, and advocacy.

The Daily Strike-5/5/10-FinReg Amendments Begin

2010-05-05T17:55:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. I apologize for my negligence yesterday, but unfortunately you will have to get used to it. I'm going on vacation next week!

THE SENATE: The Senate finally began consideration of amendments to the Financial Regulation bill, after a week and a half of stalling and obstruction. Republicans refused to allow votes on amendments, even when offered a chance to subject those votes to a 60 vote threshold. If Democrats wanted to vote on amendments, they'd have to invoke cloture, which would take 60 votes and three days worth of time, per amendment. Republicans finally allowed for the consideration of a few amendments after a deal was struck early in the day between the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, Chris Dodd (CT), and the top Republican Richard Shelby (AL). Dodd agreed to remove the provision that would have set up a liquidation fund, paid for by big financial institutions, that would unwind firms that were "too big to fail." That provision has been taken out, though at this point it is unclear what the replacement provision is.

As part of the agrement, Republicans allowed votes on two Obama administration nominees and two amendments. The two nominees (Gloria Navarro of Nevada, and Nancy Freudenthal to be District Judges in Nevada and Wyoming respectively) each were confirmed overwhelmingly. Navarro's vote was unanimous, while Freudenthal's was opposed only by Senator Coburn (R-OK).

The Senate then voted on the first amendment to the bill, offered by Senator Boxer (CA). The amendment clarifies that the bill does not provide for taxpayer bailouts. The amendment doesn't really have any substantive effect. Rather, it gives Democrats the ability to refute the bogus Republican charge that the bill is one giant "taxpayer bailout." The Boxer amendment passed by a vote of 96-1, with only Senator Kyl (R-AZ) voting no (not sure what that's about). The Shelby-Dodd agreement we alluded to above passed by a margin of 93-5, with Senators Coburn (R-OK), Cornyn (R-TX), DeMint (R-SC), Dorgan (D-ND), and Hatch (R-UT).

There are no further amendment votes scheduled at this point. The two most contentious amendments may not get votes at all. An amendment offered by the odd duo of Senator Sanders (I-VT) and DeMint (R-SC) would call for an audit of the Federal Reserve. I agree generally that we should know how the Fed is pumping money into the economy, but I am afraid that the amendment seeks to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve, which is crucial to monetary stability. I'm conflicted on this one.

I'm not conflicted on the other contentious amendment. Senators Brown (OH) and Kaufman (DE) still intend to offer the SAFE Banking Act as an amendment, which would limit the size of financial institutions. In what has been a major disappointment, the Obama administration has opposed this amendment behind the scenes. I guess they believe that the size of banks was not the main culprit in the financial crisis. I disagree. This amendment would assure that the fate of the economy would no longer be in the hands of a few firms that make a bunch of risky bets.

Hopefully we'll see votes on these amendments in the next couple of days.

THE HOUSE: The House just dealt with suspension bills today. Tomorrow, they'll consider the "Cash for Caulkers" bill that will authorize reimbursements to families who weatherize their homes.

We did get some sad news out of the House today. Rep. David Obey, a liberal stalwart who has been in the House since 1969, announced his unexpected retirement. Obey is the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations committee. His retirement opens up another potentially competitive seat, especially since the Republicans have already found a viable challenger. Obey was always on the right side of the issues. He was a passionate advocate for shrinking the massive gap between the rich and poor in our society, for campaign finance reform, and for investing money in critical areas underfunded by Republican administrations and Congresses. He will be missed.

That's it for today. See you tomorrow evening!

The Daily Strike-5/4/10-No Real Entry Today

2010-05-04T18:30:00.003-04:00

Sorry, folks! I won't be able to write tonight's entry due to some very serious obligations....ok the hockey game is at 7:30 and I want to get my haircut and I don't want to stay up late. Basically, the right-wingers started their fearmongering on the Times Square attack, everyone's mad at BP, and there were no amendment votes on the Financial Regulation bill.

The Daily Strike-5/3/10-Rule Britannia!

2010-05-03T17:54:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Since not much happened in politics since I wrote this morning, I thought I'd change gears and give my thoughts on the General Election in Great Britain, which will take place this Thursday.

ACROSS THE POND: We thought our elections were interesting, but the one about to take place across the Atlantic Ocean looks like it will be a barn-burner.

First, the basics. Britain is a constitutional monarchy, with most government powers vested in the House of Commons, which has 650 seats. Voters will elect individual members in their constituencies (equivalent to our Congressional districts). If one party gains a majority, it will form a government. The executive powers of government are vested in Ministers, which are usually Members of Parliament (MPs) of the ruling party. The parties that do not finish first make up the opposition.

Currently, the ruling center-left Labor party controls 356 seats, the Conservative Party (the Tories) control 198 seats, and the left-leaning, libertarian-ish Liberal Democrats control 62 seats. The last election was held in 2005.

Labor has been in control of government since 1997, so it would seem only natural that voters would be ready for a change. Polls over the past few years have showed Conservatives generally ahead of their Labor counterparts. A few weeks ago, it looked likely that Conservatives would win perhaps a small majority in the next parliament.

But recently, the Liberal Democrats, led by Nick Clegg, have surged in the polls. They now come in a close second to the Tories in most polls, ahead of the Labor party. Clegg was boosted by a strong performance in American-style national debates, and by his outsider status. Much like the U.S., Britain seems somewhat fed up with the two major parties.

The current Prime Minister Gordon Brown further jeopardized Labor's status with an enormous gaffe last week, when he was caught calling a supporter "a bigoted woman" on a hot mic. Brown has never faced election as a party leader (Tony Blair was still in office in 2005) and he is anything but a charismatic politician. He has tried to gain traction by portraying his opponents, especially Conservative Party leader David Cameron, as risky bets during tough economic times, and ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The complicated thing about this election is that, much like the U.S., the national popular vote is not entirely indicative of the next parliament. Results in individual constituencies can vary greatly from the national result, meaning that conceivably a party could gain a majority in parliament while not getting the most votes. Unlike the U.S., however, voters generally vote for individual candidates based on their party affiliation. It seems like there is much less "personality driven" voting in Great Britain. That usually means that the advantages of incumbency (constituent services etc.) are not as prevalent.

So what will happen on Thursday? Nobody really knows. Nate Silver, using some complicated formula that I won't even begin to understand, projects that the Conservatives will win 299, 27 short of a majority. He projects the Labor Party winning 199 seats, and the Liberal Democrats winning 120. This seems to represent the consensus of most analysts that the Conservatives will win a plurality of seats, but will come up just short of a majority. If no party gains a majority, there will be a "hung parliament."

British tradition dictates that no matter who has a plurality of votes in a hung parliament, the current ruling party (Labor, in this case), has the first opportunity to try and form a majority. Labor would have to convince pretty much every Liberal Democrat, most likely, to merge and create a coalition government. I don't see this happening. There is a good deal of animosity between the two parties. Labor also would not want the Liberal Democrats to have a role in government, because they fear that Liberal Democratic ministers may undermine the broader Labor agenda. Both parties fear that if the Liberal Democrats join the government, they will push for institutional reforms that would make it easier for third parties to gain greater representation in parliament (like proportional representation).

Could Conservatives team up with Liberal Democrats to form a government? Also unlikely, since the two parties' agendas are so diametrically opposed. Most likely, therefore, is that the Conservatives will form a "minority government." A minority government is highly unstable, because a majority of the parliament could both block legislation and vote to dissolve the parliament. Perhaps the conservatives would be content with a minority government for a short time to highlight differences between the parties, so that they could then hold new elections promptly, and try again to achieve a majority.

Pretty complicated stuff, but fear not. I will do my best to explain it further if any of you all have questions.

What does this all mean for the United States? The Liberal Democrats are thought of as the least pro-U.S. of the major parties. They favor a full and complete withdrawal from Iraq and would want the European Union to be Britain's primary diplomatic arena. The Conservatives are much more pro-U.S., and are steadfastly skeptical of the European Union.

I will keep you posted with what happens in Britain. Cheerio!

Yes, that was extremely corny.

The Weekly Strike-5/3-5/9

2010-05-03T08:54:00.003-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. I thought this week would be dominated by the fight over financial reform, but a lot of other stories are dominating the news, most notably the oil spill in the gulf coast. Let's get to the week in politics.

THE WHITE HOUSE: Just when the White House wanted to hone in on Wall Street reform, they have been distracted by events beyond their control. The oil spill in the gulf coast is turning into an unmitigated disaster. By the time all is said and done, this could be a bigger spill than the Exxon-Valdez catastrophe in 1989. Some conservatives have tried to suggest that this is Obama's Katrina, which is patently absurd. For one, the lives of millions of Americans aren't under immediate threat. Two, Obama has done a good job coordinating state and local efforts in the gulf region, including close work with potential adversary Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R).

The White House also had to focus this weekend on the failed terror attempt in Times Square. Explosives found in a car failed to detonate. It doesn't look like this will be a major story, mostly because the suspect appears to be a white guy. The double standards in our society are pretty amazing.

The President's schedule is pretty light to start the week. This morning, he hosts a reception at the Naval Academy for winners of the "Commander in Chief" awards. Later this afternoon, he holds a dinner for the Business Council. The schedule for the remainder of the week is in flux, but I expect him to make one or two appearances on the road.

THE SENATE: Now that Republicans have relented in their obstructionism, the Senate can begin debate on Wall Street reform. Votes on amendments will begin tomorrow. Unlike previous legislation where Democrats wanted to fend off inevitable attempts to make the bill worse, this amendment process may offer progressives some opportunities. Anger at Goldman Sachs after their performance at a Senate hearing last week perhaps has given more momentum to proponents of reform. One particular amendment that might come up, offered by Senators Kaufman (DE) and Brown (OH) would break up the big banks and prevent them from becoming "too big to fail." I'm afraid the Obama administration is opposed to this approach, as is Banking Chairman Dodd (CT). The Big Picture may write more about this amendment, but it would be shameful to see it go down in flames. Not only is it good policy, but it would be very good populist politics.

The other key amendment to look out for is a chance to re-enact the Glass-Stegall Act, which separates banks from other financial institutions. The act was overturned by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. I'm not too confident on this amendment going though, simply because of the influence of lobbyists, but I'll do my best to keep my hopes up.

THE HOUSE: After taking up suspension bills today and tomorrow, the House will take up the so-called "Cash for Caulkers" bill. The bill will give rebates to individuals and businesses for retrofitting for energy efficiency. The bill has one Republican cosponsor, so I expect it to pass very easily. Perhaps the Senate can include the bill as part of its comprehensive energy package that it will take up...err...at some point.

That's it for now. Leave some comments!

The Daily Strike-4/29/10-Crist/Oil/Puerto Rico

2010-04-29T18:51:00.004-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. It was a real mixed bag in politics today, and none of it involved the biggest current issue: financial regulation. The Senate will not vote on amendments to the bill until Tuesday.

CRIST: It's official. Florida Governor Charlie Crist will now run for the Senate as an independent, instead of a Republican. He was due to get his clocked cleaned in the Republican primary by Marco Rubio, the Cuban-American former State House Speaker. I'm not sure Crist's decision makes the race any more winnable for Democrat Kendrick Meek. Crist has completely alienated the Republican party. At this point, I don't think many Republicans in that state will vote for Crist. It's unclear how many true independents vote in Florida. In fact, if I were Kendrick Meek, I'd worry that Crist may eat into the Democratic vote, especially among some of the older Florida voters who may not be comfortable voting for an African American Senator.

The broader significance of Crist's decision is the continued purging of moderates in the Republican party. Crist is far more of an orthodox Republican, for example, than Ben Nelson is an orthodox Democrat. He harshly criticized the health care bill, and has generally governed as a conservative. That is not enough to be in today's Republican party. Bob Bennett, a very conservative Republican Senator from Utah, looks like he will lose his primary election next month to a challenger from the right, simply because he is somewhat moderate-tempered, and because he co-sponsored a health care bill with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. If this sort of purging brings more moderate Democrats into the fold, then I'll be thrilled. I'm more worried, however, that the Republican party, one of the two major parties in this country, will be exclusively far, far-right.

I'm changing the rating for this seat to "toss-up" until I see some additional polling. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on Marco Rubio to win the race.

OIL: I don't have much to say about the oil spill in the Gulf Coast, but I will echo the words of comedian Bill Maher, who said that, "Every asshole who ever chanted 'Drill baby drill' should have to report to the Gulf coast today for cleanup duty." This includes President Obama, who as recently as a month ago, said that no oil spills today are caused by offshore oil rigs. Offshore drilling isn't the most outrageous policy in the world to me, but the benefits of getting a little more fossil fuel that won't be available for 10 years doesn't outweigh the cost of massive environmental damage.

THE HOUSE: The House today considered a bill that gives Puerto Rico the ability to choose its future relationship with the United States. The bill would mandate an election, where the Puerto Rican people could vote up or down on whether to maintain their current arrangement with our country. If the vote succeeded, another such vote would occur in 8 years. If the vote failed, the Puerto Rican people would be able to vote to sever ties with the U.S., or apply for statehood. The bill passed, though as of press time we dont' have the final tally. The House also took up a series of amendments to the bill.

The next votes in both the House and Senate will occur on Tuesday. This is our last entry for the week. Leave us some comments, and we'll see you on Monday!

The Daily Strike-4/28/10-Playing Hardball

2010-04-28T18:36:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Today's score: Democrats 1, Republicans 0.

FINANCIAL REGULATIONS: After three days of obstruction, Republicans have caved and will now allow debate on the financial reform bill. By unanimous consent this evening, the Senate has agreed to debate the bill and amendments starting tomorrow. The Republican cave-in occurred late this afternoon. Earlier in the day, the GOP held together (with the help of Democrat Ben Nelson) to defeat another attempt at proceeding to the bill. But the Democrats didn't give in like they had so many times in the past. Democratic Senators, led by the freshman class, threatened to keep the Senate in session all night to highlight GOP obstruction.

Republicans claim that they acquiesced because they negotiated a deal with Senator Dodd (D-CT) to take out a provision they consider to be a potential "taxpayer bailout." The provision is actually a bank-financed fund that would help wind down banks that are too big to fail. Dodd has agreed to close a loophole that would prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to assist these firms. I wouldn't count this as a particularly significant concession, given that the White House and Democratic leaders had previously agreed to make the change. It seems to me that Republicans gave in due to successful public pressure from the Democrats, who clearly have the upper hand on this issue.

Debate and amendments on this key bill will begin tomorrow, and we expect it to continue possibly for several weeks.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The President continued his "Main Street" tour today with stops in Missouri and Southern Illinois. His speeches today centered around an articulate defense of his Presidency, and some of his best rhetoric yet on what his overall vision is. For the first time in more than a year, he talked about not just bringing our economy back from the brink, but creating the foundation for a new, more prosperous, economy. This is the type of positive case he will have to make to voters this fall and in 2012.

I'm hopeful that the President will continue making this case to the country while his agenda struggles through Congress.

THE HOUSE: The House passed a bill today to set new rules for defense acquisition. The bill passed by a wide bipartisan margin of 417-3. The only no votes came from Republicans Broun (GA), Flake (AZ) and Paul (TX).

The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to implement ways to measure the performance of the weapons that we buy. Hopefully this can save some money from our bloated defense budget.

The House will move on the Puerto Rico Democracy Act tomorrow.

Make sure you read the first entry from The Picturette about the Arizona immigration bill. It is very, very interesting. Also, read The Big Picture's and my response to it.

The Big Picture and the Strike Discuss the Picturette's Post

2010-04-28T11:52:00.004-04:00

(Please see the Picturette's excellent and thought-provoking post below. The Strike and the Big Picture discussed the post and the conversation took a provocative turn.)

The Strike: really gets at the personal side of the issue

but also some very good counter-conventional wisdom in there

about immigrants not committing criminals more than NORMAL americans

Th:he Big Picture: yeah getting at the broader point that immigrants, including and perhaps especially illegal immigrants, are more American than "real" Americans

now that's a campaign slogan!

but I do believe it

The Strike: i completely believe it

much more of an "american dream" story

than your average exeter-princeton-goldman sachs track

The Big Picture: or really any track

The Strike: yeah exactly

much more american than what I've ever done in my life

The Big Picture: taking huge risks, sacricificing, to give your kids a better life

working really hard, saving

Better to retire at 55, play the stock market, shoot 18 in the morning, and watch Glenn Beck in the afternoon

that's what real Americans do in Arizona!

THEY're the ones who should be stopped and questioned:

"what are YOU doing to contribute to this country?"

The Strike: that would be a great thing for michael moore to do

or that open left interviewer guy

new left i mean

first ask them if they're carrying their birth certificates

then threaten to lock them up if they don't provide justification for what they do in society

The Big Picture: All they do is collect Social Security checks, cash in on the stock market casino and put tons of pressure for quick quarterly profits to maximize the god-given rights of shareholders

tremendously terrible consequences

and then vote to cut school funding, cut any investments in our future

and try to kick out the people who are doing all the work and providing much more than they are taking out

this is just such a perfect example of who has the moral high ground and who has the low ground

The Strike: it's also just a subject that needs to see the light of day

who is ACTUALLY working hard in society, and who is ACTUALLY reaping the benefits

The Big Picture: the very idea that these jerks sit around and collect money purely because of their good fortune

then whine about how bad they have it, refuse to allow the government to help anyone else

direct their goons to kick everyone else out

even if it makes the goons (police) jobs much harder

and actually will make everyone less safe

except for those who can afford to hire private goons on top of their semi-private goon police force

THEY're the ones complaining????

The Strike: yeah i mean goddamn

compared to the immigrant who works in the field for 10 hours

in 115 degree heat

just to feed his family

The Big Picture: nobody in the world is in a cushier position in life than these Arizona retirees

someone needs to tell them to shut their goddamn mouths

and pitch in

who would be the best candidate to give such a speech?

Joe Biden's got to be number one

The Strike: someone white

yeah he'd be very goo

The Big Picture: Bill Moyers

The Strike: no one really likes bill moyers though

besides the liberal NPR crowd

The Big Picture: yeah but he grew up working-class in Texas

The Strike: he doesn't have any tough guy reputation

obviously he should

jim webb would be pretty good but he's anti-immigrant

The Big Picture: Jonny Tester

maybe the Udall cousins

would be a huge political risk

but that's what would make it meaningful

The Tester-Udall and Udall "Shut Up and Pitch In" bill

The Strike: mandatory janatorial work for all white people in arizona

The Big Picture: or at least paying some higher taxes for schools, working hard to help integrate immigrants into society, some tutoring in education, finances, health, navigating American bureaucracies

they actually have a lot to offer

and it would make these retirees a helluva lot happier as well

you feel a lot better when you're helping people and recognizing others' humanity

than when you're angry, bitter, and screaming

The Picturette: What does Arizona's new immigration law imply about our country?

2010-04-27T21:24:00.004-04:00

(This is a post by The Picturette, who occasionally contributes to femonomics.blogspot.com/ under the name Just a State School Girl)
What does Arizona's new immigration law imply about our country?

Lately, there has been quite a bit of coverage in the media about Arizona's new immigration bill. It is the toughest piece of immigration legislation in United States' recent history, and it will give the Arizona police power to detain anyone who they "reasonably" suspect is an illegal immigrant. Moreover, all non-U.S. citizens in Arizona will now be required to carry their documents at all times. As an immigrant to and a citizen of this country, this new law makes me angry and sad because I fear that it will lead to racial profiling and second-class treatment of both legal and illegal residents of this country, and it indicates that America might not be the "land of opportunity" and "the melting pot" that so many people who risk their lives to come here imagine it to be.

I truly worry about the direct implications of this law. In response to many people's criticisms of the potential for racial profiling in this law, law-makers in Arizona have tried to assure us there will be training for the police officers on how to determine whether someone is an illegal immigrant without racial profiling, and Arizona cops claim that they will not racially profile. However, I am not sure how this is really feasible. Now, I will not claim to know very much about how police officers are trained or how they do their job. But, I don't know how one can determine whether a person is an illegal immigrant or not without relying on some observable characteristics of this individual. In particular, we know that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are of Hispanic origin. So, it seems highly unlikely that police officers will demand that a white person walking down the street will present their documents to prove their legal status in this country. They will inherently have to rely on some form of racial profiling -- regardless of whether they are trained to look past race or not. And this means that a certain portion of Arizona's population will be treated in a way that is different (more accurately, worse) than the rest of the population. It's hard to imagine that Arizona cops won't occasionally make mistakes in their assessment of who is legal or not. As a result, they will treat legal residents in this country who just happen to be of the same race as the illegal residents, as second-class citizens. Given the historical significance of racism and discrimination in this country, it seems that policies that actively force police officers to make judgments that are so inherently based on race is a step backwards and detrimental to our progress.

In following the media about Arizona's law, I was heartened to see that so many people share my concerns and have been actively protesting it. But what struck me the most is the quiet, but unyielding support that exists for it. This article, in particular, documents people's opinions on both sides of the debate. Supporters of the law seem to be just tired of these immigrants "congregating on the streets", committing all these crimes (despite the fact that there is no evidence that illegal immigrants commit more crime than the rest of the population), and taking jobs from Americans (although they should probably be more worried about highly-skilled and highly-educated legal immigrants on this front, but people seem to like them more).

I won't pretend that I can speak for the plight of illegal immigrants in this country. But I can say something about the overall immigrant experience. My family and I moved to this country from Russia when I was ten years old. As far as immigrant experiences go, I would say that mine was very fortunate. My parents are highly-educated and spoke some English when we first moved here. This enabled them to quickly find well-paying jobs, and to start adjusting to their new environment. I came at a young-enough age, which allowed me to learn English quickly and to learn to speak without a clearly detectable accent. Further, my family is mostly white (although not entirely), so we have benefited from being able to "fit in" with other upper-middle-class whites in our neighborhood and in our lives. Yet my family (at least in the current generation) will always feel as though it is *not* entirely American. People will always look at my parents, who don't speak English completely fluently and have accents, as outsiders. I know that they feel like that have to work hard to prove that they are capable at their jobs, perhaps harder than some of their more "native" American counterparts. Yet, despite never feeling completely at home in America, my parents chose to uproot their entire lives, leave their friends and families behind, and come to a place that was completely foreign and new. And if you ask them why, they'll tell you that it was to obtain better opportunities for our family and for my future.

And I think that -- this firm belief that America is a place where opportunities abound and where people have a real chance to truly make something of themselves and live comfortably and happily -- is something that all immigrants (legal and illegal) share. Immigrants who are nowhere near as fortunate as my family is -- either because they are considered non-white or they have lower education or are less able to speak English -- still choose to leave their homes, and despite some serious and often life-threatening risks, come to America. Because what was offered to them in their home country was just so dismal and so poor that they had no choice but to seek something better. Because they thought that they could do something to change the fates of their own and their families' lives. And because they couldn't wait for ten or twenty years to get legal authorization to immigrate to the U.S., they had to succumb to a life of fear and second-class citizenship as illegal immigrants. I don't think that any Americans who legally reside in this country can truly imagine or understand the gravity of the decision that an illegal immigrant had to make. And we, as Americans, who supposedly believe in the ultimate American dream of success and making the most of your opportunities, instead of supporting and admiring these individuals for their bravery and determination, treat them as though they are not good enough to be amongst us.

I hope that my fears about racial profiling in this law will not come true, and that police officers will actually implement it not on the basis of race. More importantly, I hope that we act soon to show that America really is a land of opportunity for ALL, and not just for those of us who are lucky enough to be white and have easier access to legal immigration (or have benefited from simply being born here).

The Daily Strike-4/27/10-Same S#it, Different Day

2010-04-27T18:45:00.004-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The title has two meanings, just you wait.

FINANCIAL REGULATION: The Senate today took another vote to begin debate on the financial regulation package, and again, Republicans successfully filibustered. Every Republican voted against starting debate on the bill, as did Democrat Ben Nelson, who we found out is simply holding out to win a loophole for his constituent, one Warren Buffet. I guess he didn't learn anything from that whole Cornhusker Kickback thing.

I'm not sure the Republicans will be able to sustain this obstruction. Senator Voinovich (R-OH) said this evening that he's willing to wait a few more days for a bipartisan deal, but that he won't vote to filibuster debate indefinitely. I suspect that a few other Republicans feel the same way. It appears that talks between the leaders of the Banking Committee, Senators Dodd (D-CT) and Shelby (R-AL) have just about collapsed. So the name of the game right now is continuing the public pressure on Republicans, expose their obstruction, and intimidate a couple of them into at least letting the debate begin.

One thing I'll mention is that this effort would be a lot easier if there were vulnerable Republican Senators out there. With the possible exception of Senator Burr (R-NC), no incumbent Republican is realistically going to lose this year. That makes it more difficult to exploit this obstruction in the near term.

While the debate on the floor was at a standstill, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) held hearings examining Goldman Sachs executives. He called them out for misleading investors by selling them assets that they knew were worthless. Emails surfaced in which the assets were called a "s#itty deal" by GS analysts. Levin repeated this line several times on live TV. It was a good chance for a tongue lashing of the financial industry. I highly recommend watching.

THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama is finally taking his reform pitch on the road. Today, he held a Town Hall event in Iowa. Obama told the audience that the American people "deserve an honest debate." I hope he continues this drumbeat when he makes similar appearances later in the week. At the event, he also gave a general defense of his performance in office, including the state of the economy and healthcare.

THE HOUSE: The House spent the day on suspension bills. Only one of them was remotely interesting. By a vote of 402-15, Congress voted to reject its own pay raise during the next fiscal year. I may be alone on this one, but I happen to think Congress deserves to get paid more. At least they are theoretically adding value to society by doing the people's business. I can tell you for sure that they offer far more societal value than Wall Street traders.

Every no vote came from the Democrats, with 13 of the no votes coming from the Congressional Black Caucus.

That's it for today. We'll be back tomorrow to see if Republicans have caved yet on beginning the financial reform debate.

The Daily Strike-4/26/10-The Motion Fails

2010-04-26T18:23:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Make sure you're caught up on the week in politics by reading our Weekly Strike below. And comments are pretty much required.

FINANCIAL REGULATION: Senate Democrats failed to get the 60 votes necessary to even begin debate on financial regulatory reform. To the political credit of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, every single Republican voted against debating bill, as did Democratic Senator, and Wall Street whipping boy, Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Majority Leader Reid voted no for procedural reasons, so that he can bring up the bill again when the time comes.

Republicans have won a short term victory. They think that by showing that Democrats don't have the votes to advance the bill without Republican support, the Democrats will be forced to make a series of concessions. There are a few problems with this thinking, and thus a few reasons that should give us hope. For one, Republicans haven't really articulated what they want out of the bill, just some vague desire to "start over." Soon, the public will have to see that they are obstructing this important bill for obstruction's sake. Unlike the health care bill, Wall Street regulation polls very well, so Republicans are clearly on the wrong side of public opinion. If Democrats can message this correctly, by saying that Republicans are using delay tactics to do Wall Street's bidding, they could make some major political hay out of this and still end up with a reasonably strong bill.

Negotiations will continue with Senators Dodd (D-CT) and Shelby (R-AL) to reach some sort of compromise. My preferred course of action at this point would be to forgo a major compromise, and instead politically intimidate one or two Republicans (like Snowe and Collins of Maine) to stop obstructing this bill. President Obama needs to do his part on this front. He released an appropriately blistering statement criticizing Republican obstruction and delay, but again, he needs to take this case to the American people.

I just found out that Majority Leader Reid will hold another vote to begin debate Wednesday. Stay tuned...

The House just dealt with suspension bills today, and the President's only public event was recognizing the New York Yankees at the White House, so we'll leave it there.

The Weekly Strike-4/26-5/2

2010-04-26T08:59:00.004-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. The President's agenda seems pretty stalled in Congress, and the administration is opposing breaking up the big banks. Plus it's dreary outside. It all adds up to me in a pretty sour mood.

FINANCIAL REGULATION: The battle for financial regulation will forge on this week, starting this afternoon in the United States Senate. The Senate will take a test vote this evening to begin debate on the bill. It appears that Democrats will be unable to win over the one Republican necessary to move forward. Senate Republicans are united in sticking together to block the bill so they can extract some concessions that will inevitably make the bill worse. Democrats need Republicans to pay for this obstruction. They should not weaken the regulations, and they should relentlessly attack Republicans for standing with Wall Street. Democrats are on the winning side of this issue, and there is no reason to give in now, even in the face of uniform Republican obstruction.

For his part, President Obama doesn't seem to have any events this week pushing the bill. It is frustrating that the President isn't out there forcefully explaining what this bill does, why it's needed, and what it will do to ease the burden on middle class families (i.e. protect people's savings from the reckless traders on Wall Street).

THE SENATE: It is unclear what the Senate will move to if Financial Reform fails its test vote today, as I expect it will. Two major items on the agenda were threatened by the selfish nihilism this week of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Graham was the lead negotiator for Republicans on both climate legislation, as well as immigration reform. In fact, Graham was supposed to unveil his climate bill today with Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Lieberman (I-CT). But Graham backed out at the last minute, saying that murmurs from the White House that they want to push immigration reform somehow threaten the work on climate change. So basically, two of our country's most pressing issues are currently on the back burner because one Republican Senator is having a temper tantrum.

The need for legislation on both of these issues is obviously great. Last Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed an immoral law that will allow police to pull over those they "suspect" as being illegal immigrants, and ask for identification. This measure will amount to pure racial profiling. The Obama administration rightly reacted to this bill by emphasizing the need for a comprehensive national immigration strategy. It becomes a lot harder to do this in an election year without Graham's involvement. Democrats will have to find another Republican willing to work on both of these issues. I'll try to remain confident.

THE HOUSE: While the Senate dithers on big ticket items, the House continues to pass smaller pieces of legislation. This pattern will continue this week. The House will consider suspension bills today and tomorrow. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will consider two pieces of substantive legislation. The first is the "Puerto Rico Democracy Act." The bill gives the Puerto Rican people the option to vote on whether to maintain its current relationship with the United States. If the populous disapproves of the arrangement, they will vote whether to become fully independent of the U.S., or whether to join the U.S. as our 51st state. The bill has wide bipartisan support, and I expect it to pass relatively easily. The bill is sponsored by Puerto Rico's non-voting House member, Rep. Pedro Pierliusi.

The House will then vote on a bill that further reforms how our military acquires weapons. This legislation builds off of last year's bill that reformed the procurement process. I expect this bill to pass relatively easily as well.

That's it for now. Unless you want me to talk about today's visit to the White House by the World Series Champion New York Yankees. But that would just depress me even further...

The Daily Strike-4/22/10-Too Cozy for Comfort

2010-04-22T19:03:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. This will be our last entry until Monday morning, so you better enjoy it. Leave some comments!

FINANCIAL REGULATIONS: Majority Leader Reid today filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the Wall Street Reform bill. Basically what this means is that at 5:15pm on Monday, the Senate will vote whether to debate the bill, subject to a 60 vote threshold. Reid asked for unanimous consent that the bill be considered immediately, but Minority Leader McConnell objected, saying that he wanted to give bipartisan negotiators time to hash out a final deal.

Of course, Reid is smart enough to know what happened last year with health care, where the GOP used delay tactics at every turn to grind the process to a complete halt. Reid won't let that happen. If Republicans want to block debate on financial reform, they will be forced to do it publicly. So far, no Republican has committed to voting yes on Monday. If the vote fails, Democrats will need to find another way to pluck off a single Republican, most likely one of the Maine Senators.

Meanwhile, the President took his push for financial reform on the road to Wall Street today, and quite frankly, did not meet expectations. The Big Picture offered good commentary on his speech:

I am VERY disappointed in Obama's speech. Just look at that New York Times headline: "Don't fight us, join us". That approach makes sense in a lot of contexts, and it would make sense if he was encouraging Wall Street bankers to accept massive pay cuts or to become social workers. But what is "us", what are we working toward, if somehow hedge fund people making $100 million a year off the misery of average people are included in it? How could Wall Street as it exists join "us"? If it somehow can, then nothing is really changing.

The President needs to separate himself as much as possible from the financial industry, especially considering how much money he's taken from them. This bill should NOT be good for the industry, because if it is, it will preserve a system that caused the downfall of the economy. The President would do very well to read this fantastic article from the Wall Street Journal, which provides story of real people, average Americans, who because of intense hardship, could not pay their mortgages. Wealthy derivatives traders profited immensely by betting against these assets. This is fundamentally wrong, and I think most Americans would strongly agree that we'd need to end these dangerous financial instruments if they were explained in these terms.

I'm telling you: the more I find out about financial derivatives, the more I'm convinced that we need to do away with large swaths of the financial industry.

THE SENATE: The Senate voted on the nomination of Denny Chin to be a Judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. His nomination was agreed to be a unanimous 98-0 vote. I'm glad that President Obama is finally getting a chance to fill some spots on those all-important Appeals Courts.

The Senate will be out of session until Monday's aforementioned vote.

THE HOUSE: The House today voted to send the Iran Sanctions bill to a House-Senate conference. The House also approved of a "motion to instruct conferees," basically a non-binding request that negotiators get to work as soon as possible. The sanctions bill should be approved with wide bipartisan support, though they won't have too much of an impact unless China and Russia get involved.

That's it for tonight. See you Monday!

The Daily Strike-4/21/10-What I Can Derive

2010-04-21T17:54:00.006-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. This week I keep getting bombarded with more and more evidence that the financial system is fundamentally corrupt and should be done away with almost completely. Just throwing that out there. Maybe The Big Picture can elaborate further in the coming days.

FINANCIAL REGULATIONS: The Senate Agriculture Committee today passed the last key part of the overall financial regulatory overhaul today. The bill, authored by embattled Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln, sets enormously strong regulations over the sale of derivatives, the financial instruments that partially caused the collapse of the economy two years ago. Amazingly, Lincoln was able to win the vote of Republican Chuck Grassley. To this point, Democrats had not been able to make a thaw in the unified Republican opposition to the measure. Grassley quickly pointed out that his vote on the derivatives measure wasn't indicative of how he'd vote on the bill at large, but it is still a positive sign.

Republican Senators are now insisting that a deal could soon be in place that would assure bipartisan support for the bill. At this point, I'm not sure what policy concessions would be part of the deal, though I would suspect that they'd do away with the "resolution" fund we talked about yesterday. If a deal is not struck, Democrats will probably still bring the measure to the floor for a test vote to see if they could get a spare Republican vote with no major concessions. Republican Senator John Thune (SD) said that he's not sure all 41 Senators would oppose a motion to proceed to the bill, which would allow debate and amendment votes.

The President will do his part tomorrow to make a public case for the bill in downtown Manhattan. I'm sure he will address the SEC investigation of Goldman Sachs, a firm that did a bunch of really shady stuff that I still barely can understand (they basically sold assets that they knew were worthless, and bet on them being worthless to make money...right?). The President desperately needs to distance himself from the Goldman Sachs crowd to have any legitimacy on this issue. It does not help his cause that many members of his economic team are Goldman alums. Nor does it help that his former White House Counsel is now advising them.

SUPREME COURT: The President today consulted with a bipartisan group of Senators about his upcoming choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. According to attendees, the President didn't mention any candidates by name, though he did say he was in contact with the main contenders. A White House staffer said that President Obama won't be afraid to make a bold choice, knowing that the GOP will oppose the nominee no matter who it is. My first choice would be Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood, a liberal intellectual heavyweight, and experienced jurist, who could be a major force of opposition to the conservative wing of the court.

THE SENATE: The Senate spent the day on various nominees as Democrats are successfully moving through more and more Presidential appointments. The Senate today confirmed the nomination of Christopher Schroeder to be an Assistant Attorney General by a vote of 72-24. The Senate also confirmed Thomas Vanaskie to be a Judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals by a wide bipartisan vote of 77-20. In each case, all the opposition is from Republicans.

It is notable that these nominations are not particularly controversial, but they have still been held up for months because of horrendous Senate rules.

THE HOUSE: It was a relatively quiet day in the House, as the chamber dealt with suspension bills. Tomorrow, there will be a vote to go to conference a the Iran sanctions bill.

That's it for now, see you tomorrow! Leave some comments!

The Daily Strike-4/20/10-Back to the Table?

2010-04-20T19:05:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. There were lots of little movements on pieces of legislation today, so let's get to it.

FINANCIAL REFORM: It looks like Republicans are back at the negotiating table. As we talked about yesterday, Democrats still need the support of one Republican in order to just debate the financial regulatory measure. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), peddler of the falsehood that the bill institutionalizes taxpayer bailouts, said today that Republicans are confident that a deal could be within reach. It seems like one major sticking point is the proposed $50 billion fund, paid by financial institutions who make risky investments, that would help wind down firms that are too big to fail. Republicans have barked about this provision, and Democrats, from the White House especially, don't seem particularly attached to it. I would caution against Congressional Democrats who think that one concession will create bipartisan support. If Democrats drop this provision though, in my view, Republicans will keep moving the goalposts. They'll find something else in the bill to demagogue. I think Democrats should keep that provision in there as a bargaining chip, if not for anything else.

Majority Leader Reid said that a vote to proceed to the bill would happen as soon as Thursday and as late as early next week. The White House and Democratic leaders will continue to reach out to Republicans until they secure that one vote.

THE SENATE: Meanwhile, the Senate was busy dealing with a couple of other items. On the floor, Democrats are actually engaging in a successful push to get some of President Obama's nominees confirmed. The Senate today voted 78-19 to confirm Lael Brainerd to be Undersecretary of Treasury for International Affairs. They also confirmed Marisa Dameo to be an associate judge on the D.C. Superior Court for a term of 15 years (I had no idea they had terms!). The vote on the nomination was 66-32. In each case, all of the opposition came from Republicans.

Senator Claire McCaskill (MO) was the street fighter for Senate Democrats to move past Republican obstructionism. She asked unanimous consent to vote on up to 80 Obama nominees, which forced Republicans to actively object on the floor. Every single one of these nominees was approved unanimously in committee, and McCaskill was trying to expose the fact that individual GOP Senators are putting holds on nominees to gain leverage on non-related issues. McCaskill's efforts, supported wholeheartedly by the Democratic leadership, succeeding in getting votes for a few nominees in the next couple of days, including two nominees for key posts on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Way to go, Claire!

Off the floor, Senate Democrats, led by Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, are preparing to release a Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2011. Democrats in both the House and Senate have been reluctant to release a budget blueprint because it will project large deficits for the next several years. If Democrats want to pursuit any legislation through the filibuster-proof reconciliation progress (and believe me, there's a lot they could do through reconciliation) they will need to pass a budget resolution. Reconciliation instructions could be used for jobs legislation, tax policy (like an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class), and possibly for energy policy. The Budget Resolution is expected to include the President's proposal to cap non-defense discretionary spending (which if you can recall, I think is an awful proposal). We'll have more on the proposal when it is released.

It's interesting that the Senate is going first in crafting a Budget Resolution. House Democrats feel that they've done a lot of the legislative heavy lifting over the last year, and they want their Senate counterparts to take the plunge.

THE HOUSE: The big news from the House today is that, unfortunately, there will be no consideration of a bill to give voting rights to the District of Columbia in this Congress. Democrats couldn't figure out a way to pass the bill without a rider that invalidated D.C's strict gun laws. Apparently this was a trade stakeholders were not willing to make. This is awful news, because this Congress was the best chance DC was gonna get to have voting representation. If as expected, Democrats lose seats this November in both Houses, that will not bode well for DC voting rights.

Otherwise today, the House just dealt with some suspension bills.

That's it for now, see you tomorrow!

The Daily Strike-4/16/10-Not Playing Ball

2010-04-19T20:09:00.004-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Make sure you catch up on the week in politics in the Weekly Strike below. Here's what happened today in politics.

FINANCIAL REGULATIONS: It looks like Democrats still have not peeled off the one Republican vote needed to begin debate on the financial reform bill. I'll first note how absurd it is that a) we need 60 votes just to debate something, and b) zero Republicans are willing to even debate a bill that would help prevent the next economic catastrophe. I mentioned this morning that Majority Leader Reid had hoped to begin debate on the bill this week. Since Democrats have yet to win over a Republican vote to put them at the magic 60, they'll have to delay until next week.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner held meetings today with Republicans Collins and Snowe of Maine, but neither of them made commitments about supporting the bill. They also did not lay out any specific demands as to what they would want in the legislation. It seems that Republicans, both conservatives and moderates, are once again using the "let's go back to the drawing board" meme.

Unlike during the health care debate last December, we unfortunately have to listen to them. That is the ultimate result of Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts. We can't even begin debate on a Wall Street reform bill. I'm not sure that's quite what Bay State voters intended.

The President on Thursday goes to Wall Street to make a direct pitch for financial reform. He needs to articulate clearly what the bill will do for the American people. I'm thinking something like " You worked hard your whole life and played by the rules, and you set aside a little money so that you could have a dignified retirement. But the Wall Street fat cats made risky bets with the money you entrusted to them, and they lost it. We need to make sure they can never do this again. All lawmakers need to decide: are you with the Wall Street bankers or are you with the American people?"

THE SENATE: The Senate, in lieu of the financial reform bill, will spend most of the week on lingering nominations. They started today by voting to end debate on the nomination of Lael Brainerd to be Undersecretary of the Treasury by a 84-10 vote. All no votes were from Republicans. A vote on the nomination itself will be held midday tomorrow.

The House was out today. They'll gavel back in tomorrow.

That's it for now, see you later!

The Weekly Strike-4/19-4/25

2010-04-19T09:03:00.004-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. I'm still recovering from a brutal hockey game last night, but being the hero blogger that I am, I couldn't possibly forget about you. On to the week in politics...

FINANCIAL REGULATIONS: The next major legislative battle is in full gear. We talked last week about how Obama hasn't really pushed very hard on enacting sweeping Wall Street reform. That seemingly has changed significantly. In the last week, President Obama personally called out Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell for first meeting secretly with Wall Street bankers, and then lying about the contents of the bill to the American public. He also issued a veto threat if the bill did not contain strong enough regulation of derivatives. Boosted by government charges against Goldman Sachs on Friday, the President and his allies believe they are positioned well to win this fight.

First things first, though. In order for the Senate to even consider the bill, it needs 60 votes. Though a few Democrats have problems with parts of the bill, I don't think any of them would object to at least considering the measure. That leaves Democrats in need of one Republican vote. Minority Leader McConnell tried to get every Republican to sign on to a letter saying they would filibuster the bill if the Democrats didn't come to the negotiating table. After Senator Collins (ME) refused to sign on, he changed the letter to make the threat not quite as strong. Today, Collins meets with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who hopes to persuade her that this bill is necessary to avoid a repeat of the 2008 economic collapse.

If indeed Democrats do not have the votes to proceed, they'll be forced to make some concessions. It seems like the White House is already willing to drop some key provisions. Included in the Dodd bill is a provision that creates a $50 billion fund, paid for by Wall Street firms, to help wind down companies that are "too big to fail." Republicans falsely contend that this constitutes a taxpayer bailout. Obama has asked Senate leaders to take the provision out of the bill. I'm not sure how I feel about this policy-wise. But again, it is not politically smart to make any concessions until you have secured votes. I thought we learned that lesson with health care.

Democratic leaders hope to bring a motion to proceed to the bill to the floor as soon as Wednesday, and as late as Friday. We'll keep you posted. It's also possible that President Obama goes on the road to pitch the plan. I think he desperately needs to connect the dots as to how these regulations will protect the American people from losing their hard-earned money.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The President has a somewhat quiet start to his week. He will hold a meeting this morning with General Scott Gration, the administration's envoy to Sudan. The genocide in Darfur certainly has gotten a disproportionately small amount of attention since Obama took office, don't you think?

The President then flies to California where he will hold a fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer, who is in a tough reelection fight this year. No word yet on the rest of the week's schedule.

THE SENATE: Before the Senate gets to financial reform, they will vote on a series of previously stalled executive nominations. Majority Leader Reid has filed cloture on on 5 Presidential nominations, including two Appeals Court judges. The first vote will be a vote to end debate on the nomination of Lael Brainerd to be the Under Secretary of the Treasury. It is pretty pathetic that during a financial crisis, key positions at the Treasury remain unfilled.

THE HOUSE: The House will come into session tomorrow, and they will spend a couple of days dealing with suspension bills. The House will also vote on a motion to go to conference on a bill to impose sanctions on Iran. On Thursday, the House will take up a long-stalled bill that would give voting rights to the District of Columbia. The bill also would temporarily give a House seat to Utah, so that an obvious Democratic seat would be offset by a safe Republican seat. The bill passed both the House and Senate last year. However, the Senate included a provision that would strike down most of D.C's restrictive gun laws. Democrats did not want to swallow this compromise, but it appears as if DC interests are willing to sacrifice their gun laws for official representation in Congress.

I'm not entirely sure whether the House will take up the Senate-passed bill verbatim, or whether they will be voting on a brand new version of the measure. We'll keep you posted.

That's it for now. See you tonight, and leave some comments!

The Daily Strike-4/15/10-Tax Day

2010-04-15T20:24:00.004-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Happy Tax Day! Today, I left my office during lunch to take pictures of the tea party event going on in Freedom Plaza. Check out my Facebook album for pictures. Let's just say there are some pretty "creative" signs.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: Americans honestly owe a good deal of thanks to the Democratic Party on this tax day. For one, taxes have gone down for about 95% of them following the passage of last year's stimulus bill. Today, Congress further eased the crippling burden of the recession by passing an extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits through June 2nd. Members of Congress are still working on passing a more permanent extension.

The bill passed the Senate this afternoon by a vote of 59-38. Every Democrat voted to extend safety net benefits for average Americans, while all but three Republicans (Snowe/Collins of Maine and Voinovich of Ohio) voted no. Prior to a vote on final passage, the Senate rejected a few Republican amendments.

First, Democrats killed a Republican amendment that would have required Congress to pay for the bill by cutting other spending. The amendment failed by a vote of 48-50. Every Republican voted yes, as did Democrats Bayh (IN), Bennet (CO), Feingold (WI), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR) and Udall (CO). A twin amendment, which sought to take money from different federal programs, also failed, this time by a vote of 45-53.

The Senate then voted on a politically-motivated amendment from Senator McCain (AZ) that would declare the Senate officially opposed to a "Value Added Tax." Members of the Obama administration have talked about this form of taxation as a way to raise revenue, but it has not yet been formally proposed by anyone in Congress. Mr. Deficit Hawk McCain wanted to show that the Senate would completely rule out a pretty reasonable way of decreasing the deficit. Unfortunately, he amendment passed 85-13, with the following reasonable Senators casting a courageous no vote: Akaka (HI), Bingaman (NM), Brown (OH), Byrd (WV), Cardin (MD), Dorgan (ND), Kaufman (DE), Levin (MI), Reed (RI), Udall (NM), Voinovich (OH), Webb (VA) and Whitehouse (RI).

After the Senate approved the bill, it was sent back over the House for final ratification. This evening, the House passed the revised version by a vote of 289-112. All but one no vote came from the Republicans.

THE HOUSE: The House also approved a bill today to control water pollution in our country's estuaries. The bill passed easily by a vote of 278-128. It now goes to the Senate where it will languish indefinitely like every other half decent bill.

Also today in the House, Democrat Ted Deutch of Florida was sworn in as the new Representative from Florida's 21st District. He won a special election Tuesday to finish the term of former Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler, who is now at a Middle East Think Tank. Although his district is reliably Democratic, it was good to see a Democratic romp in the first federal election after the passage of health reform.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The President gave a speech today in Florida to a bunch of NASA workers. Many NASA heavyweights, including moonwalker Neil Armstrong, have criticized the President for cutting various space programs, including the planned "Constellation" program. Obama assured the skeptical audience that he would continue to invest in space programs, including a manned Mars mission in the distant future.

I find it ironic that many conservatives are attacking the President for basically privatizing a huge federal agency.

That's it for today. We'll be back on Monday, ahead of what looks like it could be an action packed legislative week. The Senate will begin consideration of the Financial Reform measure. It looks like the House will return to a bill that gives voting rights to good old Washington D.C.

The Daily Strike-4/14/10-Financial Regulation Battle

2010-04-14T18:32:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The NHL playoffs start tonight, so my mind, quite frankly, is elsewhere. But how could I let you all down?

FINANCIAL REGULATION: The next big legislative battle on Capital Hill is heating up. President Obama met today with leaders from both parties to discuss Financial Regulatory reform, which is due to come to the Senate floor in the next week or so. Senator Dodd (D-CT) has tried to get Republican support for the bill, but his patience has been running out. Republican Senator Bob Corker (TN) had been a willing participant in discussions, and had even contributed to the derivatives regulation in the bill.

But once again, the Republicans realize that they have an electoral stake in seeing this go down in flames. In recent days, Republicans have ramped up their rhetoric against the bill, saying that it represents a "permanent bailout." Apparently flat out lying is an acceptable political strategy these days. President Obama, as he does almost weekly, chastised Republicans for peddling "misinformation."

Yes, the Democrats will need one Republican vote (at least) to get this plan through the Senate. But that does NOT mean they should give in to GOP opposition. This, to put it bluntly, can be a winning issue for the Democratic party. We need to frame this fight as Us vs. Them. The "Us" is the Democrats and the American Middle Class and the "Them" is the Republican Party and Wall Street. It's an easy dichotomy to make when the Republican Party is so obviously doing Wall Street's bidding on this. Democrats in the Senate especially need to follow Obama's lead and accept nothing less than robust regulation of financial derivatives.

As we learned from the health care fight, as soon as Democrats give in, the public begins to think that there must be something inherently bad about the underlying bill. We can't let this dynamic play out again. Preventing another financial collapse is just too important.

THE SENATE: The Senate took some votes today on the bill to temporarily extend unemployment and COBRA insurance. The first amendment, offered by Senator Baucus (D-MT) would have extended the extension (yes I said it) through the end of May. The amendment failed to get the 60 votes needed to waive relevant budget rules. The amendment had the support of 59 Senators (all Democrats plus Voinovich of Ohio), with Patrick Leahy absent. Since Leahy would vote for it, Majority Leader Reid decided to ask to reconsider the vote. Only those who vote on the prevailing side can request reconsideration, so Reid voted against the amendment for procedural reasons. Another vote on that amendment will be held tomorrow.

The Senate rejected, by a vote of 51-46, an amendment from Senator Coburn (R-OK) that calls for the bill to be paid for with unspent stimulus funds. All Republicans supported the amendment, as did Democrats Bayh (IN), Feingold (WI), Klobuchar (MN), Lincoln (AR) and Nelson (NE).

There might be a couple other amendment or procedural votes tonight and tomorrow morning, but I expect the bill to pass by tomorrow evening. Any changes to the bill would require it to return to the House.

THE HOUSE: The House mostly dealt with suspension bills today. The Republicans brought up a question of privilege demanding an investigation into former Rep. Eric Massa. But that story is totally played at this point. House Democrats voted to kill the question.

The House will consider The Clean Estuaries Act tomorrow.

That's it for now, see you tomorrow night! Go Sharks!

The Daily Strike-4/13/10-After the Summit

2010-04-13T18:34:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The nuclear summit has ended, so DC is no longer occupied by massive military tanks. We can resume living.

NUCLEAR SUMMIT: The President concluded the nuclear proliferation summit today by calling on the nations of the world to adopt a "new mindset" to control nuclear weapons in the 21st century. The President called the meeting productive, and he was indeed able to get countries to commit to securing loose nuclear materials. I happen to be somewhat skeptical, since these commitments won't be enforced by any international body, but I guess that's how international relations has to work.

The President addressed the media at a press conference after the summit. He was asked about sanctions in Iran, about which he said they would be "no magic wand" but that he wanted to move quickly on some sort of action. He also talked about his meeting with President Hu Jintao of China, where he talked to the Chinese leader about revaluing the Yuan.

The President holds a closing reception with world leaders tonight, followed by a bilateral meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. After that, it will be about time for the President to turn back to domestic affairs. He has a lot on his plate.

THE SENATE: The Senate didn't take any votes today. They are in the middle of consideration of a temporary extension to unemployment and COBRA benefits. Tomorrow, the Senate will presumably vote on amendments to the extension, including one from Senator Baucus (D-MT) that would make the extensions effective through May so that Congress can agree on a permanent solution. Final passage of the extenders bill could happen as early as tomorrow.

The Senate will likely then turn to the next big battle: Financial Regulatory Reform. Minority Leader McConnell (KY) unveiled the GOP's strategy for defeating the bill: argue that it is just another bailout bill. Of course the facts dictate otherwise. The bill actually will prevent Congress from ever enacting a bailout again, because it will create a process for the orderly dismantling of firms that are "too big to fail."

In one of those weird Congressional quirks, regulation of derivatives (a major part of the bill) have to go through the Senate Agriculture Committee, which is chaired by embattled Senator Lincoln of Arkansas. According to trusted sources, she has drafted a strong bill. Once again, the power of a primary challenge (she is being challenged from the left by Lt. Gov Bill Halter).

Speaking of trusted sources, this is a difficult issue to get a handle on. It has a lot of moving parts. As always, I recommend the good wonks out there like Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias.

THE HOUSE: The House came back into session today after a two week recess. They dealt only with suspension bills today.

There is actually a special House election going on tonight in Florida to replace Robert Wexler (D) who is now running a Middle East think tank. Democratic State Senator Ted Deutch is heavily favored against Republican Ed Lynch in this Democratic district. If he doesn't win, woahhhh boy. This election will bring the whole number of members in the House to 431.

That's it for tonight, we'll see you tomorrow!

The Daily Strike-4/12/10-Extensions, Extensions

2010-04-12T19:09:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Make sure you catch up on the week in politics in The Weekly Strike below.

THE SENATE: The Senate came back into session today and voted to cut off debate on a bill that extends unemployment insurance, COBRA, and flood insurance. The bill had been held up by Republican obstructionists prior to the two week recess, and as a result, millions of Americans saw benefits disappear. Democrats were able to scrounge together the 60 votes necessary to begin debate on the bill. Every Democrat voted for it, as did Republicans Brown (MA), Collins (ME), Snowe (ME) and Voinovich (OH). 34 Republicans voted to cut off these benefits. 3 Senators from each party did not vote.

Majority Leader Reid is trying to come to an agreement with Minority Leader McConnell to schedule a final vote in the next couple of days. Obstructionist Tom Coburn might break with his leadership and prolong the debate as long as possible. This is the sort of obstructionism, the kind that hurts everyday Americans, that Democrats need to highlight as much as possible.

NUCLEAR SUMMIT: The rest of Washington D.C. was consumed with the multilateral summit on nuclear weapons. Leaders from all over the world descended on the nation's capital to figure out ways to stop nuclear proliferation. The President stepped out of the summit at points today to have bilateral meetings with the leaders of Jordan, Malaysia, Ukraine, Armenia, and China. Obama is hosting a working dinner tonight with foreign leaders.

The best news of the day is that Obama reached an agreement with the President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanokovych that requires the Ukranians to give up their stock of highly-enriched uranium. If only we could make such a deal with the Iranians and the North Koreans!

That's it for now. See you tomorrow!

The Weekly Strike-4/12-4/18

2010-04-12T08:59:00.003-04:00

Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. Congress is back and session, and pretty much every world leader is in town, so there is much to discuss.

THE WHITE HOUSE: It seems like everything has been nuclear lately for this White House. First, they release their new policy on nuclear weapons. Then, they sign the START treaty with Russia. Starting today, the President hosts a summit among world leaders to discuss how to prevent nuclear weapons getting into the hands of terrorists. This is an important topic, and it is arguably the biggest threat to our national security. I don't, however, see much coming out of this summit. The biggest news potentially could be how much the meeting snarls traffic around here.

With so much focus on international affairs over the past couple of weeks, and continuing through this week, the President has halted all of his momentum on the domestic agenda. After his victory on health care, we were looking to see a new, invigorated President ready to push hard on the next big items, like financial regulatory reform and jobs. He could have started a drum beat for a new post-health care narrative: it's us vs. Republicans and the powerful special interests. We delivered for you on health reform, now let's deliver for you again!

Instead, the President has been almost completely silent on these issues. He barely talked about jobs, and I don't think he said one word in support of financial regulation. As a result, his political momentum from health care has completely stalled. In fact, his numbers in the tracking polls reflect this blunted momentum. The President needs to remember that with the clock running out on strong Democratic majorities, any idle time is wasted time. I didn't admire President Bush for much, but he was able to act like pending items on his agenda (Iraq War, anyone?) were the most important thing in the world and had to get done immediately. Obama needs to get that drum beat going immediately. Yes, I understand his schedule is busy, but if he can't do it himself, he needs to get some of his surrogates out there, like Vice President Biden.

This White House has not been good at creating a narrative and pounding it home day after day. It is important to change this dynamic now, not just because of political necessity, but because of the magnitude of our country's problems.

THE SENATE: Speaking of our country's problems, the Senate has a chance to stop the bleeding on one of the biggest, unemployment. Before the last recess began, Republican Senators objected to passing an extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits. As a result, some of these benefits ran out last week. At 5:30pm today, the Senate will vote to cut off debate on this extension. Democrats need at least one Republican vote to advance the bill. So far, Republicans have seemed pretty united in their misguided view that any extension of these benefits must be accompanied by spending cuts elsewhere. Of course, the most stimulative thing we could do for our economy would be to give money to people (the unemployed) who would spend it immediately.

It's possible that when the Senate finishes the extenders bill, that it starts consideration of the financial reform measure.

THE HOUSE: The House comes back into session tomorrow, but it should have a pretty slow week. It will be all suspensions Tuesday and Wednesday. Thursday, the House takes up a bill dealing with clean estuaries. Hopefully, this will allow me to swim in the San Francisco Bay.

That's it for now, see you tonight!

The Daily Strike-4/9/10-Stevens Retires

2010-04-09T15:05:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. We weren't planning on doing an entry tonight, but news intervened. I'd also like to acknowledge that this is our 500th entry! Hooray!

STEVENS: Today, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he will retire from the Supreme Court when the current term ends in June. He wanted to announce his retirement early enough so that his successor can be seated by the time the 2010-2011 term begins.

Stevens was nominated by President Gerald Ford in 1975, and at the time was expected to be a relatively conservative Justice. As the court began veering far to the right during the Reagan years, Stevens gradually became the court's most consistently liberal members. Chris Hayes of The Nation wrote today that Stevens is "one of the absolute great heroes of liberalism over the past several decades." I completely agree. Stevens became a staunch advocate for civil rights and the right to privacy. He also was key in bringing aboard other court members to strike down Bush Administration abuses of executive power. Stevens also wrote three of my favorite dissents over the past decade. The first, was his scathing indictment of the majority in the infamous Bush V. Gore case. The next was his brilliant usage of my favorite Anatole France quote in his dissent in the Seattle School District case, which dealt with racial-based consideration in public school admissions. Finally, I must cite his strongly worded dissent in this year's disastrous "Citizens United" case, in which the majority threw away restrictions against corporate buyouts of campaigns. His fair-mindedness, character, and yes, empathy will be sorely missed.

President Obama is now tasked with appointing Stevens' successor. As I mentioned to The Big Picture this morning, this might be a good chance for President Obama to appoint someone outside of the box who could serve as a populist voice against the special-interest judging by the current conservative majority. Obama today said that he will appoint a Justice with similar qualities to Justice Stevens. We will have more on the President's choice in the coming weeks, but today, let's celebrate the legacy of a great Supreme Court Justice.

The Daily Strike-4/8/10-A New START

2010-04-08T18:20:00.002-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Yes, that title is a bit cliche.

START TREATY: Before we woke up this morning, President Obama flew to Prague to sign a new nuclear arms agreement with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev. The treaty advances the long-term U.S. goal, endorsed by President Ronald Reagan, to cut our nuclear arsenal. The plan calls for each country to reduce its arms by about 1/3rd. Don't worry: we'll still have enough nukes to defend ourselves against an unexpected attack. But it starts the slow, arduous process of getting us to a nuclear-free world.

The agreement represents a significant foreign policy agreement for the Obama administration for a number of reasons. First, it accomplishes a goal he outlined on the campaign trail and in a speech last year. Second, it could help us establish a stronger relationship with Russia. We will desperately need Russian assistance if we want to impose strong sanctions on Iran.

The treaty will have to be ratified by a 2/3rds majority vote in the United States Senate. The GOP may try to make the pact an election year issue, but I don't anticipate the treaty actually failing to pass.

ON THE RADAR: The President is also paying close attention to a couple of other issues. When he gets back the U.S., he will hold a meeting with Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and the Mine Safety Administrator Joe Main to talk about this week's coal mine explosion in West Virginia. The President will also be keeping an eye on the situation in the Central Asian country of Kyrgyzstan, where the opposition party has overthrown the government, and the President is hiding somewhere near the capital. The situation has implications for the strategic interests of the United States because we operate a military base there. It also has implications for yours truly, since a friend of mine is doing the Peace Corps there. Let's all hope she's doing ok.

That's it for tonight, we'll be off tomorrow and back on the air Monday morning.

The Daily Strike-4/7/10-Budget Preview

2010-04-07T18:35:00.003-04:00

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Again, it is a very slow news day. I'm just itching for Congress to get back in session. So naturally, I'll be talking about what Congress will be doing when they get back in session. If you want to read about death threats to members of Congress who supported health care, or an idiotic Virginia governor who wrote a proclamation celebrating Confederate history without mentioning slavery, you'll have to look elsewhere.

BUDGET BATTLE: When Congress reconvenes next week, they'll most likely begin consideration of the FY 2011 Budget Resolution. The resolution, as we explained last year, sets non-binding targets for discretionary spending, and also projects the overall budget picture for the next five years. The budget resolution represents the totality of goals for the party in power, basically, so it's only natural that it becomes a bitter partisan fight. President Obama's proposed budget, which will likely be similar to the one proposed by Democrats in Congress, projects trillion dollar deficits for the foreseeable future. It's basically handing the Republicans an opportunity to hammer home their "Democrats are big spenders!" talking points.

The reality, of course, is that at least a third of the deficit is due to the continuing effects of the recession. During a recession, spending increases on safety-net programs (like food stamps and unemployment), and tax revenues decline sharply. The rest of the deficit is largely the result of the Bush tax cuts, wars that weren't paid for, and a $500 billion Republican prescription drug program. All of the spending in the last year, including the bailouts and the stimulus package, account for a very small portion of the deficit.

Democrats have never been good about explaining the causes of the deficit. People seem to think the deficit is caused by amorphous "government spending," and the media reinforces these perceptions. If the Democrats are smart, they will use this budget battle as an opportunity to hammer home the root causes, and needed solutions, to the deficit problem. Democrats should hammer home that the way to decrease deficits in the long-run is to create jobs. A government that spending money temporarily to put people back to work, will save money in the long-run. This is counter-intuitive to voters, but it is worth the time and effort to explain. It would be nice if every speech a Democrat gives on the budget talks about how we need to invest now to save later.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that won't happen. For one, President Obama has lent credence to deficit myths by proposing to freeze discretionary spending (which will have a minuscule effect on the deficit). Also, the Blue Dog Democrats, who have the power to shape the Budget Resolution, will want to show off their deficit-cutting credentials ahead of this fall's elections. These factors will make it easier for Republicans to pound home their message and exploit Democratic divisions.

Of course, Democrats could save themselves a political fight and not pass a Budget Resolution at all. Republicans didn't pass one in their last year in power, 2006. The problem is that they wouldn't be able to use the reconciliation process later in the year if they don't pass a budget resolution with "reconciliation instructions." Since Republicans will filibuster anything and everything before the November elections, Democrats would be wise to pass some key bills under reconciliation. For example, they could use the reconciliation process to enact a jobs measure that funnels money to state and local governments.

To sum up, it will be an interesting legislative fight that will be coming up over the next couple of months. Stay tuned.