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!
Showing posts with label DC Voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DC Voting. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Weekly Strike-4/19-4/25
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!
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!
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Weekly Strike-3/9-3/15
Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike, where we preview a busy week in politics. Obviously, the backdrop this week will be the rapidly deteriorating economy. With the public deeply concerned about declining output, rising unemployment and a stock market spiraling out of control, policy makers, especially the administration, is under intense pressure to figure out a solution to this mess. Unfortunately, nothing in Congress' schedule really addreses these issues head-on. Let's take a look at what's going on.
SENATE: The Senate will try to (finally) complete work on the omnibus spending bill in the next couple of days. The stopgap funding measure passed last Friday expires on Wednesday, so the Senate must act by then. Before the Senate votes to cut off debate (which is the effective vote for passage), it will have to deal with an additional 13 Republican amendments. None of these amendments seem to me to be particularly germane. Republican supporters of the bill last week refused to cut off debate unless the amendments were considered, so they will slowly slog through these. Votes on amendments will begin today at 5:30 with a vote on the Ensign (R-NV) amendment, which restores funding to the controversial program that gives poor DC students vouchers to attend private schools. Other amendments include measures dealing with Iran, Gaza, and the Republicans favorite irrelevant topic, the Fairness Doctrine. Democrats will do their very best to defeat each of these amendments, so that they don't have to send the bill back to the House. The leadership is eager to finish this bill as quickly as possible. The bill is not popular (because of its supposed large number of earmarks), and represents nine of last year's spending bills, so I think members want Obama to sign this and never speak of it again. The vote on cloture (to cut off debate) is tentatively scheduled for tomorrow (I have my doubts). This vote, of course, is subject to the 60-vote threshold.
I'm not sure where the Senate moves after it finishes this bill, but it might be to consideration of the House-passed mortgage cram down bill.
HOUSE: The House this week starts, as usual, with votes on non-controversial measures under suspension of the rules. On Tuesday or Wednesday, the House will take up a bill authorizing funding to prevent water pollution. The bill has a couple of Republican co-sponsors, so I expect it to pass relatively easily. Most Republicans will undoubtedly vote no, because they're against funding pretty much anything at this point, but who cares? Have fun in the minority!
The House also might take up the DC Voting rights bill, if it can work out issues relating to a Senate rider dealing with the DC's gun control laws. Republicans and some conservative Democrats want to add an amendment to the bill giving DC voting representation in the U.S. House that would repeal District gun ban. Democratic leaders know that if the amendment were offered, it would pass easily, because so many members want to retain those coveted A ratings from the NRA. Therefore, Democratic leaders would have to craft a rule governing debate that does not allow for amendments. Of course, then the NRA would "score" the vote on the rule, meaning the rule itself would probably not pass. If the gun provision is inserted into the bill, it's possible that enough liberal Democrats would join Republicans in voting against the bill. One possible solution is to let the amendment pass, and see if they can strip the gun provision out in a conference negotiations. A vote on a conference report is not subject to amendments. (The NRA, though, would certainly score the conference report vote itself, meaning the bill may not pass). Let's see how Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer get out of this jam.
WHITE HOUSE: The White House has another busy week on tap. Today, the President will sign an executive order lifting Bush administration restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. In 2001, Bush signed an order limiting research to stem cells that had already been discovered. Scientists say that the restrictions have inhibited their ability to discover cures to various diseases. The President will also use the occasion to make a general statement on the administration's belief in "science."
The Republican line is that the President is trying to distract the country from his socialistic economic plans by dealing with a popular (but, they feel, irrelevant) issue. Indeed, this is low hanging fruit for the President. Stem cell research is quite popular, and he probably does want to divert the country's attention away from the sagging economy. Then again, stem cell research not only has the potential to save millions of lives, it also could create new jobs in an emerging industry.
The President tomorrow gives a speech in DC to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. I expect him to use the opportunity to explain how his economic program effects the Latino population, but also to push back against his critics in front of a crucial constituency.
On Thursday, Obama holds an implementation meeting with Vice President Biden on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This blogger can attest to its progress: The Strike received $20 more in his paycheck last week!
Let me know if you have any questions about the upcoming week in politics. See you tonight for the Daily Strike.
SENATE: The Senate will try to (finally) complete work on the omnibus spending bill in the next couple of days. The stopgap funding measure passed last Friday expires on Wednesday, so the Senate must act by then. Before the Senate votes to cut off debate (which is the effective vote for passage), it will have to deal with an additional 13 Republican amendments. None of these amendments seem to me to be particularly germane. Republican supporters of the bill last week refused to cut off debate unless the amendments were considered, so they will slowly slog through these. Votes on amendments will begin today at 5:30 with a vote on the Ensign (R-NV) amendment, which restores funding to the controversial program that gives poor DC students vouchers to attend private schools. Other amendments include measures dealing with Iran, Gaza, and the Republicans favorite irrelevant topic, the Fairness Doctrine. Democrats will do their very best to defeat each of these amendments, so that they don't have to send the bill back to the House. The leadership is eager to finish this bill as quickly as possible. The bill is not popular (because of its supposed large number of earmarks), and represents nine of last year's spending bills, so I think members want Obama to sign this and never speak of it again. The vote on cloture (to cut off debate) is tentatively scheduled for tomorrow (I have my doubts). This vote, of course, is subject to the 60-vote threshold.
I'm not sure where the Senate moves after it finishes this bill, but it might be to consideration of the House-passed mortgage cram down bill.
HOUSE: The House this week starts, as usual, with votes on non-controversial measures under suspension of the rules. On Tuesday or Wednesday, the House will take up a bill authorizing funding to prevent water pollution. The bill has a couple of Republican co-sponsors, so I expect it to pass relatively easily. Most Republicans will undoubtedly vote no, because they're against funding pretty much anything at this point, but who cares? Have fun in the minority!
The House also might take up the DC Voting rights bill, if it can work out issues relating to a Senate rider dealing with the DC's gun control laws. Republicans and some conservative Democrats want to add an amendment to the bill giving DC voting representation in the U.S. House that would repeal District gun ban. Democratic leaders know that if the amendment were offered, it would pass easily, because so many members want to retain those coveted A ratings from the NRA. Therefore, Democratic leaders would have to craft a rule governing debate that does not allow for amendments. Of course, then the NRA would "score" the vote on the rule, meaning the rule itself would probably not pass. If the gun provision is inserted into the bill, it's possible that enough liberal Democrats would join Republicans in voting against the bill. One possible solution is to let the amendment pass, and see if they can strip the gun provision out in a conference negotiations. A vote on a conference report is not subject to amendments. (The NRA, though, would certainly score the conference report vote itself, meaning the bill may not pass). Let's see how Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer get out of this jam.
WHITE HOUSE: The White House has another busy week on tap. Today, the President will sign an executive order lifting Bush administration restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. In 2001, Bush signed an order limiting research to stem cells that had already been discovered. Scientists say that the restrictions have inhibited their ability to discover cures to various diseases. The President will also use the occasion to make a general statement on the administration's belief in "science."
The Republican line is that the President is trying to distract the country from his socialistic economic plans by dealing with a popular (but, they feel, irrelevant) issue. Indeed, this is low hanging fruit for the President. Stem cell research is quite popular, and he probably does want to divert the country's attention away from the sagging economy. Then again, stem cell research not only has the potential to save millions of lives, it also could create new jobs in an emerging industry.
The President tomorrow gives a speech in DC to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. I expect him to use the opportunity to explain how his economic program effects the Latino population, but also to push back against his critics in front of a crucial constituency.
On Thursday, Obama holds an implementation meeting with Vice President Biden on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This blogger can attest to its progress: The Strike received $20 more in his paycheck last week!
Let me know if you have any questions about the upcoming week in politics. See you tonight for the Daily Strike.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Daily Strike-3/3/09-Senate Amendments/Brown's Visit/House Inaction
Good Tuesday and welcome to the Daily Strike. The omnibus spending bill, a collection of last year's unfinished appropriations measures, is slowly making its way through the Senate. Let's get to what happened today.
SENATE: The Senate took a few votes today on Republican amendments, all of which were intended to cut funding from the bill. The first amendment was offered by John McCain, and it would have struck the underlying bill in favor of a resolution to continue funding the government at current levels until September 30th. This, in my opinion, would not have been a good idea. Firstly, federal departments have a difficult time managing money when operating on a continuing resolution, but current funding levels often don't meet the departments' growing needs. Secondly, this year's funding levels were enacted in December of 2007. A lot has changed since then, if you didn't notice. Even if the economy didn't collapse, we would still need to account for inflation. The amendment failed by a vote of 63-32. All Democrats voted against it except for Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and Missouri's Claire McCaskill. Both of these members have had independent streaks when it comes to federal spending, so I'm not entirely surprised. Republicans voting no included: Bennett (UT), Bond (MO), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Murkowski (AK), Shelby (AL), Snowe (ME) and Specter. What do these Republicans have in common? They're all (except for Snowe) on the Appropriations committee, so they have an enhanced ability to plug in their pet spending items.
Next was an amendment offered by Senator Ensign, Republican of Nevada. The amendment would have called for the bill to be sent back to the appropriations committee with instructions to cut $19 billion worth of spending. This is roughly equal to the amount of spending added to the bill on top of last year's funding levels. The amendment failed by a vote of 61-33. All Democrats including Bayh and McCaskill voted against the amendment. The Republicans mentioned above all voted no again, with the exceptions of Senators Bennett (UT) and Murkowski (AK) (maybe their earmarks weren't the ones getting cut?).
The final vote was offered by Senator Hutchison, Republican of Texas. Her amendment was similar to McCain's, except that instead of cutting funding down to 2008 levels, it cut funding down to 2008 levels + inflation. This would have cut roughly $12 billion from the underlying bill. I guess the idea here was that if the Senate wouldn't accept $19 billion in cuts, they might accept $12 billion. Not so. The amendment failed 55-40. Bayh and McCaskill again joined Republicans in voting for it, while Republican Senators Bond (MO), Shelby (AL), Snowe (ME) and Specter (PA) joined Democrats in voting against it. I'm most surprised by Senator Shelby. He is a former Democrat who switched parties in 1994 and became a very conservative Republican. I guess there must be some important bacon in this bill for his constituents.
The Republicans have offered a slew of additional amendments. Majority Reid might decide in the next day or so that the Republican amendments are barely relevant and are just being introduced to stall time (one of them deals with family planning money). Reid would then file a motion to cut off debate, which would be subject to a 60 vote threshold. It seems like the Democrats have enough votes. The question is whether any of these amendments will be adopted. If they are, the bill will return to the House which must accept the Senate's changes. If not, the bill will go straight to President Obama.
The bill must pass by March 6th, this Friday, when the current continuing resolution expires. If not, Congress must pass another temporary stopgap measure to prevent the government from shutting down. No chance of a shutdown with a Democratic Congress and Democratic President.
THE HOUSE: The House only voted today on a few motions to suspend the rules and agree to some non-controversial bills. The chamber was supposed to consider both a comprehensive housing bill and a bill to grant a U.S. House member to DC. The housing bill is still stalled because of objections from some conservative-leaning Democrats, who think a provision allowing bankruptcy judges to change the terms of mortgages goes too far. I assume they'll have things worked out tomorrow in time for a vote on final passage.
On the DC voting rights bill, I'm going to have to pull a Stephen Colbert and say "I CALLED IT!!!!!!!" It looks like the DC bill is being postponed temporarily because of a controversial amendment added in the Senate that eliminates DC's gun control laws.
Here's the deal. Republicans have said that they'll offer a motion to recommit the bill with instructions to include the gun law measure. The motion would probably pass, because there are a lot of moderate/conservative Democrats who don't want to lose their 100% rating from the NRA. Republicans would need at least 37 Democrats to cross over, which seems entirely plausible. House leaders worry that if the motion is adopted, the underlying bill may not pass. Republicans would probably still vote against the bill because they object to the idea of DC adding a voting member in the House. Liberal Democrats would vote against the bill because of the gun provision. So the Democratic leadership is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one.
One option would be to adopt a special rule prohibiting the GOP from offering a motion to recommit. Besides the fact that this would violate precedent, a vote on the rule would become the de-facto vote for or against the gun provision. I'm sure the NRA would call members and say that they're gun rights grade will be affected if they vote for the rule. Therefore, those same conservative Democrats would vote against the rule.
Another option would be to allow the gun provision to stay in the bill, but try and strip it out in a conference committee. Although, it would be hard to eliminate a measure in a conference committee after both chambers have approved it.
So Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader, and Speaker Pelosi are going to have to find some way around this if they want to get this bill passed. My prediction is that they agree to let their members vote for the gun-rights motion, and hope that enough liberal members will still vote for final passage.
OBAMA: The President had another busy day. He first spoke at the Transportation Department, where he announced the first construction project to be directly funded from the stimulus bill. The project goes to the aptly named "American Infrastructure Group." I can't stress enough how important it is to highlight specific instances where the stimulus package is creating jobs and spurring economic growth. These stories are far more powerful than statistics, especially when the statistics may still be pretty ugly for the next few months.
The President then met with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the White House, where they discussed the economic crisis and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, among other things. Brown addresses a joint session of Congress tomorrow.
Obama also ventured over to the Interior Department, where he criticized the previous administration for turning a blind eye to science.
That's it for tonight. We'll keep you updated on all the action tomorrow.
SENATE: The Senate took a few votes today on Republican amendments, all of which were intended to cut funding from the bill. The first amendment was offered by John McCain, and it would have struck the underlying bill in favor of a resolution to continue funding the government at current levels until September 30th. This, in my opinion, would not have been a good idea. Firstly, federal departments have a difficult time managing money when operating on a continuing resolution, but current funding levels often don't meet the departments' growing needs. Secondly, this year's funding levels were enacted in December of 2007. A lot has changed since then, if you didn't notice. Even if the economy didn't collapse, we would still need to account for inflation. The amendment failed by a vote of 63-32. All Democrats voted against it except for Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and Missouri's Claire McCaskill. Both of these members have had independent streaks when it comes to federal spending, so I'm not entirely surprised. Republicans voting no included: Bennett (UT), Bond (MO), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Murkowski (AK), Shelby (AL), Snowe (ME) and Specter. What do these Republicans have in common? They're all (except for Snowe) on the Appropriations committee, so they have an enhanced ability to plug in their pet spending items.
Next was an amendment offered by Senator Ensign, Republican of Nevada. The amendment would have called for the bill to be sent back to the appropriations committee with instructions to cut $19 billion worth of spending. This is roughly equal to the amount of spending added to the bill on top of last year's funding levels. The amendment failed by a vote of 61-33. All Democrats including Bayh and McCaskill voted against the amendment. The Republicans mentioned above all voted no again, with the exceptions of Senators Bennett (UT) and Murkowski (AK) (maybe their earmarks weren't the ones getting cut?).
The final vote was offered by Senator Hutchison, Republican of Texas. Her amendment was similar to McCain's, except that instead of cutting funding down to 2008 levels, it cut funding down to 2008 levels + inflation. This would have cut roughly $12 billion from the underlying bill. I guess the idea here was that if the Senate wouldn't accept $19 billion in cuts, they might accept $12 billion. Not so. The amendment failed 55-40. Bayh and McCaskill again joined Republicans in voting for it, while Republican Senators Bond (MO), Shelby (AL), Snowe (ME) and Specter (PA) joined Democrats in voting against it. I'm most surprised by Senator Shelby. He is a former Democrat who switched parties in 1994 and became a very conservative Republican. I guess there must be some important bacon in this bill for his constituents.
The Republicans have offered a slew of additional amendments. Majority Reid might decide in the next day or so that the Republican amendments are barely relevant and are just being introduced to stall time (one of them deals with family planning money). Reid would then file a motion to cut off debate, which would be subject to a 60 vote threshold. It seems like the Democrats have enough votes. The question is whether any of these amendments will be adopted. If they are, the bill will return to the House which must accept the Senate's changes. If not, the bill will go straight to President Obama.
The bill must pass by March 6th, this Friday, when the current continuing resolution expires. If not, Congress must pass another temporary stopgap measure to prevent the government from shutting down. No chance of a shutdown with a Democratic Congress and Democratic President.
THE HOUSE: The House only voted today on a few motions to suspend the rules and agree to some non-controversial bills. The chamber was supposed to consider both a comprehensive housing bill and a bill to grant a U.S. House member to DC. The housing bill is still stalled because of objections from some conservative-leaning Democrats, who think a provision allowing bankruptcy judges to change the terms of mortgages goes too far. I assume they'll have things worked out tomorrow in time for a vote on final passage.
On the DC voting rights bill, I'm going to have to pull a Stephen Colbert and say "I CALLED IT!!!!!!!" It looks like the DC bill is being postponed temporarily because of a controversial amendment added in the Senate that eliminates DC's gun control laws.
Here's the deal. Republicans have said that they'll offer a motion to recommit the bill with instructions to include the gun law measure. The motion would probably pass, because there are a lot of moderate/conservative Democrats who don't want to lose their 100% rating from the NRA. Republicans would need at least 37 Democrats to cross over, which seems entirely plausible. House leaders worry that if the motion is adopted, the underlying bill may not pass. Republicans would probably still vote against the bill because they object to the idea of DC adding a voting member in the House. Liberal Democrats would vote against the bill because of the gun provision. So the Democratic leadership is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one.
One option would be to adopt a special rule prohibiting the GOP from offering a motion to recommit. Besides the fact that this would violate precedent, a vote on the rule would become the de-facto vote for or against the gun provision. I'm sure the NRA would call members and say that they're gun rights grade will be affected if they vote for the rule. Therefore, those same conservative Democrats would vote against the rule.
Another option would be to allow the gun provision to stay in the bill, but try and strip it out in a conference committee. Although, it would be hard to eliminate a measure in a conference committee after both chambers have approved it.
So Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader, and Speaker Pelosi are going to have to find some way around this if they want to get this bill passed. My prediction is that they agree to let their members vote for the gun-rights motion, and hope that enough liberal members will still vote for final passage.
OBAMA: The President had another busy day. He first spoke at the Transportation Department, where he announced the first construction project to be directly funded from the stimulus bill. The project goes to the aptly named "American Infrastructure Group." I can't stress enough how important it is to highlight specific instances where the stimulus package is creating jobs and spurring economic growth. These stories are far more powerful than statistics, especially when the statistics may still be pretty ugly for the next few months.
The President then met with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the White House, where they discussed the economic crisis and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, among other things. Brown addresses a joint session of Congress tomorrow.
Obama also ventured over to the Interior Department, where he criticized the previous administration for turning a blind eye to science.
That's it for tonight. We'll keep you updated on all the action tomorrow.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Daily Strike-2/26/09-Budget Day
Good Thursday. A very busy day in Washington, especially with the unveiling of the President's budget proposal. Let's get to it.
BUDGET: The President unveiled his Fiscal Year 2010 budget proposal today, which projects budgetary levels for the next ten years. The budget is about $3 trillion and will bring the deficit up to $1.75 trillion, the highest percentage of GDP since World War II. But as much as the Republicans would like you to think otherwise, the money is not being thrown down the drain. For starters, the budget is an honest proposal. The previous administration used to use budget gimmicks to make the long-term deficit seem smaller. Obama's budget includes expected funding for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, additional money for money for a possible natural disaster, and even assumes that we'll need more money to bailout troubled banks. The budget also accounts for a vast array of policy initiatives, most notably in health care, energy and education (as mentioned in his speech the other night). Some highlights I've gleaned out:
-Health Care (probably the biggest news in this budget)
-Sets aside $634 billion to fund a new health reform proposal, which will presumably be worked out this year in Congress
-$6 billion in cancer research at the National Institutes of Health
-Builds on stimulus investment
-Education:
-Invests in a new $2.5 billion program to help low income students attend college.
-Provides funding for additional charter schools
-Energy
-Money to build on the $11 billion in the stimulus for a new electricity "smart-grid"
-"supports and secures development for clean technology"
So where will we find money to pay for this besides running up a deficit? For starters, tax cuts for those making over $250,000 will end starting in 2011 (much to the chagrin of some of us, who think they should be ended sooner). There will be new taxes on individuals and businesses who emit a lot of greenhouse gasses as part of a "cap-and-trade" proposal (of course that has to get through Congress first). Major cuts will be coming to a Medicare program in which the government pays private insurers to cover patients who would otherwise be covered by the public system. There are also cuts to "wasteful" programs in other departments, which will presumably be detailed with the President unveils his full budget in April.
This is a very ambitious proposal. It's not only unique in its intent to enact ambitious reforms in domestic policy, but it also is a budget, that economist and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said, is the first that will truly redistribute income in a generation. Liberals rejoice!
Republicans reacted as expected. The ranking member of the House Budget committee joined his counterpart in the Senate, traitor-extraordinaire Judd Gregg, to denounce the budget for not doing enough to cut the deficit. House Minority Leader John Boehner said that Obama's budget proposal makes Bush look like a "piker," whatever that means. There's probably so much in this proposal that they want to criticize (massive expansion in domestic spending, redistribution of wealth etc.) that we may be hearing criticisms for a long time. Just wait until the official proposal comes out and they can identify their little pork projects.
SENATE: The Senate today passed a bill giving the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives. The Republicans didn't make it easy however, making the chamber vote on a series of irrelevant amendments. It did get Senators on record on a bunch of controversial issues. Let's run down the votes:
-The first was an amendment, offered by Senator Kyl (R-AZ), that would have provided for the retrocession of DC into Maryland. In other words, DC would be a part of Maryland. That idea didn't fly so well. It lost 67-30. All yes votes were from conservative Republicans, with the odd exception of South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson. I don't know why he would have done that.
-Next was an irrelevant battle on the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Before Reagan canned it in the 1980's, the fairness doctrine mandated that the media devote equal time to all view points. Conservatives fear that the Rush Limbaugh show would be cut by an hour, God forbid. Anyways, Senator Durbin (D-IL) proposed an amendment that would have encouraged the FCC to promote diversity in media ownership (I don't know how you would enforce this) and to ensure that the public airwaves are used for the public interest. This amendment was basically an alternative to reimposing the fairness doctrine I guess. It passed 57-41 exactly along party lines. Next was an amendment from ultraconservative Jim DeMint of South Carolina that would outlaw the Fairness Doctrine. The folks at Fox News can rest a little easier tonight. The amendment was approved handily by a vote of 87-11. Dissenting Democrats: Bingaman (NM), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Feinstein (CA), Harkin (IA), Johnson (SD), Kerry (MA), Reed (RI), Rockefeller (WV), Sanders (VT) and Whitehouse (RI).
-The final irrelevant amendment, offered by Senator Ensign, would prohibit the District of Columbia from enacting gun control laws that would "violate the 2nd Amendment." Basically this amendment seeks to ensure enforcement of last year's Supreme Court Decision DC v. Heller in which the court ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarenteed an individual's right to bear arms. The amendment passed 62-36. By far the most interesting "no" vote came from Senator Gillibrand of New York, who admitted recently to keeping guns under her bed. I guess things change when you represent New York City AS WELL as upstate New York. I could see Chuck Schumer looming over the newly appointed Senator as she went up to cast her vote.
After disposing of these amendments, the Senate moved on to final passage. Because of an agreement by the two leaders, the final vote was subject to a 60 vote threshold. The bill passed 61-37, with the coalition we talked about the other day staying intact. The only Senator who switched his vote was Thad Cochran of Mississippi.
THE HOUSE: The House today postponed voting on a housing proposal that would allow bankruptcy judges to renegotiated the terms of mortgages. Some conservative Blue Dog Democrats thought that the bill went too far. It was a bad sign when 26 Democrats voted against the rule governing debate on the bill. They will make some changes before resuming consideration on Tuesday.
That's it for today, see you tomorrow night!
BUDGET: The President unveiled his Fiscal Year 2010 budget proposal today, which projects budgetary levels for the next ten years. The budget is about $3 trillion and will bring the deficit up to $1.75 trillion, the highest percentage of GDP since World War II. But as much as the Republicans would like you to think otherwise, the money is not being thrown down the drain. For starters, the budget is an honest proposal. The previous administration used to use budget gimmicks to make the long-term deficit seem smaller. Obama's budget includes expected funding for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, additional money for money for a possible natural disaster, and even assumes that we'll need more money to bailout troubled banks. The budget also accounts for a vast array of policy initiatives, most notably in health care, energy and education (as mentioned in his speech the other night). Some highlights I've gleaned out:
-Health Care (probably the biggest news in this budget)
-Sets aside $634 billion to fund a new health reform proposal, which will presumably be worked out this year in Congress
-$6 billion in cancer research at the National Institutes of Health
-Builds on stimulus investment
-Education:
-Invests in a new $2.5 billion program to help low income students attend college.
-Provides funding for additional charter schools
-Energy
-Money to build on the $11 billion in the stimulus for a new electricity "smart-grid"
-"supports and secures development for clean technology"
So where will we find money to pay for this besides running up a deficit? For starters, tax cuts for those making over $250,000 will end starting in 2011 (much to the chagrin of some of us, who think they should be ended sooner). There will be new taxes on individuals and businesses who emit a lot of greenhouse gasses as part of a "cap-and-trade" proposal (of course that has to get through Congress first). Major cuts will be coming to a Medicare program in which the government pays private insurers to cover patients who would otherwise be covered by the public system. There are also cuts to "wasteful" programs in other departments, which will presumably be detailed with the President unveils his full budget in April.
This is a very ambitious proposal. It's not only unique in its intent to enact ambitious reforms in domestic policy, but it also is a budget, that economist and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said, is the first that will truly redistribute income in a generation. Liberals rejoice!
Republicans reacted as expected. The ranking member of the House Budget committee joined his counterpart in the Senate, traitor-extraordinaire Judd Gregg, to denounce the budget for not doing enough to cut the deficit. House Minority Leader John Boehner said that Obama's budget proposal makes Bush look like a "piker," whatever that means. There's probably so much in this proposal that they want to criticize (massive expansion in domestic spending, redistribution of wealth etc.) that we may be hearing criticisms for a long time. Just wait until the official proposal comes out and they can identify their little pork projects.
SENATE: The Senate today passed a bill giving the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives. The Republicans didn't make it easy however, making the chamber vote on a series of irrelevant amendments. It did get Senators on record on a bunch of controversial issues. Let's run down the votes:
-The first was an amendment, offered by Senator Kyl (R-AZ), that would have provided for the retrocession of DC into Maryland. In other words, DC would be a part of Maryland. That idea didn't fly so well. It lost 67-30. All yes votes were from conservative Republicans, with the odd exception of South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson. I don't know why he would have done that.
-Next was an irrelevant battle on the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Before Reagan canned it in the 1980's, the fairness doctrine mandated that the media devote equal time to all view points. Conservatives fear that the Rush Limbaugh show would be cut by an hour, God forbid. Anyways, Senator Durbin (D-IL) proposed an amendment that would have encouraged the FCC to promote diversity in media ownership (I don't know how you would enforce this) and to ensure that the public airwaves are used for the public interest. This amendment was basically an alternative to reimposing the fairness doctrine I guess. It passed 57-41 exactly along party lines. Next was an amendment from ultraconservative Jim DeMint of South Carolina that would outlaw the Fairness Doctrine. The folks at Fox News can rest a little easier tonight. The amendment was approved handily by a vote of 87-11. Dissenting Democrats: Bingaman (NM), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Feinstein (CA), Harkin (IA), Johnson (SD), Kerry (MA), Reed (RI), Rockefeller (WV), Sanders (VT) and Whitehouse (RI).
-The final irrelevant amendment, offered by Senator Ensign, would prohibit the District of Columbia from enacting gun control laws that would "violate the 2nd Amendment." Basically this amendment seeks to ensure enforcement of last year's Supreme Court Decision DC v. Heller in which the court ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarenteed an individual's right to bear arms. The amendment passed 62-36. By far the most interesting "no" vote came from Senator Gillibrand of New York, who admitted recently to keeping guns under her bed. I guess things change when you represent New York City AS WELL as upstate New York. I could see Chuck Schumer looming over the newly appointed Senator as she went up to cast her vote.
After disposing of these amendments, the Senate moved on to final passage. Because of an agreement by the two leaders, the final vote was subject to a 60 vote threshold. The bill passed 61-37, with the coalition we talked about the other day staying intact. The only Senator who switched his vote was Thad Cochran of Mississippi.
THE HOUSE: The House today postponed voting on a housing proposal that would allow bankruptcy judges to renegotiated the terms of mortgages. Some conservative Blue Dog Democrats thought that the bill went too far. It was a bad sign when 26 Democrats voted against the rule governing debate on the bill. They will make some changes before resuming consideration on Tuesday.
That's it for today, see you tomorrow night!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Daily Strike-2/25/09-Omnibus, DC Voting Rights, Budget
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The political world is still digesting the President's address last night, but plenty more went on in Washington today. Let's get to it.
HOUSE: The House today passed an omnibus budget bill funding federal programs though September 30th. The bill consists of unfinished appropriations bills that couldn't be worked out last year between President Bush and the Democrats in Congress. The Democrats added about $20 billion on top of last year's funding levels. The Republican minority used some procedural roadblocks to slow passage of the bill, but ultimately, it passed relatively comfortably. The first vote was a procedural vote on whether to proceed with the bill despite the fact that it added to the federal deficit (the Republicans love to have these votes to get members on record.) The motion passed 234-177, with 8 Democrats voting no and 1 Republican voting yes.
Next was a vote on "the Previous Question" which basically is a vote on whether to proceed with the bill. Usually the minority forces this vote to delay proceedings. The previous question was ordered on a vote of 393-25. Following this, the House voted on a special rule to govern debate on the bill, which passed 398-24. Interesting thing with these two votes (and an explanation as to why they were so lopsided): part of the rule for governing debate was a motion to cancel Representatives' scheduled pay raise. In other words, if you voted against the previous question, or the rule, you were voting to keep your pay raise (not exactly political gold back home). Next was a vote on final passage, which was 245-178. The vote, surprisingly, wasn't strictly on party lines. Here are the crossovers:
Democrats voting no (18): Bean (IL), Cardoza (CA), Childers (MS), Coooper (TN), Donnelly (IN), Dreihaus (OH), Giffords (AZ), Hill (IN), Kind (WI), Kratovil (MD), Marshall (GA), Matheson (UT), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ), Peterson (MN), Tanner (TN) and Taylor (MS). These are most of the House's Blue Dog fiscal conservative Democrats
Republicans voting yes (16): Bono Mack (CA), Brown-Waite (FL), Cao (LA), Capito (WV), Castle (DE), Dent (PA), Emerson (MO), Gerlach (PA), LoBiondo (NJ), McHugh (NY), Miller (MI), Murphy (PA), Reichert (WA), Upton (MI), Whitfield (KY) and Young (AK). These are the few remaining Republican moderates (at least realists) who are probably getting a piece of the pie for their districts.
The bill now goes to the Senate, and will be up for a vote there next week.
The final vote was on a "privileged resolution" (a resolution that deals with the safety or integrity of the House) offered by Rep. Flake of Arizona. He was objecting to earmarks in the bill to some lobbying firm who had engaged in shady dealings with various members of both parties. Flake is notorious for his "principled" objection to Congressional earmarks. The House voted to table (kill) the resolution by a vote of 226-182 (with 12 members voting "Present"). The vote pretty much broke down along party lines, with 17 Democrats joining all but 2 Republicans in voting against killing the resolution. This vote might have caused some more political heartache a few years ago, but seriously, do we think the main issue in the next election will be Congressional earmarks when the economy is in the tanker?
The House considers a pretty comprehensive housing bill tomorrow, but I haven't heard many details about it. I'll keep you posted.
SENATE: The Senate resumed consideration of a bill to give Washington DC a voting member in Congress (while also temporarily giving a seat to Utah). Senator Reid filed cloture on the bill tonight, because Republicans were stalling by bringing up some pretty absurd amendments. A vote to cut off debate on this bill will come in the next day or so. There will most likely be enough votes to get this bill passed. How do we know? Yesterday, the Senate voted 62-36 on a procedural test vote to move to consideration of the bill. Today, Senator John McCain raised a point of order claiming that the bill violated the constitution because it grants representation to an entity that is not a state. The point of order was determined null by a vote of, you guessed it, 62-36. It was an identical vote to yesterday. It seems like no matter how you slice it, 62 Senators want voting rights for DC. To see the voting coalition, check out yesterday's Daily Strike.
The only other vote was on a silly amendment offered by bizzarro Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, which would have substituted the whole bill and instead eliminate income taxes in DC. I guess the idea is that DC is a good laboratory for Democracy, and Coburn wanted to see what would happen to us those lab rats if they stopped paying taxes, you know, just for fun. It lost 91-7, only gaining the votes of Coburn, Graham (SC), Burr (NC), Wicker (MS), Kyl (AZ), DeMint (SC) and Bunning (KY).
THE WHITE HOUSE: A very busy post-speech day at the White House. First, Obama officially nominated former Washington Governor Gary Locke to be Commerce Secretary. Unless something comes up during confirmation hearings, it looks like the third time will be a charm when it comes to filling this position. Locke is a pretty non-controversial pick.
The only other cabinet position not yet appointed is at Health and Human Services. The position will become increasingly critical because it looks as if Obama is about to include a $634 billion down payment on Health Care reform as part of his budget proposal. Obama will meet with lawmakers in the coming months to hammer out exact details on how and when to achieve universal coverage, but with this budget proposal, he's making clear that his promise to enact health care reform this year is serious. Early indications are that the plan will be paid for by raising taxes on the rich, eliminating payments to private insurers to cover Medicare patients, and by limiting tax deductions on health coverage to high wage earners. We'll talk more about the full plan when we get the details.
Budgeting for the full health plan is a smart strategy, in my view. It gives Congress the broad cost parameters as it tries to enact comprehensive health reform. Unlike the Clinton health care debacle of 1993, Obama seems to be giving Congress leeway (or at least significant input) in crafting the plan. This will help avoid the very intra-party squabbles that helped doom the previous effort.
Another advantage Obama has this time, which is perhaps more important, is that all major stakeholders now seem to understand the urgent need for health reform. With the country in financial crisis, but business and labor have to bear the brunt of sky high health prices that fund a largely low-quality, inefficient health care delivery system. I expect groups like the Chamber of Commerce to be far more open to progressive health reform than they have been in the past.
That's it for tonight. We'd love to hear your comments and thoughts on the day in politics. Did I miss anything?
HOUSE: The House today passed an omnibus budget bill funding federal programs though September 30th. The bill consists of unfinished appropriations bills that couldn't be worked out last year between President Bush and the Democrats in Congress. The Democrats added about $20 billion on top of last year's funding levels. The Republican minority used some procedural roadblocks to slow passage of the bill, but ultimately, it passed relatively comfortably. The first vote was a procedural vote on whether to proceed with the bill despite the fact that it added to the federal deficit (the Republicans love to have these votes to get members on record.) The motion passed 234-177, with 8 Democrats voting no and 1 Republican voting yes.
Next was a vote on "the Previous Question" which basically is a vote on whether to proceed with the bill. Usually the minority forces this vote to delay proceedings. The previous question was ordered on a vote of 393-25. Following this, the House voted on a special rule to govern debate on the bill, which passed 398-24. Interesting thing with these two votes (and an explanation as to why they were so lopsided): part of the rule for governing debate was a motion to cancel Representatives' scheduled pay raise. In other words, if you voted against the previous question, or the rule, you were voting to keep your pay raise (not exactly political gold back home). Next was a vote on final passage, which was 245-178. The vote, surprisingly, wasn't strictly on party lines. Here are the crossovers:
Democrats voting no (18): Bean (IL), Cardoza (CA), Childers (MS), Coooper (TN), Donnelly (IN), Dreihaus (OH), Giffords (AZ), Hill (IN), Kind (WI), Kratovil (MD), Marshall (GA), Matheson (UT), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ), Peterson (MN), Tanner (TN) and Taylor (MS). These are most of the House's Blue Dog fiscal conservative Democrats
Republicans voting yes (16): Bono Mack (CA), Brown-Waite (FL), Cao (LA), Capito (WV), Castle (DE), Dent (PA), Emerson (MO), Gerlach (PA), LoBiondo (NJ), McHugh (NY), Miller (MI), Murphy (PA), Reichert (WA), Upton (MI), Whitfield (KY) and Young (AK). These are the few remaining Republican moderates (at least realists) who are probably getting a piece of the pie for their districts.
The bill now goes to the Senate, and will be up for a vote there next week.
The final vote was on a "privileged resolution" (a resolution that deals with the safety or integrity of the House) offered by Rep. Flake of Arizona. He was objecting to earmarks in the bill to some lobbying firm who had engaged in shady dealings with various members of both parties. Flake is notorious for his "principled" objection to Congressional earmarks. The House voted to table (kill) the resolution by a vote of 226-182 (with 12 members voting "Present"). The vote pretty much broke down along party lines, with 17 Democrats joining all but 2 Republicans in voting against killing the resolution. This vote might have caused some more political heartache a few years ago, but seriously, do we think the main issue in the next election will be Congressional earmarks when the economy is in the tanker?
The House considers a pretty comprehensive housing bill tomorrow, but I haven't heard many details about it. I'll keep you posted.
SENATE: The Senate resumed consideration of a bill to give Washington DC a voting member in Congress (while also temporarily giving a seat to Utah). Senator Reid filed cloture on the bill tonight, because Republicans were stalling by bringing up some pretty absurd amendments. A vote to cut off debate on this bill will come in the next day or so. There will most likely be enough votes to get this bill passed. How do we know? Yesterday, the Senate voted 62-36 on a procedural test vote to move to consideration of the bill. Today, Senator John McCain raised a point of order claiming that the bill violated the constitution because it grants representation to an entity that is not a state. The point of order was determined null by a vote of, you guessed it, 62-36. It was an identical vote to yesterday. It seems like no matter how you slice it, 62 Senators want voting rights for DC. To see the voting coalition, check out yesterday's Daily Strike.
The only other vote was on a silly amendment offered by bizzarro Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, which would have substituted the whole bill and instead eliminate income taxes in DC. I guess the idea is that DC is a good laboratory for Democracy, and Coburn wanted to see what would happen to us those lab rats if they stopped paying taxes, you know, just for fun. It lost 91-7, only gaining the votes of Coburn, Graham (SC), Burr (NC), Wicker (MS), Kyl (AZ), DeMint (SC) and Bunning (KY).
THE WHITE HOUSE: A very busy post-speech day at the White House. First, Obama officially nominated former Washington Governor Gary Locke to be Commerce Secretary. Unless something comes up during confirmation hearings, it looks like the third time will be a charm when it comes to filling this position. Locke is a pretty non-controversial pick.
The only other cabinet position not yet appointed is at Health and Human Services. The position will become increasingly critical because it looks as if Obama is about to include a $634 billion down payment on Health Care reform as part of his budget proposal. Obama will meet with lawmakers in the coming months to hammer out exact details on how and when to achieve universal coverage, but with this budget proposal, he's making clear that his promise to enact health care reform this year is serious. Early indications are that the plan will be paid for by raising taxes on the rich, eliminating payments to private insurers to cover Medicare patients, and by limiting tax deductions on health coverage to high wage earners. We'll talk more about the full plan when we get the details.
Budgeting for the full health plan is a smart strategy, in my view. It gives Congress the broad cost parameters as it tries to enact comprehensive health reform. Unlike the Clinton health care debacle of 1993, Obama seems to be giving Congress leeway (or at least significant input) in crafting the plan. This will help avoid the very intra-party squabbles that helped doom the previous effort.
Another advantage Obama has this time, which is perhaps more important, is that all major stakeholders now seem to understand the urgent need for health reform. With the country in financial crisis, but business and labor have to bear the brunt of sky high health prices that fund a largely low-quality, inefficient health care delivery system. I expect groups like the Chamber of Commerce to be far more open to progressive health reform than they have been in the past.
That's it for tonight. We'd love to hear your comments and thoughts on the day in politics. Did I miss anything?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Daily Strike-2/24/09-Pre-Speech Update
Good evening! Of course today's major event will be President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress tonight. We will cover that in depth with a Late Night Strike, with views and analysis from a few of our bloggers to the speech and the Republican response from Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. For now, let's talk about what happened earlier in the day.
SENATE: The Senate took two key votes today. The first was a cloture motion to proceed to consideration of a bill granting a House seat to the District of Columbia (and a temporary one for Utah). While the motion technically just permits the Senate to debate the bill, it's adoption makes the bill's passage a foregone conclusion. The motion required 60 votes to pass, and thus was done to test whether the bill would break a Republican filibuster. The motion was adopted by a vote of 62-34. All Democrats voted for the bill except for Senators Baucus (MT) and Byrd (WV). My impression is that both Baucus and Byrd are institutionalist and sticklers for the rules. Byrd is infamous for his strict adherence to the rules and structures of the Senate. Republicans voting for the motion:
-Cochran (MS) (That's a surprise, he's usually a mainstream conservative)
-Collins (ME)
-Hatch (UT) (He's cool with his state getting an extra House seat!)
-Lugar (IN)
-Murkowski (AK)
-Snowe (ME)
-Specter (PA)
-Voinovich
If the bill passes the Senate later this week, it goes to the House, where it shouldn't face any trouble. President Obama will sign the bill into law. The question then becomes whether the bill will withstand a court challenge. As we talked about the other day, the constitution does say that Representatives The scome from "the several states," and DC is not a state. I'll go more into the legal issues once I consult with Sister Strike about this. It looks like the final bill will mandate expedited legal consideration so the constitutionality of the bill is determined before DC would elect its first Representative in 2010.
The second key vote was on confirmation of Hilda Solis to be Secretary of Labor (finally!). Republicans dropped procedural challenges to her nomination earlier in the day and agreed to a vote on final passage this afternoon. Republicans had expressed concerns about her previous work with a labor rights group (that makes her MORE qualified in my view), her vague statements on The Employee Free Choice Act (a bill to make it easier for workers to unionize) and her husband's tax problems. But after all that, Solis was confirmed surprisngly easily today by a vote of 80-17. All of the "no" votes came from Republicans. I'm frankly surprised at some of the "yes" votes, which include Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham, and Georgia's Saxby Chambliss. Solis will try to restore a department brutally damaged during the last eight years, when it was run by Elaine Chao and big business. Solis' confirmation is a victory for progressives. She has a staunchly pro-labor record, and has an inspiring story as the daughter of Mexican immigrants.
Her confirmation also brings the number of outstanding open cabinet positions to two: Commerce and HHS. Former Washington Governor Gary Locke is expected to be nominated for Commerce tomorrow. She also will be forced to resign her seat in the House, which will bring the whole number of representatives to 432, with the Democrats holding a 254-178 advantage. The two other vacant seats are those of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and appointed New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand's seat, as we've talked about before, is the only one that will be closely contested.
HOUSE: The House disposed of many bills under suspension of the rules today. The most interesting was a bill to ban the domestication of primates. Surprisingly, 95 Representatives voted against this bill (93 of them Republicans). The House also voted to name a post office and recognize Black History month. It moves tomorrow to consideration of a bill to fund the federal government through September. The House will consider the bill under a rule prohibiting amendments. Therefore, Republicans won't be able to bring up 80 votes striking funding from Amtrak, the National Endowment of the Arts etc. The Republicans will be able to vote on their own alternative through a motion to recommit the bill to committee.
IRAQ: Obama is expected to release the details of his Iraq plan in the next couple of days. The plan will apparently have most troops out in 19 months (three months longer than his campaign promise). He also will leave behind a residual force, which will include some combat forces. This seems to be a water-downed withdrawal that is a compromise between Obama's campaign rhetoric and the demands of the Pentagon brass that the U.S. not withdrawal "precipitously." This is very disappointing news to many of us who had hoped he wouldn't budge on this issue. I realize it's a complicated issue and the state of affairs in Iraq is fragile, but he can't morally justify continuing this war. His political rise was launched by his principled opposition to the war almost seven years ago. Let's just hope he never sacrifices that strong moral compass.
That's it for now, but we'll update you all later tonight!
SENATE: The Senate took two key votes today. The first was a cloture motion to proceed to consideration of a bill granting a House seat to the District of Columbia (and a temporary one for Utah). While the motion technically just permits the Senate to debate the bill, it's adoption makes the bill's passage a foregone conclusion. The motion required 60 votes to pass, and thus was done to test whether the bill would break a Republican filibuster. The motion was adopted by a vote of 62-34. All Democrats voted for the bill except for Senators Baucus (MT) and Byrd (WV). My impression is that both Baucus and Byrd are institutionalist and sticklers for the rules. Byrd is infamous for his strict adherence to the rules and structures of the Senate. Republicans voting for the motion:
-Cochran (MS) (That's a surprise, he's usually a mainstream conservative)
-Collins (ME)
-Hatch (UT) (He's cool with his state getting an extra House seat!)
-Lugar (IN)
-Murkowski (AK)
-Snowe (ME)
-Specter (PA)
-Voinovich
If the bill passes the Senate later this week, it goes to the House, where it shouldn't face any trouble. President Obama will sign the bill into law. The question then becomes whether the bill will withstand a court challenge. As we talked about the other day, the constitution does say that Representatives The scome from "the several states," and DC is not a state. I'll go more into the legal issues once I consult with Sister Strike about this. It looks like the final bill will mandate expedited legal consideration so the constitutionality of the bill is determined before DC would elect its first Representative in 2010.
The second key vote was on confirmation of Hilda Solis to be Secretary of Labor (finally!). Republicans dropped procedural challenges to her nomination earlier in the day and agreed to a vote on final passage this afternoon. Republicans had expressed concerns about her previous work with a labor rights group (that makes her MORE qualified in my view), her vague statements on The Employee Free Choice Act (a bill to make it easier for workers to unionize) and her husband's tax problems. But after all that, Solis was confirmed surprisngly easily today by a vote of 80-17. All of the "no" votes came from Republicans. I'm frankly surprised at some of the "yes" votes, which include Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, John McCain and his sidekick Lindsey Graham, and Georgia's Saxby Chambliss. Solis will try to restore a department brutally damaged during the last eight years, when it was run by Elaine Chao and big business. Solis' confirmation is a victory for progressives. She has a staunchly pro-labor record, and has an inspiring story as the daughter of Mexican immigrants.
Her confirmation also brings the number of outstanding open cabinet positions to two: Commerce and HHS. Former Washington Governor Gary Locke is expected to be nominated for Commerce tomorrow. She also will be forced to resign her seat in the House, which will bring the whole number of representatives to 432, with the Democrats holding a 254-178 advantage. The two other vacant seats are those of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and appointed New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand's seat, as we've talked about before, is the only one that will be closely contested.
HOUSE: The House disposed of many bills under suspension of the rules today. The most interesting was a bill to ban the domestication of primates. Surprisingly, 95 Representatives voted against this bill (93 of them Republicans). The House also voted to name a post office and recognize Black History month. It moves tomorrow to consideration of a bill to fund the federal government through September. The House will consider the bill under a rule prohibiting amendments. Therefore, Republicans won't be able to bring up 80 votes striking funding from Amtrak, the National Endowment of the Arts etc. The Republicans will be able to vote on their own alternative through a motion to recommit the bill to committee.
IRAQ: Obama is expected to release the details of his Iraq plan in the next couple of days. The plan will apparently have most troops out in 19 months (three months longer than his campaign promise). He also will leave behind a residual force, which will include some combat forces. This seems to be a water-downed withdrawal that is a compromise between Obama's campaign rhetoric and the demands of the Pentagon brass that the U.S. not withdrawal "precipitously." This is very disappointing news to many of us who had hoped he wouldn't budge on this issue. I realize it's a complicated issue and the state of affairs in Iraq is fragile, but he can't morally justify continuing this war. His political rise was launched by his principled opposition to the war almost seven years ago. Let's just hope he never sacrifices that strong moral compass.
That's it for now, but we'll update you all later tonight!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
