Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Good to be back with you. Make sure you catch up by reading the Weekly Strike (below) and the great pinch-hitting work from The Big Picture this weekend.
CARS: As we mentioned earlier today, President Obama made big news by deeming reconstruction proposals from GM and Chrysler "not viable." GM now has 60 days to submit an additional plan before it may be forced into bankruptcy. Chrysler will have 30 days to finalize a merger with Italian company FIAT, or it too, will be in danger of going under. The President is not giving these companies the complete cold shoulder. GM will be getting government bailout money during next two months to cover operating costs. Chrysler will receive government money for the next month, and will get an additional $6 billion if it merges with FIAT.
I talked earlier about the double standard in how the President treats failed auto companies and failed financial institutions. I think there are some important differences worth mentioning.
1. Power. The financial sector, as noted today in a brilliant article by MIT economist Simon Johnson, makes up about 41% of our gross national product. Because they've made so much money, they've gained unfettered access to politicians of both parties. Politicians are far less likely to act punitively towards their big donors, and the bank rollers of huge amounts of government revenue.
2. Ripple Effect. For better or worse (ok, worse) the financial sector is vital to the overall health of the economy to a far larger extent than the auto companies. As much as I hate many financial institutions, if we allowed them to fail, millions of Americans would lose their hard earned pensions and life savings. Most Americans save money to retire, and they trust it to banks. If people were to lose those assets, they wouldn't have money to spend now or in the future, and the economy would suffer as a result. If an auto company fails, 3 million people might lose jobs, and that would be a big hit to the economy, but certainly not to the same degree as if, say, Citibank were to go bankrupt and tens of millions of Americans lost all of their assets.
3. National Ethos. One thing worth mentioning is that their seems to be a national contempt towards auto companies and their workers. The data clearly show that Americans don't want to help auto companies. They see their failures as a result of years of bad management, bloated union contracts, and lack of innovation. To a certain extent, they're right. It's easy for your average American to see how the domestic auto companies have failed us when we drive our reliable, fuel efficient Hondas and Toyotas. Until the last year or so, the financial sector wasn't viewed with the same sort of contempt. In fact, they were seen as the "creators of wealth" and innovative entrepreneurs. Just now, the country is figuring out that financial institutions are actually the "takers of wealth" through risky schemes like derivatives trading. Even though Americans have come around recently and now have distrust of financial institutions. But, it took awhile for that contempt to sink in with our political leaders and the mainstream media.
Let's just hope our national ethos changes so that we respect and admire those who work hard and have concern for the common good instead of those who simply want to accumulate massive amounts of wealth for themselves.
CONGRESS: Not much action today in Congress (typical for a Monday). The House voted this evening (for the 6th time!!) to table (kill) a resolution offered by Rep. Jeff Flake to start an investigation regarding the relationship between lobbyist firm PMA and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). As Politico noted earlier today, more Democrats seem to be jumping ship every time Flake brings up a new version of the resolution. Democratic leaders are worried that eventually they won't have the votes to kill the measure, and that they would have to watch one of their members get excoriated during hours of debate on the House floor. The vote today was 210-173 to table the resolution, with 13 members voting "present." The House also passed a couple of other suspension bills.
I mentioned in today's Weekly Strike that the Democratic leadership wanted to bring up the Senate amendments to the public service bill under expedited suspension procedures that would have required a 2/3rds majority vote. It looks like they've decided to scrap that plan. Instead, they will consider the bill under regular order. The obvious reason for this (as far as I can see) is that the leadership determined that they didn't have the 2/3rds majority necessary to suspend the rules and pass the bill. As a result, the bill will probably come up for a vote on Wednesday or Thursday, and it should pass with a relatively large majority.
No action in the Senate today. Votes on amendments to the budget resolution are possible tomorrow, and we'll cover them if they happen.
Oh, and finally, after a year of obstruction from Senator Tom Coburn, President Obama finally signed the Omnibus Public Lands bill into law during a ceremony at the White House. He praised the bipartisan delegation who helped pass the bill for protecting our natural resources. He also mentioned a little-known provision in the bill, which is money for research to help those who suffer from spinal cord injuries. The measure was advocated by the relatives of the late actor Christopher Reeves. I hope Coburn enjoyed his parliamentary games, because it's pretty clear that he could have delayed cures to life-limiting illnesses. Thanks Coburn.
That's it for tonight, the budget battle begins in earnest tomorrow (mostly on the floor of the Senate) and we'll let you know of all the going-ons. Make sure you share your comments! We'll feature the best one in its own post later in the week. Also, PLEASE add yourself as a follower of the blog if you have not already done so.
Showing posts with label Tomnibus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tomnibus. Show all posts
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Weekly Strike-3/30-4/5
Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. Many thanks to the Big Picture for pinch-hitting while I was gone. Also, thanks to those who left comments, especially the one that defended my traveling activities! Please write some comments this week! We will feature the best one on Friday's Daily Strike. A very big week in politics coming up, so let's get to it. There will be two stories dominating the news this week, the budget battle in Congress and President Obama's trip abroad for the G20 summit. We'll make sure you are well-informed on both.
THE HOUSE: The House, having been in a holding pattern for a few weeks, has a packed schedule. Starting today, the House will consider a long slew of suspension bills. Interestingly, the Senate amendments to the public service bill will be coming up under suspension of the rules, meaning it will need a 2/3rds majority to pass. This bill, as we've talked about, would expand funding for public service programs. The House passed its version with about 300 votes. If that majority holds for the vote on the Senate amendments to the bill, President Obama should be receiving a copy for his signature by Friday. Usually, the House does not take up bills of this much substance under these expedited procedures, but since the House already agreed to the underlying bill, and with it's schedule packed for the remainder of the week, it looks like the leadership wanted to get this done as quickly as possible. I'm curious to see whether some Republicans vote against the bill because they object to using these expedited procedures. If enough of them bolt, the House would have to pass a special rule and consider the bill later in the week.
After dealing with 23 suspension bills, the House will move to consideration of a measure setting out funding for various Congressional Committees. I don't expect this to be too controversial, although some Republicans may take exception with increased funding for Congressional committee activity during a recession. Next, the House will take up another bill dealing with executive compensation. This bill would amend last year's bailout legislation to forbid companies receiving TARP money from giving out "unreasonable and excessive" executive compensation packages. What's interesting about this bill is that it doesn't define what is "unreasonable and excessive," but rather leaves that determination to the Treasury Secretary. That's quite a responsibility for Mr. Geithner, and seems like a pretty significant ceding of power to the executive branch.
Finally, of course, the House will deal with the budget resolution which sets non-binding spending targets for Fiscal Year 2010. I read through the bill last night and a couple of things stood out to me. First, a lot of the President's priorities have been set aside under "reserve funds" meaning that spending will be determined by legislation down the line. For example, the resolution gives only vague suggestions on what a health reform would look like, but sets a side a ton of money to deal with it. The other interesting thing I noticed were the reconciliation instructions embedded in the budget. (Reconciliation instructions, if you're new to the blog, instruct committees to bring spending to pre-set levels. Reconciliation bills are not subject to a filibuster in the Senate, meaning the bill would only need 50 votes to pass). The section heading under reconciliation reads "health care reform" but the instructions only call for the committees of jurisdiction to "reduce spending so that the deficit decreases by $1 billion over 10 years." Now, in the context of the full federal budget, $1 billion is basically nothing, so it's clear that these instructions have little to do with decreasing the deficit. Instead, this seems to be a tool to get around possible procedural hurdles. Because of the so-called "Byrd Rule," all reconciliation legislation has to create changes in either revenues or outlays. Basically, the House Energy and Commerce committee, which deals with most health care legislation, could come up with a comprehensive health care plan, which spends a lot now, but saves $1 billion in the long run, and they will have fulfilled the reconciliation instructions. Of course, the resolution could have instructed the committee to spend more money, and thus increase the deficit, but in this case, the Democrats can enact health reform and even look like they're saving money in the process!
The Republicans will have a chance to amend the bill, most likely by offering a substitute budget. Let's hope it contains actual numbers when it comes to the floor.
The Senate version of the bill does not include reconciliation instructions, so Democratic leaders in both chambers will have to wrangle over whether to include the controversial fast-track procedure in a conference committee. After the House is does with the budget bill, it will go on a one week Easter recess.
SENATE: The Senate begins consideration of it's own budget resolution this evening. I expect the Republicans to propose a series of amendments, which should drag out the process until late Thursday or Friday. Because the Democrats have a commanding 58-41 majority, I don't think many of their amendments have a chance of passing. The resolution itself is not subject to the filibuster, so unless 8 Democrats abandon their own party's budget blueprint, the resolution will be agreed to. I expect a few defections from moderate deficit-hawks, but not enough to derail the bill.
I'm pretty sure that since the budget resolutions are ambitious in pursuing a broad progressive agenda, they will receive zero Republican votes in either the House or Senate. We'll make sure you are up-to-date on all the budget details as the week continues.
THE PRESIDENT: Before leaving for a very important international trip (the first overseas journey of his Presidency), President Obama will hold a press conference this morning to discuss the auto industry bailouts. The President will get tough with both GM and Chrysler. He has already pushed out GM CEO Rick Wagoner, who announced his resignation yesterday. These two companies have requested an additional $17 billion in bailout money, on top of the money President Bush gave them last November. As part of last year's bailout, the companies were required to submit restructuring plans by the end of this month. Obama is going to reject these plans, because both car makers have failed to prove their viability. GM will be given some money for 60 days, and it will be instructed to come up with a better plan to stay solvent. If that fails, they'll probably be on their own and will have to declare bankruptcy. In Chrysler's case, the government is giving them 30 days to complete an expected merger with European company FIAT. If the merger goes down, the government will pay $6 billion to help with the transition. If not, Chrysler too will be allowed to fail.
President Obama seems to be setting much tougher conditions for bailout money to automakers than he is to financial firms. Part of it is that the financial companies have more resources to effectively lobby Congress and the administration. The other part of it is that the failure of financial institutions would be more harmful to the national economy. It still bothers me that the Federal government holds these companies in such contempt. The workers at these companies have already been forced to give up some of their benefits, and in my view, it's imperative that we don't let the backbone of our manufacturing sector fall by the wayside.
The President will also sign the "Tomnibus" public lands bill into law today at a small White House ceremony. He will travel to London for the G20 conference tomorrow morning, and make stops in Strasbourg, France (for the NATO summit); Prague; Ankara, Turkey and Istanbul (he will be fulfilling a promise to give a major address in a Muslim nation). I'm very curious to see how the President is received overseas. We very well may be reminded this week of one of the major consequences of Obama's election: the return of goodwill and respect from the international community. We'll give you comprehensive coverage and analysis from each of his stops on this week-long journey. The G20 summit, which brings together leaders from the top 20 industrial countries, will mostly discuss the global economy, but is also expected to deal with other issues like climate change.
Be sure to tune in tonight for the Daily Strike. Leave comments!
THE HOUSE: The House, having been in a holding pattern for a few weeks, has a packed schedule. Starting today, the House will consider a long slew of suspension bills. Interestingly, the Senate amendments to the public service bill will be coming up under suspension of the rules, meaning it will need a 2/3rds majority to pass. This bill, as we've talked about, would expand funding for public service programs. The House passed its version with about 300 votes. If that majority holds for the vote on the Senate amendments to the bill, President Obama should be receiving a copy for his signature by Friday. Usually, the House does not take up bills of this much substance under these expedited procedures, but since the House already agreed to the underlying bill, and with it's schedule packed for the remainder of the week, it looks like the leadership wanted to get this done as quickly as possible. I'm curious to see whether some Republicans vote against the bill because they object to using these expedited procedures. If enough of them bolt, the House would have to pass a special rule and consider the bill later in the week.
After dealing with 23 suspension bills, the House will move to consideration of a measure setting out funding for various Congressional Committees. I don't expect this to be too controversial, although some Republicans may take exception with increased funding for Congressional committee activity during a recession. Next, the House will take up another bill dealing with executive compensation. This bill would amend last year's bailout legislation to forbid companies receiving TARP money from giving out "unreasonable and excessive" executive compensation packages. What's interesting about this bill is that it doesn't define what is "unreasonable and excessive," but rather leaves that determination to the Treasury Secretary. That's quite a responsibility for Mr. Geithner, and seems like a pretty significant ceding of power to the executive branch.
Finally, of course, the House will deal with the budget resolution which sets non-binding spending targets for Fiscal Year 2010. I read through the bill last night and a couple of things stood out to me. First, a lot of the President's priorities have been set aside under "reserve funds" meaning that spending will be determined by legislation down the line. For example, the resolution gives only vague suggestions on what a health reform would look like, but sets a side a ton of money to deal with it. The other interesting thing I noticed were the reconciliation instructions embedded in the budget. (Reconciliation instructions, if you're new to the blog, instruct committees to bring spending to pre-set levels. Reconciliation bills are not subject to a filibuster in the Senate, meaning the bill would only need 50 votes to pass). The section heading under reconciliation reads "health care reform" but the instructions only call for the committees of jurisdiction to "reduce spending so that the deficit decreases by $1 billion over 10 years." Now, in the context of the full federal budget, $1 billion is basically nothing, so it's clear that these instructions have little to do with decreasing the deficit. Instead, this seems to be a tool to get around possible procedural hurdles. Because of the so-called "Byrd Rule," all reconciliation legislation has to create changes in either revenues or outlays. Basically, the House Energy and Commerce committee, which deals with most health care legislation, could come up with a comprehensive health care plan, which spends a lot now, but saves $1 billion in the long run, and they will have fulfilled the reconciliation instructions. Of course, the resolution could have instructed the committee to spend more money, and thus increase the deficit, but in this case, the Democrats can enact health reform and even look like they're saving money in the process!
The Republicans will have a chance to amend the bill, most likely by offering a substitute budget. Let's hope it contains actual numbers when it comes to the floor.
The Senate version of the bill does not include reconciliation instructions, so Democratic leaders in both chambers will have to wrangle over whether to include the controversial fast-track procedure in a conference committee. After the House is does with the budget bill, it will go on a one week Easter recess.
SENATE: The Senate begins consideration of it's own budget resolution this evening. I expect the Republicans to propose a series of amendments, which should drag out the process until late Thursday or Friday. Because the Democrats have a commanding 58-41 majority, I don't think many of their amendments have a chance of passing. The resolution itself is not subject to the filibuster, so unless 8 Democrats abandon their own party's budget blueprint, the resolution will be agreed to. I expect a few defections from moderate deficit-hawks, but not enough to derail the bill.
I'm pretty sure that since the budget resolutions are ambitious in pursuing a broad progressive agenda, they will receive zero Republican votes in either the House or Senate. We'll make sure you are up-to-date on all the budget details as the week continues.
THE PRESIDENT: Before leaving for a very important international trip (the first overseas journey of his Presidency), President Obama will hold a press conference this morning to discuss the auto industry bailouts. The President will get tough with both GM and Chrysler. He has already pushed out GM CEO Rick Wagoner, who announced his resignation yesterday. These two companies have requested an additional $17 billion in bailout money, on top of the money President Bush gave them last November. As part of last year's bailout, the companies were required to submit restructuring plans by the end of this month. Obama is going to reject these plans, because both car makers have failed to prove their viability. GM will be given some money for 60 days, and it will be instructed to come up with a better plan to stay solvent. If that fails, they'll probably be on their own and will have to declare bankruptcy. In Chrysler's case, the government is giving them 30 days to complete an expected merger with European company FIAT. If the merger goes down, the government will pay $6 billion to help with the transition. If not, Chrysler too will be allowed to fail.
President Obama seems to be setting much tougher conditions for bailout money to automakers than he is to financial firms. Part of it is that the financial companies have more resources to effectively lobby Congress and the administration. The other part of it is that the failure of financial institutions would be more harmful to the national economy. It still bothers me that the Federal government holds these companies in such contempt. The workers at these companies have already been forced to give up some of their benefits, and in my view, it's imperative that we don't let the backbone of our manufacturing sector fall by the wayside.
The President will also sign the "Tomnibus" public lands bill into law today at a small White House ceremony. He will travel to London for the G20 conference tomorrow morning, and make stops in Strasbourg, France (for the NATO summit); Prague; Ankara, Turkey and Istanbul (he will be fulfilling a promise to give a major address in a Muslim nation). I'm very curious to see how the President is received overseas. We very well may be reminded this week of one of the major consequences of Obama's election: the return of goodwill and respect from the international community. We'll give you comprehensive coverage and analysis from each of his stops on this week-long journey. The G20 summit, which brings together leaders from the top 20 industrial countries, will mostly discuss the global economy, but is also expected to deal with other issues like climate change.
Be sure to tune in tonight for the Daily Strike. Leave comments!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Daily Strike-3/25/09-Budget Pressure/Tomnibus/Public Service
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The fight for the budget is gearing up, with both chambers set to take up budget resolutions next week. Let's get to it.
OBAMA/SENATE DEMOCRATS MEETING: Obama met with Senate Democrats for 41 minutes today, urging them to stay true to core principals in their budget resolution. Moderates like Budget Chairman Kent Conrad have tried their best in recent days to pare down Obama's ambitious budget by making cuts in proposed discretionary spending. Obama told them that minor changes are acceptable, but the budget must contain reform in the core areas of health care, energy, education and deficit reduction. Obama friend and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin called the meeting a discussion about "what (the Democrats) stand for as a party. Why we were elected, why we want to be reelected, and [laid out the] the basics,”
It sounds like stuff some Senate Democrats really need to hear. It's not about you. It's not about your career or reputation, it's about achieving our common priorities. Obama also, cleverly, tried to create some positive polarization by demonizing Republicans. He said that the Republicans were only offering criticism because they have no alternatives. Obama is trying to associate those Democrats who question his budget with "just say no" Republicans. Very smart.
Another interesting strategy Obama seems to be taking is that he's trying to minimize the differences between his budget and the budget resolution coming from Congress. OMB Director Peter Orszag said today that the two budgets may not be identical twins, but they are brothers. It's probably a good way to keep Kent Conrad et. al. on the team, but not calling them out in public, but you don't want to give up too much to these self-appointed fiscal-watchdogs.
The budget-hawk from North Dakota still plans to eliminate Obama's signature "make work pay" tax cut, and significantly cut other areas of spending. According to Senator Schumer of New York, Obama's message was "we rise and fall together." I think this is the message I would drill into Conrad's head. The Democrats, and the country, will suffer if the Democrats let internal squabbling get in the way of delivering for the average American.
Another tidbit that came out of the meeting:
The House Democrats have included reconciliation instructions in their version of the budget resolution to deal with health care reform. Using the reconciliation process would eliminate the ability of Republicans to filibuster in the Senate, and thus would allow health reform to pass with only 50 votes. According to sources, House Democrats want to use the threat of reconciliation as a bargaining chip to get some Republicans to agree to comprehensive health care reform. Senate Democrats have not put reconciliation instructions in their version of the budget. I know that Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and ranking Republican Judd "Judas" Gregg are good friends, and Gregg has signaled stiff opposition to reconciliation. Just saying. In my mind, it's critical to at least have the threat of reconciliation, so that if Republicans won't agree on a deal, we can still pass health care reform this year. Many "principles of the process" legislators might object to using these expedited procedures. I hope that the instructions are kept in the bill during conference negotiations.
THE SENATE: The Senate continued today with consideration of the bill expanding public service program. Senators voted on two amendments today. The first was an unrelated amendment (you can do that in the Senate) to expand the borrowing power of the FDIC, authored by Republican Senator Mike Crapo. Because the amendment violated budget rules, it would have required 60 votes to pass. The amendment was rejected 49-48. All Republicans voted for it, as did Democrats Baucus (MT), Cantwell (WA), Dorgan (ND), Feingold (WI), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Nelson (NE) and Tester (MT). I don't know much about the amendment, but my guess is that most Democrats voted against it because it set overall caps for FDIC borrowing authority that they may have seen as too low.
The other amendment was offered by Senator Ensign of Nevada. The Senate tabled (killed) the amendment by a vote of 56-41. The amendment would "clarify that nonprofit organizations assisted under the Nonprofit Capacity Building Program include certain crisis pregnancy centers, and organizations that serve battled women or victims of rape or incest."
I don't know much about this either, but you can just sort of tell this was a proxy abortion vote by reading between the lines. Anyway, Collins and Snowe (ME) were the only Republicans voting to table, while pro-life Democrat Bob Casey, Kent Conrad (I'm getting fed up with him!) and Ben Nelson (NE) voted against killing the amendment.
The Senate also voted unanimously to approve several other amendments, like ones to expand foster care programs, special olympics funding (hint, hint Obama) and peer outreach for high school students.
The Senate will consider a few additional amendments tomorrow. Majority Leader Reid wants to pass a final version of the bill tomorrow night, but if Republicans object, Reid will file a motion to cut off debate Friday morning. Either way, the bill will be passed at some point this week, which will most likely trigger a House-Senate conference. (Side note: no way this conference convenes during the budget battle next week. National service organizations will have to wait a little while for this funding).
THE HOUSE: The House voted today (finally!) to approve the "Tomnibus" public lands bill, a collection of bills blocked in the previous Congress by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). 38 Republicans joined all by 4 Democrats in voting to send this bill to President Obama. Our good friends at CongressMatters (http://congressmatters.com/) give a good summary of the bill. It's actually more extensive in protecting public land than I originally thought. Obama is expected to sign the bill into law.
The House also voted (AGAIN) to table a privileged resolution offered by Rep. Flake of Arizona that seeks to start an investigation of earmarks geared to beneficiaries of the lobbying group PMA. This is 4th time his resolution has failed. He has already filed the resolution again for a vote next week. Will it ever end?
The House votes tomorrow on a bill to authorize additional funding to fight wildfires. The House approved a rule governing debate on the bill that restricts amendments to those previously approved by the Rules Committee.
That's it for tonight. Did I miss anything? Please include in the comments section! We'd really appreciate it!
OBAMA/SENATE DEMOCRATS MEETING: Obama met with Senate Democrats for 41 minutes today, urging them to stay true to core principals in their budget resolution. Moderates like Budget Chairman Kent Conrad have tried their best in recent days to pare down Obama's ambitious budget by making cuts in proposed discretionary spending. Obama told them that minor changes are acceptable, but the budget must contain reform in the core areas of health care, energy, education and deficit reduction. Obama friend and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin called the meeting a discussion about "what (the Democrats) stand for as a party. Why we were elected, why we want to be reelected, and [laid out the] the basics,”
It sounds like stuff some Senate Democrats really need to hear. It's not about you. It's not about your career or reputation, it's about achieving our common priorities. Obama also, cleverly, tried to create some positive polarization by demonizing Republicans. He said that the Republicans were only offering criticism because they have no alternatives. Obama is trying to associate those Democrats who question his budget with "just say no" Republicans. Very smart.
Another interesting strategy Obama seems to be taking is that he's trying to minimize the differences between his budget and the budget resolution coming from Congress. OMB Director Peter Orszag said today that the two budgets may not be identical twins, but they are brothers. It's probably a good way to keep Kent Conrad et. al. on the team, but not calling them out in public, but you don't want to give up too much to these self-appointed fiscal-watchdogs.
The budget-hawk from North Dakota still plans to eliminate Obama's signature "make work pay" tax cut, and significantly cut other areas of spending. According to Senator Schumer of New York, Obama's message was "we rise and fall together." I think this is the message I would drill into Conrad's head. The Democrats, and the country, will suffer if the Democrats let internal squabbling get in the way of delivering for the average American.
Another tidbit that came out of the meeting:
The House Democrats have included reconciliation instructions in their version of the budget resolution to deal with health care reform. Using the reconciliation process would eliminate the ability of Republicans to filibuster in the Senate, and thus would allow health reform to pass with only 50 votes. According to sources, House Democrats want to use the threat of reconciliation as a bargaining chip to get some Republicans to agree to comprehensive health care reform. Senate Democrats have not put reconciliation instructions in their version of the budget. I know that Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and ranking Republican Judd "Judas" Gregg are good friends, and Gregg has signaled stiff opposition to reconciliation. Just saying. In my mind, it's critical to at least have the threat of reconciliation, so that if Republicans won't agree on a deal, we can still pass health care reform this year. Many "principles of the process" legislators might object to using these expedited procedures. I hope that the instructions are kept in the bill during conference negotiations.
THE SENATE: The Senate continued today with consideration of the bill expanding public service program. Senators voted on two amendments today. The first was an unrelated amendment (you can do that in the Senate) to expand the borrowing power of the FDIC, authored by Republican Senator Mike Crapo. Because the amendment violated budget rules, it would have required 60 votes to pass. The amendment was rejected 49-48. All Republicans voted for it, as did Democrats Baucus (MT), Cantwell (WA), Dorgan (ND), Feingold (WI), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Nelson (NE) and Tester (MT). I don't know much about the amendment, but my guess is that most Democrats voted against it because it set overall caps for FDIC borrowing authority that they may have seen as too low.
The other amendment was offered by Senator Ensign of Nevada. The Senate tabled (killed) the amendment by a vote of 56-41. The amendment would "clarify that nonprofit organizations assisted under the Nonprofit Capacity Building Program include certain crisis pregnancy centers, and organizations that serve battled women or victims of rape or incest."
I don't know much about this either, but you can just sort of tell this was a proxy abortion vote by reading between the lines. Anyway, Collins and Snowe (ME) were the only Republicans voting to table, while pro-life Democrat Bob Casey, Kent Conrad (I'm getting fed up with him!) and Ben Nelson (NE) voted against killing the amendment.
The Senate also voted unanimously to approve several other amendments, like ones to expand foster care programs, special olympics funding (hint, hint Obama) and peer outreach for high school students.
The Senate will consider a few additional amendments tomorrow. Majority Leader Reid wants to pass a final version of the bill tomorrow night, but if Republicans object, Reid will file a motion to cut off debate Friday morning. Either way, the bill will be passed at some point this week, which will most likely trigger a House-Senate conference. (Side note: no way this conference convenes during the budget battle next week. National service organizations will have to wait a little while for this funding).
THE HOUSE: The House voted today (finally!) to approve the "Tomnibus" public lands bill, a collection of bills blocked in the previous Congress by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). 38 Republicans joined all by 4 Democrats in voting to send this bill to President Obama. Our good friends at CongressMatters (http://congressmatters.com/) give a good summary of the bill. It's actually more extensive in protecting public land than I originally thought. Obama is expected to sign the bill into law.
The House also voted (AGAIN) to table a privileged resolution offered by Rep. Flake of Arizona that seeks to start an investigation of earmarks geared to beneficiaries of the lobbying group PMA. This is 4th time his resolution has failed. He has already filed the resolution again for a vote next week. Will it ever end?
The House votes tomorrow on a bill to authorize additional funding to fight wildfires. The House approved a rule governing debate on the bill that restricts amendments to those previously approved by the Rules Committee.
That's it for tonight. Did I miss anything? Please include in the comments section! We'd really appreciate it!
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Daily Strike-3/23/09-Geithner's Big Day
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Tonight's entry will be short, because we've already covered a lot in the Weekly Strike, and the previous entry (a dialogue between The Big Picture and me).
THE NEW PLAN: Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner finally had a good day today. His plan to buy toxic assets through a public-private partnership was well-received on Wall Street, with the Dow climbing almost 500 points. I'm very curious to hear the thoughts of those who blamed Obama when the stock market was going down. I assume they'll give him full credit for today's increase!
Of course we need to remember that what's good for the stock market is not necessarily good for the country. That's probably one of the top two or three lessons learned during the Bush years. Someone on the other blog mentioned the following scenario. Imagine if the government levied an extra 10 percent tax on middle class Americans and said it would direct that money to hedge fund managers. That would obviously be bad for the country. But it would be very good for the investor class. They would anticipate very high profits, and the stock-market would skyrocket. So we must remember to never interpret a rise or fall in the stock-market as any indication on the overall health of the economy.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY: President Obama gave a speech today touting investments in alternative energy in the FY 2010 budget. He said that alternative energy is part of a comprehensive approach to grow the economy. The speech came on the same day that a key EPA report was released, which asserted that greenhouse gases threaten people's health. Can you imagine the Bush EPA coming out with a report like that? Another reminder that elections have consequences.
SENATE: The Senate voted moments ago to move ahead with a bill to expand national service programs. The bill passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. I was interested to see if some Republicans would vote against this procedural motion to protest that the Senate was not considering the bonus tax bill. That doesn't seem to have been the case. The motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed was agreed to by a vote of 79-14, with all no votes coming from Republicans.
HOUSE: The House dealt today with non-controversial bills under suspension of the rules. They'll do the same tomorrow before voting on the "Tomnibus" public lands bill and FLAME Act later in the week.
That's it for tonight, I'll be writing tomorrow night from a conference in Cleveland, Ohio. Should be pretty exciting.
THE NEW PLAN: Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner finally had a good day today. His plan to buy toxic assets through a public-private partnership was well-received on Wall Street, with the Dow climbing almost 500 points. I'm very curious to hear the thoughts of those who blamed Obama when the stock market was going down. I assume they'll give him full credit for today's increase!
Of course we need to remember that what's good for the stock market is not necessarily good for the country. That's probably one of the top two or three lessons learned during the Bush years. Someone on the other blog mentioned the following scenario. Imagine if the government levied an extra 10 percent tax on middle class Americans and said it would direct that money to hedge fund managers. That would obviously be bad for the country. But it would be very good for the investor class. They would anticipate very high profits, and the stock-market would skyrocket. So we must remember to never interpret a rise or fall in the stock-market as any indication on the overall health of the economy.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY: President Obama gave a speech today touting investments in alternative energy in the FY 2010 budget. He said that alternative energy is part of a comprehensive approach to grow the economy. The speech came on the same day that a key EPA report was released, which asserted that greenhouse gases threaten people's health. Can you imagine the Bush EPA coming out with a report like that? Another reminder that elections have consequences.
SENATE: The Senate voted moments ago to move ahead with a bill to expand national service programs. The bill passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. I was interested to see if some Republicans would vote against this procedural motion to protest that the Senate was not considering the bonus tax bill. That doesn't seem to have been the case. The motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed was agreed to by a vote of 79-14, with all no votes coming from Republicans.
HOUSE: The House dealt today with non-controversial bills under suspension of the rules. They'll do the same tomorrow before voting on the "Tomnibus" public lands bill and FLAME Act later in the week.
That's it for tonight, I'll be writing tomorrow night from a conference in Cleveland, Ohio. Should be pretty exciting.
The Weekly Strike-3/23-3/29
Good morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike, where we preview another busy week in Washington.
THE WHITE HOUSE: The White House has probably already had its most important event of the week. At 8:45 this morning, Tim Geithner briefed reporters on the administration's plan to buy up toxic assets as part of a public-private partnership. Geithner's previous attempt to articulate his banking plan was a total air ball, so today's announcement carries extra weight. If the market tanks this morning, every Republican in the country, as well as every mainstream political commentator, will be gunning for Geithner's head again. Geithner outlined the basic tenets of the plan in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning. Basically it works like this:
-A public-private coalition (the federal government + some private firms) will purchase real-estate related loans (read: subprime mortgages). Banks will have the opportunity to sell groups of these loans to dedicated funds. Investors will then bid to buy these loans, taking advantage of the favorable financing from the government. The funds established in this program will be unique because a) they'll have the resources of capital from the treasury and financing from the FDIC and federal reserve, b) the private companies will share the risk (and potential profit) with the taxpayers and c) these funds will be open to all different types of investors.
Is it just me, or does this sound like exactly the types of transactions that got us in trouble in the first place? Where's the wealth going to come from in this scenario? As Paul Krugman said, we're just throwing money at trash right now. I'm no financial analyst, but I have serious doubts about taking an approach, that (again, in the words of Krugman, who I trust more than anyone on these issues) represents what the Bush administration tried and failed. The plan, Krugman notes, would only worked if we believed that the only problem with our financial system was lack of confidence. In this alternate universe, these "troubled assets" are actually worth a lot, but on one has enough confidence to take a risk on them. It seems pretty clear that assets are actually NOT worth anything, and this plan is just an extension of the bubble market Obama himself has criticized. The Big Picture reminds us that Paul Krugman has doubted Obama from the beginning. But, you can still count me as a skeptic.
So far the market likes it, it's up 250 points this morning. Problem solved, right?
The other big task for the White House this week is to drum up grassroots support for the President's budget. Next week, the House will take up a non-binding budget resolution that sets spending targets for the next fiscal year. The Democratic House will likely use Obama's budget proposal as the basic blueprint of the resolution, with some changes here and there. Senate Budget Committee Chairman, budget-hawk Kent Conrad, has said he wants to cut about $28 billion from the President's blueprint in the Senate version of the budget resolution.
If he can't change Conrad's mind directly, hopefully he can get the American people to apply some pressure. The President holds another prime time news conference tomorrow night. Obama will try as much as he can to focus on his budget proposal, but you can bet the media will want to ask him about AIG and the banking plan. Stay tuned.
THE SENATE: The Senate this week will take up a bill expanding public service jobs to 250,000. The bill passed the House two weeks ago with overwhelming bipartisan support. The first vote will be this evening, on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. This is a test vote to see whether Democrats can get to the magic 60 on the underlying bill. I'm almost certain that they will. The bill in the Senate is sponsored by Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican Orrin Hatch. I expect a series of amendments to be voted on tomorrow and Wednesday, with final passage later in the week.
The more interesting work this week will be when the Senate takes up a revised version of the House-passed bill that imposes a 90 percent tax on bonuses to bailed-out companies. Many Republican Senators have expressed constitutional concerns about the bill, and they may have an unlikely ally. Last night on 60 Minutes, President Obama implied that he had doubts about the bill. He said that he would rather not use the tax code to punish particular companies (The Big Picture and the Strike write about this in the next post). I expect some version of this bill to pass the Senate by the end of the week. This would trigger a House-Senate conference, which could become pretty contentious. I expect the Senate bill to be a watered-down version of the House bill. Seems like the Founding Fathers would approve: The House reflects the angry whims of the public and passes a far-reaching bill, and the Senate takes the longer view and tempers the bill down. Obama may secretly hope that the Senate Republicans kill the bill so that he doesn't have to issue an unpopular veto. I can't bring myself to believe that Obama would veto this if it came to his desk, but that remains to be seen.
THE HOUSE: The House has a bit of a calm-before-the-storm week. After dealing with various suspension bills today and tomorrow, the House will vote on Senate amendments to the "Tomnibus" public lands bill. This is a bill comprised of various measures blocked in the previous Congress by Senator Tom Coburn. The Senate attached this bill as a rider to an unrelated House-passed bill. This way, the House can vote directly on the Senate amendment, and doesn't have to worry about poison pill amendments (special rules generally prohibit amendments or motions to recommit when the House votes on Senate amendments to a bill).
The House will then consider the brilliantly-acronymed FLAME Act (Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act). The bill adds supplemental funding to efforts to protect against the spread of wildfires. I assume this bill will pass rather easily. You can bet, though, that the Republicans will complain vociferously that the House is taking up a wildfires bill during an economic crisis.
Please let us know your thoughts in the comments section! See you tonight for the Daily Strike!
THE WHITE HOUSE: The White House has probably already had its most important event of the week. At 8:45 this morning, Tim Geithner briefed reporters on the administration's plan to buy up toxic assets as part of a public-private partnership. Geithner's previous attempt to articulate his banking plan was a total air ball, so today's announcement carries extra weight. If the market tanks this morning, every Republican in the country, as well as every mainstream political commentator, will be gunning for Geithner's head again. Geithner outlined the basic tenets of the plan in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning. Basically it works like this:
-A public-private coalition (the federal government + some private firms) will purchase real-estate related loans (read: subprime mortgages). Banks will have the opportunity to sell groups of these loans to dedicated funds. Investors will then bid to buy these loans, taking advantage of the favorable financing from the government. The funds established in this program will be unique because a) they'll have the resources of capital from the treasury and financing from the FDIC and federal reserve, b) the private companies will share the risk (and potential profit) with the taxpayers and c) these funds will be open to all different types of investors.
Is it just me, or does this sound like exactly the types of transactions that got us in trouble in the first place? Where's the wealth going to come from in this scenario? As Paul Krugman said, we're just throwing money at trash right now. I'm no financial analyst, but I have serious doubts about taking an approach, that (again, in the words of Krugman, who I trust more than anyone on these issues) represents what the Bush administration tried and failed. The plan, Krugman notes, would only worked if we believed that the only problem with our financial system was lack of confidence. In this alternate universe, these "troubled assets" are actually worth a lot, but on one has enough confidence to take a risk on them. It seems pretty clear that assets are actually NOT worth anything, and this plan is just an extension of the bubble market Obama himself has criticized. The Big Picture reminds us that Paul Krugman has doubted Obama from the beginning. But, you can still count me as a skeptic.
So far the market likes it, it's up 250 points this morning. Problem solved, right?
The other big task for the White House this week is to drum up grassroots support for the President's budget. Next week, the House will take up a non-binding budget resolution that sets spending targets for the next fiscal year. The Democratic House will likely use Obama's budget proposal as the basic blueprint of the resolution, with some changes here and there. Senate Budget Committee Chairman, budget-hawk Kent Conrad, has said he wants to cut about $28 billion from the President's blueprint in the Senate version of the budget resolution.
If he can't change Conrad's mind directly, hopefully he can get the American people to apply some pressure. The President holds another prime time news conference tomorrow night. Obama will try as much as he can to focus on his budget proposal, but you can bet the media will want to ask him about AIG and the banking plan. Stay tuned.
THE SENATE: The Senate this week will take up a bill expanding public service jobs to 250,000. The bill passed the House two weeks ago with overwhelming bipartisan support. The first vote will be this evening, on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. This is a test vote to see whether Democrats can get to the magic 60 on the underlying bill. I'm almost certain that they will. The bill in the Senate is sponsored by Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican Orrin Hatch. I expect a series of amendments to be voted on tomorrow and Wednesday, with final passage later in the week.
The more interesting work this week will be when the Senate takes up a revised version of the House-passed bill that imposes a 90 percent tax on bonuses to bailed-out companies. Many Republican Senators have expressed constitutional concerns about the bill, and they may have an unlikely ally. Last night on 60 Minutes, President Obama implied that he had doubts about the bill. He said that he would rather not use the tax code to punish particular companies (The Big Picture and the Strike write about this in the next post). I expect some version of this bill to pass the Senate by the end of the week. This would trigger a House-Senate conference, which could become pretty contentious. I expect the Senate bill to be a watered-down version of the House bill. Seems like the Founding Fathers would approve: The House reflects the angry whims of the public and passes a far-reaching bill, and the Senate takes the longer view and tempers the bill down. Obama may secretly hope that the Senate Republicans kill the bill so that he doesn't have to issue an unpopular veto. I can't bring myself to believe that Obama would veto this if it came to his desk, but that remains to be seen.
THE HOUSE: The House has a bit of a calm-before-the-storm week. After dealing with various suspension bills today and tomorrow, the House will vote on Senate amendments to the "Tomnibus" public lands bill. This is a bill comprised of various measures blocked in the previous Congress by Senator Tom Coburn. The Senate attached this bill as a rider to an unrelated House-passed bill. This way, the House can vote directly on the Senate amendment, and doesn't have to worry about poison pill amendments (special rules generally prohibit amendments or motions to recommit when the House votes on Senate amendments to a bill).
The House will then consider the brilliantly-acronymed FLAME Act (Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act). The bill adds supplemental funding to efforts to protect against the spread of wildfires. I assume this bill will pass rather easily. You can bet, though, that the Republicans will complain vociferously that the House is taking up a wildfires bill during an economic crisis.
Please let us know your thoughts in the comments section! See you tonight for the Daily Strike!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Daily Strike-3/19/09-Outrage Redux
Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The story again today was the outrage and political posturing about the bonuses to AIG. Let's get to the day in politics.
THE HOUSE: This, frankly, was a pretty shameful day in the United States House of Representatives. The Democratic leadership, facing the populist firestorm surrounding AIG, decided to bring a bill to the floor that would tax bonuses to companies receiving federal money at 90%. The taxes would only apply to employees making over $250,000 per year in salary. I have several complaints about what transpired today, and let's start with the party that at least somewhat acts like adults, the Democratic Party.
In the debate over the economic stimulus bill, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden and Republican Senator Olympia Snowe inserted an amendment that would bar bonuses to executives of companies receiving federal bailout money. The bill went into conference with the House, and the conference report mysteriously limited that measure only to companies who received bailout money after February 11th. Apparently, the Treasury Secretary, the embattled Timothy Geithner, requested that the provision be modified because he was worried about the AIG bonuses being subjected to lawsuits (because they were binding contracts). Christopher Dodd, the equally embattled chair of the Senate Banking committee, followed through on Geithner's request. Both houses of Congress voted on the final version of the stimulus bill the next day, meaning that most members probably had no idea that this provision had been removed from the bill.
Tim Geithner is on thin ice, as far as I'm concerned. Why did he make this request in the first place? Did he not understand the political consequences? Why did Dodd first lie about his involvement in this? These are important questions, and they have to be answered.
Furthermore, Democrats seem to be participating in destructive circular firing squad. House Democrats said they didn't know anything about this provision, Dodd is blaming the Treasury, and the Treasury, until today, had blamed Dodd. The only person who took any responsibility (until today) was President Obama. Somebody, besides Obama, needs to man up and take some responsibility. I suggest Dodd and Geithner.
Unfortunately, there is not a viable opposition party that can respectfully raise these questions, but also work in a bipartisan way to get a bill passed. What we saw today from the Republican party in the House of Representatives was really painful to watch. All of the sudden, the party that prides itself on deregulation, the party that has spent 30 years telling us that Government should not meddle in the business world, the party whose leader last Month said that there shouldn't be limits of executive compensation, has decided that it is a party of populist crusaders.
The Republicans completely exploited this story to score cheap political points. Every Republican on the House floor, instead of actually debating the substance of the bill, mentioned that "Democrats took the provision out of the bill!!!!" Each member gave the same exact speech. They feigned anger, not at AIG, but at the Democrats. They talked about how they're petty complaints about not having enough time to read the stimulus bill had been vindicated. They were acting like children. What's worse is that we heard mostly from a cast of characters who come to the House floor daily acting like little brats. In case you're wondering who they are:
Rep. Tom Price of Georgia
Rep. Ted Poe of Texas
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
Rep. Virginia Foxx 0f North Carolina
Rep. Pence of Indiana
The party, according to almost every poll, is seen as doing things mostly for political reasons. And it gets worse. Today at a Senate Republican press conference, Senators Alexander and Kyl were complaining that Obama was wasting the country's time filling out his NCAA brackets and appearing on Jay Leno. Seriously? As the Big Picture said, they're just throwing things at the wall to see if anything sticks. Weren't they just the ones criticizing him for trying to do too much?
Also, Republicans know darn well that they would have voted against the stimulus bill whether this provision was in it or not. They know darn well that members rarely ever read entire bills. They know darn well that their OWN version of the stimulus didn't include any restrictions on executive pay. To me, they are extraordinarily disingenuous.
I'm not saying that the Democrats have not tried to score cheap political points in the past. Remember when we made all that hay about the Dubai ports deal a few years ago? I just don't think I've ever seen political hackery reach this level, especially when there are serious challenges facing the country.
The funniest part about all of this is that almost half of the House Republican Conference supported the bill. The Democrats brought up the bill under expedited procedures that require a 2/3rds vote. They did this so that the Republicans wouldn't have an opportunity to propose amendments. The Democrats first had to pass a special rule, since votes under suspension of the rules (the expedited procedures) are usually only allowed on Mondays and Tuesdays. The Republicans once again pushed to "defeat the previous question" so that the House could debate their version of the bill. What was their version of the bill, you ask? It basically requires the Treasury Secretary to get the money back. Brilliant.
The Democrats ordered the previous question, which allowed for consideration of the bill. All Republicans voted against the previous question, as did 8 Democrats. On the bill itself, 87 Republicans joined all but 6 Democrats in voting yes. Many of those Republicans had railed against the bill as a "political cover-up" but couldn't vote against punishing AIG when push came to shove. The Democratic renegades: Bean (IL), Kissell (NC), McMahon (NY), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ) and Snyder (AR). These are mostly Blue Dog Democrats. McMahon represents Staten Island, so I'm guessing some bonus recipients probably live in his district.
The House also voted on a "sense of Congress" disapproving of AIG's action. I don't understand what the point of this bill was. The bill was non-binding, but failed to garner the 2/3rds necessary vote anyway. Republicans voted against it (all but 12 of them at least) because the first sentence said something like "President Obama has taken all of the right actions."
The House also tabled another privileged resolution offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would start an investigation of pay-to-play activities around members of Congress and the lobbying group PMA. This is the third time the resolution has been killed.
Let's hope the House can be a little more serious next week.
THE SENATE: The Senate today finished work on the "Tomnibus" Public Lands bill (look at our previous entries to figure out what this is). First, the Senate killed two additional Coburn amendments. The first amendment would have required federal agencies to determine the quantity of land owned by that agency, and what it costs to the taxpayer. The amendment was tabled 58-39. The vote was strictly on party lines, with the exception of Republican Mel Martinez (who voted to table) and Democrat Claire McCaskill (who voted against the motion to table). I'm not quite sure why Democrats would have opposed this amendment, but knowing Senator Coburn's track record, there's probably a good reason to be suspicious of his intent on this one.
Next, the Senate tabled an amendment to prohibit any funding authorized in this bill to be used for earmarks (surprise, surprise). The Senate still loves its earmarks. It voted to kill the amendment 70-27. All no votes were from Republicans, except reformer all-stars Bayh (IN) and Feingold (WI).
The Senate also accepted a silly amendment that would prohibit unfair penalties for collecting "insignificant rocks" from National Parks. Did Coburn get caught or something?
The final bill was passed 77-20 (it need 60 votes). All no votes were Republicans. The bill now goes back to the House where it will be considered without amendment. President Obama should sign this legislation next week.
The Senate also voted to confirm Elena Kagen as Solicitor General by a vote of 61-31. I'm willing to guess that those no votes had to do with abortion. The only Republicans voting in the affirmative were Collins (ME), Hatch (UT), Kyl (AZ-wow, he's usually hard right), Lugar (IN) and Snowe (ME).
Next week, the Senate will take up the public service bill recently approved in the House. It will also vote on the nomination of Gary Locke for Secretary of Commerce. Locke was voted out of committee unanimously today.
SO FAR AWAY: Meanwhile, the President was probably very happy to be far away from Washington and the whole AIG mess today. He started the day by touring an electric vehicle plant in Orange County, CA. He then held an eventful townhall meeting with a star-studded guest list. Governor Scwhwarzenegger, one of the few Republican governors out there who is eager to get his hands on stimulus money, introduced the President. Los Angeles mayor (and possible gubernatorial candidate) Antonio Villagiarosa was in attendance, as was Secretary of Labor (and former Southern California Congresswoman) Hilda Solis. It looks like Arnold is on the bandwagon. Check out this gushing quote, courtesy of politico.com:
“But I think he’s so smart,” he said. “He’s so clear with his thinking and he’s so well informed and has been dealing with policy in all this and is also very philosophic it’s almost like. I think he’s just like – I think it’s beautiful.”
The town hall meeting was focused on the economy, but perhaps the most interested question came from an 8-year-old kid who asked Obama what he would do to help public schools. The President talked about measures in the stimulus package to keep teachers in place and increase school construction. What a contrast from the childish antics from Capitol Hill.
Thanks very much to those who offered comments yesterday. We really appreciate it. Please let us know your views.
THE HOUSE: This, frankly, was a pretty shameful day in the United States House of Representatives. The Democratic leadership, facing the populist firestorm surrounding AIG, decided to bring a bill to the floor that would tax bonuses to companies receiving federal money at 90%. The taxes would only apply to employees making over $250,000 per year in salary. I have several complaints about what transpired today, and let's start with the party that at least somewhat acts like adults, the Democratic Party.
In the debate over the economic stimulus bill, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden and Republican Senator Olympia Snowe inserted an amendment that would bar bonuses to executives of companies receiving federal bailout money. The bill went into conference with the House, and the conference report mysteriously limited that measure only to companies who received bailout money after February 11th. Apparently, the Treasury Secretary, the embattled Timothy Geithner, requested that the provision be modified because he was worried about the AIG bonuses being subjected to lawsuits (because they were binding contracts). Christopher Dodd, the equally embattled chair of the Senate Banking committee, followed through on Geithner's request. Both houses of Congress voted on the final version of the stimulus bill the next day, meaning that most members probably had no idea that this provision had been removed from the bill.
Tim Geithner is on thin ice, as far as I'm concerned. Why did he make this request in the first place? Did he not understand the political consequences? Why did Dodd first lie about his involvement in this? These are important questions, and they have to be answered.
Furthermore, Democrats seem to be participating in destructive circular firing squad. House Democrats said they didn't know anything about this provision, Dodd is blaming the Treasury, and the Treasury, until today, had blamed Dodd. The only person who took any responsibility (until today) was President Obama. Somebody, besides Obama, needs to man up and take some responsibility. I suggest Dodd and Geithner.
Unfortunately, there is not a viable opposition party that can respectfully raise these questions, but also work in a bipartisan way to get a bill passed. What we saw today from the Republican party in the House of Representatives was really painful to watch. All of the sudden, the party that prides itself on deregulation, the party that has spent 30 years telling us that Government should not meddle in the business world, the party whose leader last Month said that there shouldn't be limits of executive compensation, has decided that it is a party of populist crusaders.
The Republicans completely exploited this story to score cheap political points. Every Republican on the House floor, instead of actually debating the substance of the bill, mentioned that "Democrats took the provision out of the bill!!!!" Each member gave the same exact speech. They feigned anger, not at AIG, but at the Democrats. They talked about how they're petty complaints about not having enough time to read the stimulus bill had been vindicated. They were acting like children. What's worse is that we heard mostly from a cast of characters who come to the House floor daily acting like little brats. In case you're wondering who they are:
Rep. Tom Price of Georgia
Rep. Ted Poe of Texas
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
Rep. Virginia Foxx 0f North Carolina
Rep. Pence of Indiana
The party, according to almost every poll, is seen as doing things mostly for political reasons. And it gets worse. Today at a Senate Republican press conference, Senators Alexander and Kyl were complaining that Obama was wasting the country's time filling out his NCAA brackets and appearing on Jay Leno. Seriously? As the Big Picture said, they're just throwing things at the wall to see if anything sticks. Weren't they just the ones criticizing him for trying to do too much?
Also, Republicans know darn well that they would have voted against the stimulus bill whether this provision was in it or not. They know darn well that members rarely ever read entire bills. They know darn well that their OWN version of the stimulus didn't include any restrictions on executive pay. To me, they are extraordinarily disingenuous.
I'm not saying that the Democrats have not tried to score cheap political points in the past. Remember when we made all that hay about the Dubai ports deal a few years ago? I just don't think I've ever seen political hackery reach this level, especially when there are serious challenges facing the country.
The funniest part about all of this is that almost half of the House Republican Conference supported the bill. The Democrats brought up the bill under expedited procedures that require a 2/3rds vote. They did this so that the Republicans wouldn't have an opportunity to propose amendments. The Democrats first had to pass a special rule, since votes under suspension of the rules (the expedited procedures) are usually only allowed on Mondays and Tuesdays. The Republicans once again pushed to "defeat the previous question" so that the House could debate their version of the bill. What was their version of the bill, you ask? It basically requires the Treasury Secretary to get the money back. Brilliant.
The Democrats ordered the previous question, which allowed for consideration of the bill. All Republicans voted against the previous question, as did 8 Democrats. On the bill itself, 87 Republicans joined all but 6 Democrats in voting yes. Many of those Republicans had railed against the bill as a "political cover-up" but couldn't vote against punishing AIG when push came to shove. The Democratic renegades: Bean (IL), Kissell (NC), McMahon (NY), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ) and Snyder (AR). These are mostly Blue Dog Democrats. McMahon represents Staten Island, so I'm guessing some bonus recipients probably live in his district.
The House also voted on a "sense of Congress" disapproving of AIG's action. I don't understand what the point of this bill was. The bill was non-binding, but failed to garner the 2/3rds necessary vote anyway. Republicans voted against it (all but 12 of them at least) because the first sentence said something like "President Obama has taken all of the right actions."
The House also tabled another privileged resolution offered by Rep. Flake (R-AZ) that would start an investigation of pay-to-play activities around members of Congress and the lobbying group PMA. This is the third time the resolution has been killed.
Let's hope the House can be a little more serious next week.
THE SENATE: The Senate today finished work on the "Tomnibus" Public Lands bill (look at our previous entries to figure out what this is). First, the Senate killed two additional Coburn amendments. The first amendment would have required federal agencies to determine the quantity of land owned by that agency, and what it costs to the taxpayer. The amendment was tabled 58-39. The vote was strictly on party lines, with the exception of Republican Mel Martinez (who voted to table) and Democrat Claire McCaskill (who voted against the motion to table). I'm not quite sure why Democrats would have opposed this amendment, but knowing Senator Coburn's track record, there's probably a good reason to be suspicious of his intent on this one.
Next, the Senate tabled an amendment to prohibit any funding authorized in this bill to be used for earmarks (surprise, surprise). The Senate still loves its earmarks. It voted to kill the amendment 70-27. All no votes were from Republicans, except reformer all-stars Bayh (IN) and Feingold (WI).
The Senate also accepted a silly amendment that would prohibit unfair penalties for collecting "insignificant rocks" from National Parks. Did Coburn get caught or something?
The final bill was passed 77-20 (it need 60 votes). All no votes were Republicans. The bill now goes back to the House where it will be considered without amendment. President Obama should sign this legislation next week.
The Senate also voted to confirm Elena Kagen as Solicitor General by a vote of 61-31. I'm willing to guess that those no votes had to do with abortion. The only Republicans voting in the affirmative were Collins (ME), Hatch (UT), Kyl (AZ-wow, he's usually hard right), Lugar (IN) and Snowe (ME).
Next week, the Senate will take up the public service bill recently approved in the House. It will also vote on the nomination of Gary Locke for Secretary of Commerce. Locke was voted out of committee unanimously today.
SO FAR AWAY: Meanwhile, the President was probably very happy to be far away from Washington and the whole AIG mess today. He started the day by touring an electric vehicle plant in Orange County, CA. He then held an eventful townhall meeting with a star-studded guest list. Governor Scwhwarzenegger, one of the few Republican governors out there who is eager to get his hands on stimulus money, introduced the President. Los Angeles mayor (and possible gubernatorial candidate) Antonio Villagiarosa was in attendance, as was Secretary of Labor (and former Southern California Congresswoman) Hilda Solis. It looks like Arnold is on the bandwagon. Check out this gushing quote, courtesy of politico.com:
“But I think he’s so smart,” he said. “He’s so clear with his thinking and he’s so well informed and has been dealing with policy in all this and is also very philosophic it’s almost like. I think he’s just like – I think it’s beautiful.”
The town hall meeting was focused on the economy, but perhaps the most interested question came from an 8-year-old kid who asked Obama what he would do to help public schools. The President talked about measures in the stimulus package to keep teachers in place and increase school construction. What a contrast from the childish antics from Capitol Hill.
Thanks very much to those who offered comments yesterday. We really appreciate it. Please let us know your views.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Daily Strike-3/18/09-The Marathon Part II
Good evening once again. I had a cup of water and some Girl Scout cookies and I'm ready to move on to Part II. If you haven't read Part I of today's entry, read it first. It's right below this one.
THE SENATE: The Senate today continued its consideration of the "Tomnibus" bill, a bill that combines several public lands (and unrelated legislation) blocked in the previous Congress by Senator Coburn (R-OK). Today the Senate voted to kill three Coburn amendments to the bill.
-The first amendment would have prohibited the building of new national parks until we fully refurbished our current ones. Obviously, that's a pretty unrealistic goal, and there's no reason we shouldn't be doing both at the same time. The amendment was killed 79-19. All 19 votes to keep the amendment alive were from Republicans.
-The next amendment would have eliminated restrictions of the development of alternative energy sources on public lands. Sure, this sounds good, but as Senator Bingaman (D-NM) pointed out, do we really want wind turbines and solar panels in our national parks? The amendment was killed 65-33. All votes to keep it alive were from Republicans, except for Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
-Finally, the Senate killed an amendment that prohibit the use of eminent domain and to make sure that no American has their property forcibly taken from them by any provision in the bill. Didn't matter too much though. The amendment was killed 63-35. Among the votes to keep the amendment alive were Democrats Begich (AK), Byrd (WV), Nelson (NE) and Webb (VA).
The Senate today also finally cleared the nomination of U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk. His nomination had been held up because of tax issues, but it didn't seem to hurt him too much. His nomination was approved by a vote of 92-5. The no votes were Bond (R-MO) Bunning (R-KY), Byrd (D-WV), Isakson (R-GA) and Sanders (I-VT) (he's an anti-free trade crusader).
The only remaining cabinet nominees to be confirmed are Gary Locke for Secretary of Commerce (he sailed through his hearing today) and Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services.
Tomorrow, the Senate considers a few more Coburn amendments before voting on final passage, which will be subject to a 60 vote threshold, per an agreement between the two leaders. The Senate will also consider the nomination of Elena Kagan to be Solicitor General.
OTHER ITEMS:
-TAUSCHER: It looks like we've got ourselves another House vacancy. Rep. Ellen Tauscher has apparently been chosen by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control. Tauscher's district in the East Bay Area is relatively liberal, so the Democrats shouldn't have too tough of a time holding the seat. Tauscher was a very prominent member of the House as the leader of the moderate New Democrat Coalition. CSPAN viewers would also recognize her as one of the few members who frequently presides over debate in the House as the Speaker Pro-Tempore.
-STOP LOSS POLICY: The Pentagon announced today that the military's stop-loss policy, which forced soldiers to take extended tours of duty beyond their regular enlistment. The policy will be phased out in the next couple of years. Once again, an "elections have consequences" moment.
-PRESS CONFERENCE: Obama annouced that he will hold his second prime time Press Conference next Tuesday. This should be a good way for him to regain control of the debate in Washington. His mantra: less AIG, more talk about his budget priorities.
After this long, eventful day, we finally say good night. I would appreciate a comment or two.
THE SENATE: The Senate today continued its consideration of the "Tomnibus" bill, a bill that combines several public lands (and unrelated legislation) blocked in the previous Congress by Senator Coburn (R-OK). Today the Senate voted to kill three Coburn amendments to the bill.
-The first amendment would have prohibited the building of new national parks until we fully refurbished our current ones. Obviously, that's a pretty unrealistic goal, and there's no reason we shouldn't be doing both at the same time. The amendment was killed 79-19. All 19 votes to keep the amendment alive were from Republicans.
-The next amendment would have eliminated restrictions of the development of alternative energy sources on public lands. Sure, this sounds good, but as Senator Bingaman (D-NM) pointed out, do we really want wind turbines and solar panels in our national parks? The amendment was killed 65-33. All votes to keep it alive were from Republicans, except for Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
-Finally, the Senate killed an amendment that prohibit the use of eminent domain and to make sure that no American has their property forcibly taken from them by any provision in the bill. Didn't matter too much though. The amendment was killed 63-35. Among the votes to keep the amendment alive were Democrats Begich (AK), Byrd (WV), Nelson (NE) and Webb (VA).
The Senate today also finally cleared the nomination of U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk. His nomination had been held up because of tax issues, but it didn't seem to hurt him too much. His nomination was approved by a vote of 92-5. The no votes were Bond (R-MO) Bunning (R-KY), Byrd (D-WV), Isakson (R-GA) and Sanders (I-VT) (he's an anti-free trade crusader).
The only remaining cabinet nominees to be confirmed are Gary Locke for Secretary of Commerce (he sailed through his hearing today) and Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services.
Tomorrow, the Senate considers a few more Coburn amendments before voting on final passage, which will be subject to a 60 vote threshold, per an agreement between the two leaders. The Senate will also consider the nomination of Elena Kagan to be Solicitor General.
OTHER ITEMS:
-TAUSCHER: It looks like we've got ourselves another House vacancy. Rep. Ellen Tauscher has apparently been chosen by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control. Tauscher's district in the East Bay Area is relatively liberal, so the Democrats shouldn't have too tough of a time holding the seat. Tauscher was a very prominent member of the House as the leader of the moderate New Democrat Coalition. CSPAN viewers would also recognize her as one of the few members who frequently presides over debate in the House as the Speaker Pro-Tempore.
-STOP LOSS POLICY: The Pentagon announced today that the military's stop-loss policy, which forced soldiers to take extended tours of duty beyond their regular enlistment. The policy will be phased out in the next couple of years. Once again, an "elections have consequences" moment.
-PRESS CONFERENCE: Obama annouced that he will hold his second prime time Press Conference next Tuesday. This should be a good way for him to regain control of the debate in Washington. His mantra: less AIG, more talk about his budget priorities.
After this long, eventful day, we finally say good night. I would appreciate a comment or two.
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Daily Strike-3/16/09-Outrage at AIG!!!!
Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Strike. Every politician, media pundit and commentator is trying to show as much outrage as possible at AIG for using government bailout money to pay bonuses to their executives. It's hilarious to see people feign as much outrage as possible. I wonder how it must feel to work for AIG right now. On to the day in politics.
THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama did his best to show A-quality outrage at AIG this morning. He said in a statement this morning that his administration will "pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.” He also joked after coughing that he was "choked up with anger." I hope the administration figures out something to block these bonuses. I'm not legal expert, but we are GIVING them money to save them from bankruptcy. I'd say we're in a pretty good negotiating position. Anyways, there is a lot of populist outrage out there, and I hope, for the country's sake, that the outrage is translated into support for more progressive policies.
The President today also made an annoucement to a group of small business owners that he was using stimulus money to cut fees on small business loans. He also gave a speech to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
THE SENATE: The Senate today voted to proceed on the Omnibus Public Lands bill. The bill is a package of measures blocked in the last Congress by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). We talked in the Weekly Strike about what this bill's been through in the last month. Now, Majority Leader Reid is engaging in even more brilliant parliamentary gamesmanship. Reid is taking a bill previously passed by the House, the Historical Battlefields Protection Act, and replace it entirely with the text of the omnibus land bill. This way, when the bill goes back to the House, it won't be subject to any poison-pill amendments or motions to recommitt, because technically the bill has already passed the House. (h/t to our friends at CongressMatters for a good explanation of this). Republicans in the House were going to try and amend the bill with pro-gun language. Because there are so many House Democrats who are obsessed with maintaining their 100% ratings from the NRA, they would have voted for the measure. The measure itself, though, would probably then be defeated by a cadre of liberals, and Republicans who would oppose the bill even with the pro-gun language. This is the dilemma facing the House on the DC Voting Rights bill as well. This could be a consistent problem for House Democrats. They need to convince enough of their members that their 100% NRA ratings are not as important as what's best for the country. It's amazing that one interest group can wield that much power.
Anyways, the Senate voted to proceed with consideration of the bill by a vote of 73-21. This vote shows us that the underlying bill will probably pass by an overwhelming margin. All Democrats voted to proceed with the bill, as did Republicans Bennett (UT), Bond (MO), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Crapo (ID), Enzi (WY), Hatch (UT), Kyl (AZ) (that one is a big surprise, he's one of the Senate's most consistent conservatives), Lugar (IN), Risch (ID), Snowe (ME), Specter (PA), Voinovich (OH) and Wicker (MS). The Senate will resume consideration of the bill tomorrow morning. I'm not sure exactly what's on tap after that, but we'll keep you posted.
THE HOUSE: The House today voted on various non-controversial bills under suspension of the rules. They'll vote on more of those tomorrow, and will begin consideration of the public service bill on Wednesday. Make sure you read the Weekly Strike for more details on that bill.
That's pretty much all for today. Make sure you do your patriotic duty and express outrage at AIG!
THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama did his best to show A-quality outrage at AIG this morning. He said in a statement this morning that his administration will "pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.” He also joked after coughing that he was "choked up with anger." I hope the administration figures out something to block these bonuses. I'm not legal expert, but we are GIVING them money to save them from bankruptcy. I'd say we're in a pretty good negotiating position. Anyways, there is a lot of populist outrage out there, and I hope, for the country's sake, that the outrage is translated into support for more progressive policies.
The President today also made an annoucement to a group of small business owners that he was using stimulus money to cut fees on small business loans. He also gave a speech to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
THE SENATE: The Senate today voted to proceed on the Omnibus Public Lands bill. The bill is a package of measures blocked in the last Congress by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). We talked in the Weekly Strike about what this bill's been through in the last month. Now, Majority Leader Reid is engaging in even more brilliant parliamentary gamesmanship. Reid is taking a bill previously passed by the House, the Historical Battlefields Protection Act, and replace it entirely with the text of the omnibus land bill. This way, when the bill goes back to the House, it won't be subject to any poison-pill amendments or motions to recommitt, because technically the bill has already passed the House. (h/t to our friends at CongressMatters for a good explanation of this). Republicans in the House were going to try and amend the bill with pro-gun language. Because there are so many House Democrats who are obsessed with maintaining their 100% ratings from the NRA, they would have voted for the measure. The measure itself, though, would probably then be defeated by a cadre of liberals, and Republicans who would oppose the bill even with the pro-gun language. This is the dilemma facing the House on the DC Voting Rights bill as well. This could be a consistent problem for House Democrats. They need to convince enough of their members that their 100% NRA ratings are not as important as what's best for the country. It's amazing that one interest group can wield that much power.
Anyways, the Senate voted to proceed with consideration of the bill by a vote of 73-21. This vote shows us that the underlying bill will probably pass by an overwhelming margin. All Democrats voted to proceed with the bill, as did Republicans Bennett (UT), Bond (MO), Cochran (MS), Collins (ME), Crapo (ID), Enzi (WY), Hatch (UT), Kyl (AZ) (that one is a big surprise, he's one of the Senate's most consistent conservatives), Lugar (IN), Risch (ID), Snowe (ME), Specter (PA), Voinovich (OH) and Wicker (MS). The Senate will resume consideration of the bill tomorrow morning. I'm not sure exactly what's on tap after that, but we'll keep you posted.
THE HOUSE: The House today voted on various non-controversial bills under suspension of the rules. They'll vote on more of those tomorrow, and will begin consideration of the public service bill on Wednesday. Make sure you read the Weekly Strike for more details on that bill.
That's pretty much all for today. Make sure you do your patriotic duty and express outrage at AIG!
The Weekly Strike-3/16-3/22
Good Monday morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike. Be sure to read The Big Picture's great entry below on immigration, and please offer some comments. Also, congratulations to all of our loyal readers. The Big Picture's post was the 100th for this blog since it began in January! Now, on to the Weekly Strike, where we preview the upcoming week in politics.
THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama turns back to the economy this week, starting today with an important announcement on a new provision to make it easier for small businesses to obtain federal loans. First, though, we must understand the context underlying the President's actions this week. First, the President is still trying to build massive political capital to enact his sweeping budget into law. He has enlisted the help of his former campaign manager, the incomparable David Plouffe, to mobilize the grassroots in favor of the budget. This effort will be done under the jurisdiction of the Democratic National Committee. Using the President's extensive email list, Plouffe will try to go over the heads of Congress and take the President's budget directly the people. He will encourage supporters to hold meetings in their communities, and to call their members of Congress to ask for support. This effort is critically important for an initiative as controversial and extensive as the budget proposal. Members of Congress, long entrenched in the ways of Washington, will be tempted to water down the budget, to put their own stamp on it, to make compromises just to seem "moderate" and to give the President a huge headache. Already we've seen Senators of the President's own party, like Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), express doubts about the size and scope of the President's budget. The only way we can counteract the often self-indulgent members of Congress is to mobilize the public. Nothing will freak out a member of Congress more than their office being flooded with calls and letters in support of legislation, and poll numbers that show the legislation being popular.
Not only do we need to counteract members of Congress, but we also have to deal with demagogues in the talk-radio circuit, deficit-obsessed mainstream media types, and an electorate that may be hesitant to enact rapid change. Organizing support for this budget would truly be democracy at its finest!
The other important sub-text to the President's week is growing populist outrage, especially at this weekend's discovery that AIG has used federal bailout money to pay large bonuses to its executives. Obama will have to harness this energy to promote his policy goals of transferring power away from the wealth elite, and towards the middle-class. If he doesn't effectively co-opt this anger, he risks the sort of backlash that The Big Picture talked about in his previous post.
In terms of actual policy on the President's agenda, he starts today with the aforementioned proposal on Small Business loans. The President is expected to announce that he will use $730 million in stimulus money to cut small business lending fees. The move is designed to temper Republican criticism that there was not enough in the stimulus bill to help out small business.
Tomorrow, the President holds two St. Patrick's Day events, one in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Hopefully he doesn't have too much fun. Wednesday, Obama travels to Southern California to hold a town meeting on the economy (presumably) in Santa Ana. He has two more events scheduled for Thursday in Los Angeles.
THE SENATE: The Senate will take a second stab at the "Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009" this week. The bill packages together proposals previously blocked by Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. The Senate passed a version of the bill back in January. The House tried to take up the bill under suspension of the rules to avoid having to vote on poison-pill amendments, but the Democrats couldn't muster the necessary 2/3rds majority. The Senate will take up a revised version of the bill that seeks to convince a few more House members for their support. The first vote will be today at 5:30pm on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. This type of vote is a test vote. You're basically voting on whether to proceed with the bill, subject to a 60 vote threshold. Senate leaders often call for these votes to test whether they have 60 votes on the underlying bill. If cloture is invoked (if the motion passes, in other words), the Senate will debate the bill and vote on a final version in the next couple of days. I'm not quite sure what's on the schedule for the remainder of the week.
THE HOUSE: The House starts the week, as usual, with some votes today and tomorrow on non-controversial bills under suspension of the rules. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will consider a very interesting bill, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE Act). This bill, sponsored in the Senate by the bipartisan duo of Kennedy (D-MA) and Hatch (R-UT) would provide funding for 250,000 jobs in public service. E.J. Dionne wrote a great summary of the bill in today's Washington Post. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031501739.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
The bill is particularly important during a recession. More public service jobs would allow college graduates, who otherwise would be subject to a poor labor market, the chance to work productively in their communities, truly a win-win situation. Also, the bill might be appealing to some Republicans because it invests money in faith-based initiatives and also provides money for implementation at the state level. I expect the bill to pass the House with a large bipartisan majority (my guess would be in the 300-320 range). President Obama would certainly sign the bill into law; he mentioned it during his recent address to Congress.
Stay tuned for tonight's Daily Strike!
THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama turns back to the economy this week, starting today with an important announcement on a new provision to make it easier for small businesses to obtain federal loans. First, though, we must understand the context underlying the President's actions this week. First, the President is still trying to build massive political capital to enact his sweeping budget into law. He has enlisted the help of his former campaign manager, the incomparable David Plouffe, to mobilize the grassroots in favor of the budget. This effort will be done under the jurisdiction of the Democratic National Committee. Using the President's extensive email list, Plouffe will try to go over the heads of Congress and take the President's budget directly the people. He will encourage supporters to hold meetings in their communities, and to call their members of Congress to ask for support. This effort is critically important for an initiative as controversial and extensive as the budget proposal. Members of Congress, long entrenched in the ways of Washington, will be tempted to water down the budget, to put their own stamp on it, to make compromises just to seem "moderate" and to give the President a huge headache. Already we've seen Senators of the President's own party, like Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), express doubts about the size and scope of the President's budget. The only way we can counteract the often self-indulgent members of Congress is to mobilize the public. Nothing will freak out a member of Congress more than their office being flooded with calls and letters in support of legislation, and poll numbers that show the legislation being popular.
Not only do we need to counteract members of Congress, but we also have to deal with demagogues in the talk-radio circuit, deficit-obsessed mainstream media types, and an electorate that may be hesitant to enact rapid change. Organizing support for this budget would truly be democracy at its finest!
The other important sub-text to the President's week is growing populist outrage, especially at this weekend's discovery that AIG has used federal bailout money to pay large bonuses to its executives. Obama will have to harness this energy to promote his policy goals of transferring power away from the wealth elite, and towards the middle-class. If he doesn't effectively co-opt this anger, he risks the sort of backlash that The Big Picture talked about in his previous post.
In terms of actual policy on the President's agenda, he starts today with the aforementioned proposal on Small Business loans. The President is expected to announce that he will use $730 million in stimulus money to cut small business lending fees. The move is designed to temper Republican criticism that there was not enough in the stimulus bill to help out small business.
Tomorrow, the President holds two St. Patrick's Day events, one in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Hopefully he doesn't have too much fun. Wednesday, Obama travels to Southern California to hold a town meeting on the economy (presumably) in Santa Ana. He has two more events scheduled for Thursday in Los Angeles.
THE SENATE: The Senate will take a second stab at the "Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009" this week. The bill packages together proposals previously blocked by Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. The Senate passed a version of the bill back in January. The House tried to take up the bill under suspension of the rules to avoid having to vote on poison-pill amendments, but the Democrats couldn't muster the necessary 2/3rds majority. The Senate will take up a revised version of the bill that seeks to convince a few more House members for their support. The first vote will be today at 5:30pm on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. This type of vote is a test vote. You're basically voting on whether to proceed with the bill, subject to a 60 vote threshold. Senate leaders often call for these votes to test whether they have 60 votes on the underlying bill. If cloture is invoked (if the motion passes, in other words), the Senate will debate the bill and vote on a final version in the next couple of days. I'm not quite sure what's on the schedule for the remainder of the week.
THE HOUSE: The House starts the week, as usual, with some votes today and tomorrow on non-controversial bills under suspension of the rules. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will consider a very interesting bill, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE Act). This bill, sponsored in the Senate by the bipartisan duo of Kennedy (D-MA) and Hatch (R-UT) would provide funding for 250,000 jobs in public service. E.J. Dionne wrote a great summary of the bill in today's Washington Post. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031501739.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
The bill is particularly important during a recession. More public service jobs would allow college graduates, who otherwise would be subject to a poor labor market, the chance to work productively in their communities, truly a win-win situation. Also, the bill might be appealing to some Republicans because it invests money in faith-based initiatives and also provides money for implementation at the state level. I expect the bill to pass the House with a large bipartisan majority (my guess would be in the 300-320 range). President Obama would certainly sign the bill into law; he mentioned it during his recent address to Congress.
Stay tuned for tonight's Daily Strike!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Daily Strike-3/12/09-Water Pollution/Nominations
Happy Thursday and welcome to The Daily Strike. Here's what happened today in Washington.
THE WHITE HOUSE: Today, President Obama turned his attention back to the economy. He gave a speech this morning touting progress in the implementation of the stimulus money. I hope he makes sure that some Southern governors, like Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas, were listening to the speech. All three governors are rejecting federal stimulus money, namely, money for increased unemployment benefits. Governor Sanford has threatened to use the money instead to pay down state debt. Considering how much pain many South Carolinians are in, like the 10.9% who are unemployed, it's really despicable. We've talked about this before, but it's worth repeating that if you're ideology is making people's lives significantly worse, you better get rid of your ideology.
The President gave a very interesting speech this afternoon to The Business Roundtable in Washington. He talked about creating a post-bubble economic model. He told business leaders that, "We can’t continue to base our economy on reckless speculation and spending beyond our means; on bad credit and inflated home prices and over-leveraged banks.” I'm glad Obama is talking big about the fundamental problem our economy has faced in the past couple of decades. Our wealth needs to be backed up by a strong middle-class, a middle-class that earns good money making goods and services. I know this seems fundamental, but we've gotten so far away from that economic model. Our economy has been based on Wall Street creating bubbles by overvaluing things (like sub prime mortgages) that are end up being worthless. Washington has spent decades looking the other way, even encouraging this type of behavior for the past thirty years. Changing the fundamental structure of the economy would be the best way that Obama could create a lasting legacy.
THE HOUSE: A surprisingly productive, relatively bipartisan day in the House. The House passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by a vote of 317-101. All no votes came from Republicans. The bill combined five individual bills that passed the House last session, but had been blocked in the Senate. The bill authorizes funding for various water treatment projects, about $18 billion over five years. This is one of those bills that members love, because they'll usually get to brag about funding some water plant reconstruction project in their district.
The House didn't even have to vote on a special rule governing debate on the bill, because Democrats had agreed to consider 10 amendments. Of those amendments, 9 were approved by unanimous consent (pretty impressive for the House!). Among the accepted amendments were proposals forbidding earmarks, increasing funding for rural water projects, increasing funding to protect against sewage overflow, and providing for effectiveness studies to be undertaken by the Office of Management and Budget.
The one amendment that was voted on, and thankfully defeated, dealt with the prevailing wage provision of the Davis-Bacon Act (passed in 1931). The amendment was offered by Rep. Connie Mack of Florida. According to the act, all public works projects under jurisdiction of the federal government, must pay workers the "prevailing" wage of the area. The "prevailing" wage is median wage paid to workers in a specified locality for similar projects. This program is one of the great successes of the 20th Century. It ensures that workers who work on federal projects are well-trained, usually unionized, employees. President Bush inexplicably suspended provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Relief efforts were thus handed over to unskilled workers, many of them immigrants, who made far less money than they would have from a private construction company. The amendment failed badly, by a vote of 284-140. 35 Republicans opposed the amendment. The only Democrat to support it was Rep. Polis of Colorado. I think this must have been a mistake on his part. He's a liberal freshman from Boulder (also happens to be gay), who has voted with the Democrats on every other issue thus far. Why would he vote against prevailing wages?
The House also voted on one last suspension bill, supporting the designation of "Pi Day." Republicans made some hay about how the House was voting on something like this during an economic crisis, and ten of their members voted against it. Suspension bills are always fodder for some cheap laughs, but they're part of the tradition of the House of Representative, and generally don't take up much time.
The House next week will consider more suspension bills Monday and Tuesday before taking a bill funding a new national service initiative, sponsored by Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Kennedy (D-MA).
SENATE: The Senate voted to confirm two Obama Justice Department nominees. Deputy Attorney General nominee David Ogden was confirmed by a vote of 65-28. Republicans made up 27 of the no votes. The only Democrat to oppose the nominee was pro-life Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who presumably does not approve of Ogden's abortion views. By a vote of 72-20, the Senate also approved the nomination of Thomas Perelli to be Assistant Attorney General. All no votes came from Republicans.
The Senate next week will take up a revised version of the Omnibus Public Lands bill. This was the bill that combined measures previously blocked by Senator Coburn (R-OK). The House tried to pass the bill under suspension of the rules so that they would not have to deal with possible poison-pill amendments, but fell two votes short of the necessary 2/3rds majority. The Senate will try and change the bill enough to eke out those two extra votes in the House.
No word on some other outstanding business, like the DC voting rights bill, the housing cram-down measure, and the budget blueprint. We'll keep you updated as we get more information.
Have a good night! Please read The Big Picture's upcoming post on the Employee Free Choice Act.
THE WHITE HOUSE: Today, President Obama turned his attention back to the economy. He gave a speech this morning touting progress in the implementation of the stimulus money. I hope he makes sure that some Southern governors, like Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas, were listening to the speech. All three governors are rejecting federal stimulus money, namely, money for increased unemployment benefits. Governor Sanford has threatened to use the money instead to pay down state debt. Considering how much pain many South Carolinians are in, like the 10.9% who are unemployed, it's really despicable. We've talked about this before, but it's worth repeating that if you're ideology is making people's lives significantly worse, you better get rid of your ideology.
The President gave a very interesting speech this afternoon to The Business Roundtable in Washington. He talked about creating a post-bubble economic model. He told business leaders that, "We can’t continue to base our economy on reckless speculation and spending beyond our means; on bad credit and inflated home prices and over-leveraged banks.” I'm glad Obama is talking big about the fundamental problem our economy has faced in the past couple of decades. Our wealth needs to be backed up by a strong middle-class, a middle-class that earns good money making goods and services. I know this seems fundamental, but we've gotten so far away from that economic model. Our economy has been based on Wall Street creating bubbles by overvaluing things (like sub prime mortgages) that are end up being worthless. Washington has spent decades looking the other way, even encouraging this type of behavior for the past thirty years. Changing the fundamental structure of the economy would be the best way that Obama could create a lasting legacy.
THE HOUSE: A surprisingly productive, relatively bipartisan day in the House. The House passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by a vote of 317-101. All no votes came from Republicans. The bill combined five individual bills that passed the House last session, but had been blocked in the Senate. The bill authorizes funding for various water treatment projects, about $18 billion over five years. This is one of those bills that members love, because they'll usually get to brag about funding some water plant reconstruction project in their district.
The House didn't even have to vote on a special rule governing debate on the bill, because Democrats had agreed to consider 10 amendments. Of those amendments, 9 were approved by unanimous consent (pretty impressive for the House!). Among the accepted amendments were proposals forbidding earmarks, increasing funding for rural water projects, increasing funding to protect against sewage overflow, and providing for effectiveness studies to be undertaken by the Office of Management and Budget.
The one amendment that was voted on, and thankfully defeated, dealt with the prevailing wage provision of the Davis-Bacon Act (passed in 1931). The amendment was offered by Rep. Connie Mack of Florida. According to the act, all public works projects under jurisdiction of the federal government, must pay workers the "prevailing" wage of the area. The "prevailing" wage is median wage paid to workers in a specified locality for similar projects. This program is one of the great successes of the 20th Century. It ensures that workers who work on federal projects are well-trained, usually unionized, employees. President Bush inexplicably suspended provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Relief efforts were thus handed over to unskilled workers, many of them immigrants, who made far less money than they would have from a private construction company. The amendment failed badly, by a vote of 284-140. 35 Republicans opposed the amendment. The only Democrat to support it was Rep. Polis of Colorado. I think this must have been a mistake on his part. He's a liberal freshman from Boulder (also happens to be gay), who has voted with the Democrats on every other issue thus far. Why would he vote against prevailing wages?
The House also voted on one last suspension bill, supporting the designation of "Pi Day." Republicans made some hay about how the House was voting on something like this during an economic crisis, and ten of their members voted against it. Suspension bills are always fodder for some cheap laughs, but they're part of the tradition of the House of Representative, and generally don't take up much time.
The House next week will consider more suspension bills Monday and Tuesday before taking a bill funding a new national service initiative, sponsored by Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Kennedy (D-MA).
SENATE: The Senate voted to confirm two Obama Justice Department nominees. Deputy Attorney General nominee David Ogden was confirmed by a vote of 65-28. Republicans made up 27 of the no votes. The only Democrat to oppose the nominee was pro-life Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who presumably does not approve of Ogden's abortion views. By a vote of 72-20, the Senate also approved the nomination of Thomas Perelli to be Assistant Attorney General. All no votes came from Republicans.
The Senate next week will take up a revised version of the Omnibus Public Lands bill. This was the bill that combined measures previously blocked by Senator Coburn (R-OK). The House tried to pass the bill under suspension of the rules so that they would not have to deal with possible poison-pill amendments, but fell two votes short of the necessary 2/3rds majority. The Senate will try and change the bill enough to eke out those two extra votes in the House.
No word on some other outstanding business, like the DC voting rights bill, the housing cram-down measure, and the budget blueprint. We'll keep you updated as we get more information.
Have a good night! Please read The Big Picture's upcoming post on the Employee Free Choice Act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
