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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's it for now, leave comments!

The Democrats' (Intentionally) Blown Opportunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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