The Daily Strike-5/7/09-Another Budget Day

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The full 2010 budget proposal was released today. It's like Christmas for nerds! We'll give you a full rundown. Also, this weekend, we return to Lady Strike's native Syracuse for mother's day. Posting will be relatively light. Hopefully Feline Strike can make it on his own for a couple of days. Also, I'm repeating a lot of points that I made in the previous entry, so bare with me.

BUDGET: The President introduced his full Fiscal Year 2010 budget today. This 1400 page document details spending in federal programs line-by-line. In his announcement, the President did not focus on what the budget will do for health care, education or the environment. He instead focused on $17 billion worth of cuts, which account for about half of one percent of the total budget. I get that highlighting the cuts is largely symbolic, and that it's supposed to show Obama's fiscal responsibility. But as I mentioned in a dialogue with The Big Picture, you should be emphasizing the strengths in the budget, not inadvertently drawing attention to its weaknesses. Furthermore, when your biggest political battle in the coming months is to convince people to spend a lot of money right now on important priorities, is it really worth it to talk about the usefulness of cutting spending?

Also, it annoys me when the Obama administration uses the same misleading logic and rhetoric as the previous administration. Both Bush and Obama criticized the "Washington elite" who don't realize that $17 billion is a lot of money. "Just go ask every family if that's a lot of money," they tell us. Well, the fact is that it ISN'T a lot of money, and we need to be honest about that. Obama then pulled a Bush-McCain move by mentioning one specific egregious spending item, money for a "cultural atache" to France. You could eliminate millions of programs like that and you wouldn't make a dent in the federal deficit.

The Big Picture wisely reminds me that this is Barack Obama. We should always have faith that he knows what he's doing. I'll just say that I wasn't happy with the way this was rolled out.

THE PRESIDENT: Earlier in the day, the President held an education meeting with an eclectic cast of characters: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), civil rights activist Al Sharpton, and former Speaker Newt Gingrich. After all the trash Newt has talked recently, I'm surprised Obama let him into the White House. The former Speaker praised Obama for bravely defending charter schools, which are not popular among some of his biggest constituents.

Gingrich also must have been happy that Obama opposed Congressional Democrats' effort to end the DC School Vouchers program. The pilot program, enacted a few years ago by Republicans, gives scholarships to inner city students so they can attend private schools. The Washington Post writes about this in their editorial pages almost every day. Yes, it would be bad to cut funding to these students while they're still attending these private schools. But the Washington Post misses the point. It may be GREAT for the lucky students who get these scholarships, but what does it do to improve education as a whole?

THE SENATE: Today was an uncharacteristically quick day in the United States Senate. Senators spent the morning debating a military procurement reform bill, cosponsored by Senators Levin (MI) and McCain (AZ) that would change Pentagon organization and procedures for the acquisition of major weapons system, to protect against waste, fraud and abuse. A few amendments were accepted by voice vote, and the bill passed 93-0. Pretty rare that everyone, even ideologues like Coburn (OK) and DeMint (SC) would vote unanimously for a substantive bill. The Senate also approved the nomination of Gil Kerlikowske to be Director of National Drug Control Policy by a vote of 93-1. Obama's good friend Mr. Coburn was the only Senator voting no. The upper chamber will consider the House-passed Credit Card Bill of Rights next week.

THE HOUSE: The House today approved a bill to reform consumer mortgage practices and provide accountability for such practices, and to provide certain minimum standards for consumer mortgage loans. This is the third housing bill Congress has considered in the past few weeks. Congress has already sent President Obama bill designed to cut down on mortgage fraud. Both houses have also passed different versions of the "Helping Families Save Their Homes Act." Today's bill passed by a vote of 300-114. All no votes were from Republicans, except for Reps. Bright (AL), Kirkpatrick (AZ) and Schrader (OR). (all Freshman!). Prior to final passage, the House accepted by voice vote a Republican motion to recommit which set some guidelines for grant-seekers.

The House voted on a series of amendments as well. Here's a brief rundown.

1. The first amendment was the best by far. Anticipating that Republicans would try and use this bill to attack ACORN, Democrat Barney Frank preempted them by proposing to prohibit funding to any organization under federal indictment. The amendment passed 245-176. And all opposition was from Republicans, except for Reps. Bright (AL), Giffords (AZ), Minnick (ID) and Mitchell (AZ).

2. The next amendment from Rep. Hensarling (R-TX) sought to " to strike the assignee and securitizer liability provisions from the bill." It failed 171-252.

3. Third was an amendment from Republican Study Committee Chairman and partisan extraordinaire Tom Price who sought "to delay the enactment of titles I, II, and III of the bill until the Federal Reserve certifies that they will not reduce the availability or increase the price of credit for qualified mortgages. " It failed 167-259.

4. Finally, the House voted down an amendment by Rep. McHenry (R-NC) which would have striked portions of the bill relating to high-cost mortgages. The amendment failed 171-255.

The House also adopted several amendments by voice vote.

That's it for us today, I'll make sure to write quick entries this weekend, include our "Comment of the Week" and our new feature "Wouldn't Go As Far As THAT!" Have a great weekend!

The Big Picture and the Strike: Budget "Cuts"

The Strike: I’m very annoyed at the administration’s rollout of the budget. First, they came up with $17 billion worth of cuts and have come up with McCain-esque one-liners on how “stupid” they are. For example, they cut some “cultural attaché” to France program. They’re making the same “look” points about how only the “Washington media” wouldn’t think that $17 billion is a lot of cuts. First, you are actually increasing spending by a ton, so it’s pretty dishonest to talk about $17 billion worth of cuts. Second of all, and more importantly this is NOT what you should be emphasizing about the budget. I was reading through the HHS section, and it’s the INCREASES of great things that they should be highlighting, it provides for health reform, education reform, climate change legislation, huge investments in small but important things like (in my area) a new program to eradicate disparities in healthcare quality among racial/socioeconomic groups. It’s so stupid to be highlighting something that’s certainly not your strength, when you DO have a significant strength. It would be like going to a party where someone else has been playing guitar very poorly for awhile (Barcelona style), and you are an expert guitarist. But, instead you try and start a game of basketball, taunting about how great you are by shooting a 2 foot layup.

That’s the best metaphor I could come up with.

The Big Picture: I think you're right on the merits, but I am still very hesitant to question Obama's salesmanship strategies. You know he's going to use this to rebut any criticism that he hasn't "gone line by line" and is just increasing government for its own sake. He's gotten away with doing that kind of thing in so many situations where less gifted communicators and less appealing people would not. Think Dick Lugar, think "reforming welfare", think "I told the teachers' union some things they didn't want to hear", and so many other examples. He is just an absolute master at undercutting opponents' objections this way, making himself appear reasonable and balanced and the other side unreasonable, ideological. He's doing this to McConnell and the GOP on the limiting medical malpractice suits, saying, "Hey, I'm willing to give in to you on some things, I'm bipartisan". It's an annoying strategy to people like us who generally don't use it, but frankly it is very very effective and it's been an extraordinarily effective technique for Obama throughout his rise, allowing him to always claim the center, claim the high ground.

The Strike: Yeah, that’s very very true. Hopefully you will be proven right. Speaking of NOT being proven right, I had to clean out my old college email account the other day because they’re shutting it down, and I found this gem of yours. At least you qualified it with “I hope he will prove me wrong.”

This is great! I totally agree with the rest of your family. Hopefullythis will be the beginning of the marginalizing of the "Of the Left."On a somewhat related note, hopeful article in the NYTimes about Obamacooling his rhetoric to come down to earth with working-class whites. BobCasey seems to be a guy who can really speak to them. Considering theDemocrats have only had real success in the past 40 years when theircandidates are white men who resonate with the white working class(Carter, Clinton especially, and then of course the 2006 elections), I'm starting to think that, for all of Obama's brilliance, they should havegone with Edwards (of course the media would play up the haircut, butthat's a lot better than race-baiting with Rev. Wright). But hopefullyObama will prove me wrong. This retail politics campaign with Casey inPennsylvania will hopefully be a transformative moment for his candidacy.

The Big Picture: Uggggggggggh. A pathetic moment in my career. This was really reflective of the dog days of March. VERY interesting to read that in retrospect, as a classic example of a great theme my dad has always stressed to me and I will stress to my students - history always looks inevitable in retrospect but as it's lived people didn't know what was going to happen.

But yet another reason to NEVER underestimate Barack Obama.

The Daily Strike-4/29/09-Your Congress at Work

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike on this very busy Wednesday. The President is scheduled to give a press conference at 8pm EDT to talk about his first 100 days in office, as well as the administration's efforts to combat the spread of the swine flu. We will bring you full coverage of that speech in a Late Night Strike. If you want our analysis of the President's first 100 days, see the entry below. AND PLEASE LEAVE SOME COMMENTS!

THE BUDGET RESOLUTION: Congress today approved the annual budget resolution today, giving President Obama a very important victory. The $3.4 trillion budget blueprint largely mirrors the President's February request. It also includes reconciliation instructions which will allow for Obama's ambitious health care plan to pass the Senate with only 51 votes. The budget is typically a new President's earliest chance to significantly change federal policy and national priorities. Obama already did that with the stimulus package, but today passage of the budget was the next key step in enacting Obama's agenda.

The House voted on the conference report accompanying the resolution this morning. The final vote was 233-193. 17 Democrats joined all Republicans in opposition. The delinquent Democrats were Barrow (GA), Boren (OK), Bright (AL), Childers (MS), Foster (IL), Griffith (AL), Kratovil (MD), Kucinich (OH), Markey (CO), Marshall (GA), Matheson (UT), McIntyre (NC), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ), Nye (VA), Taylor (MS) and Teague (NM). This is your usual Blue Dog cast, with the exception of Kucinich, who will never vote for money that could possibly be used to fund wars.

The Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote of 53-43 this afternoon. The most interesting part of the Senate vote was that Arlen Specter (PA), a Democrat as of yesterday, voted against his new party's signature budget proposal. Not exactly the best way to acclimate yourself to your newfound political co-patriots. Specter joined Bayh (IN), Byrd (WV), and Nelson (NE) as Democrats in opposition. Nelson and Bayh voted against it because of their "fiscal conservatism." Byrd almost certainly voted against it because he is a Senate institutionalist who doesn't like using reconciliation procedures. It almost goes without saying that every Republican voted no.

The resolution does not have to be signed by the President. The next step is for House and Senate committees to draft 13 separate appropriations bills that reflect the parameters of the budget outline.

The House also passed a bill today changing the definition of Hate Crimes to include those involving gender or sexual orientation (note the difference here between "sex" and "gender"). The bill has been pending since the death of Matthew Shepard (a gay student murdered because of his sexual orientation) in Wyoming almost ten years ago. In fact, Shepard's mother was on hand for the debate and vote. I'm just sorry she had to listen to this drivel from Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC).

This wasn't even the most absurd commentary today from House Republicans. The infamous Steve King (R-IA) sarcastically suggested that the bill should protect pedophiles, as if they are morally equivalent to homosexuals. Other Republicans repeatedly claimed that the bill is punishing "thought" and would prevent religious groups from exercising free speech. Of course, it does no such thing. In fact, the bill specifically says that it does not apply to any one's first amendment right to free speech. Meghan McCain would be cringing watching old, Southern House Republicans defending bigotry for three hours.

The House first had to vote on a Republican motion to recommit, which would have applied a death penalty punishment for hate crimes, and expanded the definition of hate crimes to include members of the armed forces and police officers. Of course, this motion was a cynical ploy to try and kill the bill. Now they can say that Democrats don't want to protect the military. The motion to recommit failed 185-241. 25 Democrats voted yes, while 16 Republicans voted no.

The bill itself passed 249-175. Interestingly, the vote wasn't completely along party lines. There are still a bunch of southern Democrats who aren't quite there yet on the whole gay rights thing. 17 Democrats voted no. Conversely, there are 18 reasonable Republicans who don't think homosexuality is tearing down this country.

The most interesting no vote on the Democratic side came from Artur Davis of Alabama, an African American running for governor of conservative Alabama. Talking about selling your soul to get elected.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The President's biggest event today (before the press conference) was a town hall meeting in Missouri, in which he discussed his first 100 days in office. The best part of the meeting was when he criticized those conservative tea parties on Tax Day, saying they were organized by a "cable channel that doesn't like me very much." He said that if they want to have a serious conversation about fiscal responsibility, fine, but don't disingenuously say that this reckless spending started with the President's stimulus package. I certainly enjoyed seeing the President take a slap at the anti-tax tea parties, but I tend to think he shouldn't stoop to their level. Obama also said that he is not a miracle worker. The coming months will require hard choices and sacrifice. Of course, the President also used the event to highlight his accomplishments.

That's it for us today. Join us later tonight (or tomorrow morning) to talk about the President's press conference.

The Daily Strike-4/28/09-Specter Bolts

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Huge news today in the world of politics: Arlen Specter, a 28 year Senate Republican from Pennsylvania, has switched parties. Let's give you the rundown.

REPUBLICAN BETRAYAL: In a crushing blow to the Republican party, Arlen Specter has decided to switch political parties and run for reelection in 2010 as a Democrat. The first question we must ask is why he did it. There is one reason and one reason only: reelection. He was being challenged in the Republican primary by arch-conservative Pat Toomey, who he barely edged in 2004. Toomey was leading by 20 points in a poll released last week. Specter had raised the ire of state Republicans for voting in favor of the economic stimulus. He was pretty much toast in the primary. According to Pennsylvania law, if you lose the primary, you're done. No Lieberman-ing, in other words. Now that he's running as a Democrat, he probably has the primary field all to himself. With the votes of independents and Democrats, he would crush Toomey in a general election. Specter might say that he now agrees more with the Democratic party than the Republican party, and that he doesn't want to be beholden to a party. I don't buy it. Why would he have gone on a diatribe against Eric Holder if he knew he was leaning towards joining the Democratic party? Why would he have abandoned the Employee Free Choice Act? Having said that, Democrats should embrace him with open arms, as they have. President Obama was very welcoming. He told Specter that he's happy to have him on the team. Democratic Senators went over the top in lauding their new caucus-mate.

The next question is what does this all mean. Most analysis of this in the media highlights that if Al Franken is seated, Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority. I think that's a bit misleading. Specter may not be the most reliable Democratic vote on a whole host of issues. However, as Ezra Klein (I hope you're reading this Ezra! I sent you a link!) wisely points out, Specter now has an incentive to see the Democratic party succeed. As a member of the Republican minority, the Democrats' failure was his gain. Now that he's in the majority, his electoral success depends partially on how much of Obama's agenda is signed into law. That should encourage him to vote more along party lines. He would especially be motivated to turn leftward if he got a good primary challenge, which the Big Picture will talk about later in this post.

The final question is what this means for the Republican party. This is pretty devastating for them. I think they still haven't learned the lessons of their crushing losses in 2006 and 2008. The party has applied such a strict litmus test on their candidate's because they're so rigid in their ideology. The problem is, most Americans don't agree with their ideology. As a result, they are driving the moderates out of their party. Quite frankly, Specter was well aware of these dynamics, and he realized that it would be much more politically beneficial to him to associate with a big-tent, reasonable Democratic Party than a far-right bizzarro Republican party.

What will be interesting to see in the next few days is how quickly Specter tries to earn good favor with his new political party. He can start by voting for the conference report on the Democratic budget resolution. He says he's currently undecided on the matter.

MEANWHILE: The Specter news swamped the other important events going on at the Capitol. The Senate today passed a bill to make it easier to hold mortgage companies reliable for fraudulent behavior. This bill had been debated for over a week. The final vote was an overwhelming 92-4. The no votes came from usual suspects Republicans Coburn (OK), DeMint (SC), Inhofe (OK) and Kyl (AZ). This vote will probably be one of the last where we see this on the Senate website:

Pennsylvania:
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea (bolding is mine).

The Senate also voted today (finally) to confirm HHS nominee Kathleen Sebelius. Her nomination had been stalled due to Republican objections to her positions on abortion. The final vote was 65-31. All Republicans voted no except for Bond (MO), Brownback (KS), Collins (ME), Gregg (NH-one small ounce of loyalty to the man he almost called boss), Lugar (IN), Roberts (KS) and Snowe (ME). All Democrats voted yes, including the newest one, Arlen Specter. Her confirmation at long last ends President Obama's arduous cabinet search. She will be sworn in later this week.

The House of Representatives voted on same remaining suspension bills this morning. The House then voted this afternoon on a "same day rule," that will allow the conference report on the budget resolution to be voted on tomorrow morning. The important procedural vote passed 233-191. 17 Democrats voted no (pretty much your standard Blue Dog list). The only "yes" vote from the GOP came surprisingly from Maryland's Roscoe Bartlett. I wonder if the old man pressed the wrong button or something.

The vote on the rule providing consideration of the conference report 234-185, with 11 Democrats joining all Republicans in dissent. The rule allows for one hour of debate prior to a final vote.

We will have full results of this important vote in tomorrow's entry. I estimate that it will pass with around 230 votes, with all Republicans joining about 20 Democrats in opposition. The Senate will presumably vote on the conference report at some point tomorrow as well, to give the President a big victory on his 100th day in office.

That's it for us today. This Specter thing prevented me from talking about Obama's trip to the FBI and his Rose Garden celebration honoring our nation's best teachers. I think you'll survive, especially with this "Big Picture Corner" on the Specter news.

It is CRITICAL that, after a couple month honeymoon, a serious Democratannounces a primary challenge to Specter. There shouldn't be any personalattacks that will piss him off, but just a "we need a REAL Democrat" challenge.Either it unseats Specter, or it does the very important work of holding his feet to the fire, make him vote like a Democrat to appeal to the Democratic primary electorate. That is of the utmost importance.

One odd element of this that I can see becoming "important" down the road is that Specter was one of the very few Republicans to occasionally vote with Obama, and therefore by the standard of the Looks, show that Obama's bipartisan. So ironically this will lead to less Republicans voting with Obama, therefore providing "evidence" for the Jay Costs and Michael Barones to say that Obama is so "polarizing" and not living up to his promise.

The Weekly Strike-4/27-5/3

Good Monday morning and welcome to the Weekly Strike, where we preview the upcoming week in Washington. A very busy week on Capitol Hill especially, so let's get to it.

THE HOUSE: The House of Representatives has one of its busiest weeks of the year. Today and tomorrow, the House will vote on some suspension bills. Starting Tuesday, and continuing through Thursday, the House will consider three important measures.

First, the House will take up the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act." This bill passed the House last Congress, but died under Republican filibuster in the Senate. The bill most notably expands the definition of hate crimes to those motivated by the victim's sexual orientation. The measure also expands enforcement mechanisms and funding to prevent hate crimes. The bill explicitly states that nothing in this measure will be used to prohibit constitutionally-protected free speech. I expect House Republicans to have a gay-bashing field day. Their usual objections to measures like this is that they pose restrictions on the free exercise of religious institutions to discriminate as they choose. I don't really see how that has to relate to hate crimes, but oh well. This could be a good chance for the right wing to score some culture war points with their base. More importantly, the House will pass a long-overdue measure acknowledging that crime committed against LGBT Americans constitutes hate and should be prosecuted as such. I expect the bill to pass with over 300 votes. Republican moderates like Rep. Castle (DE) and Ros-Lehtinen (FL) are co-sponsoring the bill.

Next, the House considers an Obama-backed Credit Card Bill of Rights. This important bill will increase consumer protection against aggressive credit card companies. Among other things, the bill amends the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit increases in annual interest rates on a current balance unless specific conditions are met. It also requires a 45 day notice of credit card rate increases. A good summary of this comprehensive bill can be found here. This bill will almost certainly pass, but not without major objection from free-market enthusiasts. I haven't yet found the talking points against this bill yet, but I expect it to be a Rick Santelli-like diatribe against "protecting the losers" and "expanding the size and scope of government." No Republicans have signed on to sponsor the bill, and I would be surprised if more than a few of them vote for it.

Finally, the House will vote on the conference report accompanying the annual budget resolution. The final version of the bill was apparently agreed upon by House-Senate negotiators on Friday, but the final meeting to hash out the details will be held today or tomorrow. The resolution sets spending targets for each area of discretionary spending, largely reflecting President Obama's budget proposal. The resolution also contains reconciliation instructions that will allow health care reform and education legislation to pass the Senate with 51 votes, instead of the usual 60 needed to cut off debate. Especially because of the reconciliation instructions, this is one of the most important votes of the year. If the budget resolution passes, it's a good bet that we'll have a comprehensive health care bill by the end of the year. I expect the final version to pass with the same margin as the original version. No Republican will vote for it (almost certainly), and 20 or so Democrats will vote against it.

THE SENATE: Not to be outdone, the deliberative chamber also has a busy week. Tonight, the Senate votes to invoke cloture on a bill to protect consumers against mortgage fraud. The bill was debated last week, and a number of amendments were adopted. I expect cloture to be invoked with about 65 votes or so. The ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley, is a cosponsor of the bill. If cloture is invoked, a final passage vote will occur at noon tomorrow. Also tomorrow, the Senate considers the nomination of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Her appointment carries more urgency due to the outbreak of the swine flu. The agency needs leadership to oversee this public health emergency. Sebelius' nomination has been held up by Republicans mostly due to her association with a Kansas abortion doctor. Per an agreement between the two leaders, her nomination will require 60 votes. I expect her to be confirmed with 65-70 votes, and take office later this week. If she is confirmed, Obama's cabinet will finally be filled.

The Senate will most likely take up the conference report on the budget resolution Wednesday or Thursday.

THE WHITE HOUSE: The President has a busy week, and he'll have to keep a close eye on what's happening with the swine flu outbreak. The President starts his week with a speech at the National Science Academy in Washington DC. He has an otherwise quiet day today, with a series of meetings and a White House event with the NCAA Women's Basketball Champion UCONN Huskies. Tomorrow, the President presents the "Teacher of the Year" award. How cool would it be to be that teacher right now?

Obama's busiest day is Wednesday, when he marks the 100th day of his Presidency. He will hold a town hall meeting in Missouri that morning to discuss the economy. He has thrived in the town hall setting both on the campaign trail and during his Presidency. He then will hold his 3rd prime time press conference at the White House on Wednesday night. I expect most of the questions will center around the President's first 100 days, but I expect a few on the torture memos controversy, the economy, health care etc. Let's hope the press corps can do a better job of asking relevant questions than they've done in the past.

That's pretty much it for this week. We will give you comprehensive coverage of events as they happen. Please leave us your comments! Our best one will be featured in Friday's Daily Strike.

The Daily Strike-4/24/09-Finishing Yesterday's Business

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Friday was mostly a quiet day in politics. President Obama made a speech on education reform in which he reiterated his support for ending government subsidies to student loan companies.

A lot happened in the United States Senate after press time yesterday, so we will mostly cover that today. Enjoy.

Posting will be light this weekend. None other than the Big Picture himself is visiting, and we will be doing some major sight-seeing.

IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT: House-Senate staffers stayed up mighty late last night, but they were able to reach an agreement on a final version of the budget resolution. Notably, the conferees have agreed to include reconciliation language in the bill, making it easier for President Obama's health care and education proposals to get through Congress. For you newbies, U=under expedited reconciliation procedures, only 51 votes are required for passage in the Senate (not the usual 60). The total budget blueprint contains about $3.5 trillion worth of spending. This is a huge victory for the Obama administration. The reconciliation language means that even if we lose 7 Senate Democrats, we will still have health care reform passed by the end of this year. Liberals around the country should rejoice! The formal House-Senate conference will come next week, with a final vote in each chamber happening either Tuesday or Wednesday. More on the final agreement when we get more details this weekend.

THE SENATE: Contrary to what I believed, the Senate did NOT vote on the remaining amendments to the mortgage fraud bill last night. Instead, they voted on various "motions to instruct conferees," non-binding "instructions" to Senators who will sit on the budget resolution conference committee. Because such motions are non-binding, they are a good opportunity for political grandstanding. We saw a great deal of the last night. In total, 7 such motions were voted on, and another 3 were approved by voice votes.

1. The first was offered by Senator Conrad (D-ND) on behalf of Senator Stabenow (D-MI). It would instruct conferees to include a deficit neutral reserve fund for clean energy programs in the final version of the bill. This is more noteworthy for what it does NOT say. In other words, it does not instruct the conferees to use reconciliation language. The motion passed 57-37, mostly along party lines, with Democrats in strong support. Crossovers: Republicans Collins (ME), Lugar (IN) and Snowe/Democrats Landrieu (LA/Oil rigs).

2. Next was an motion offered by Senator Johanns (R-NE). This one said that if conferees include the deficit neutral fund for energy programs, there must be a clause in there making it harder to raise energy taxes. It passed 66-28. All no votes were from smart Democrats who realize that preventing tax increases on energy could be a slippery slope to preventing tax increases on carbon emissions.

3. Third, we have a motion from Senator Ensign (R-NV) that instructs conferees to insist that the final legislation contain a point of order against any measure that raises taxes for couples making under $250,00o. In other words, if you WERE going to raise their taxes, you'd need 60 votes. Senators didn't want to touch this with a ten foot poll. The amendment passed by voice vote.

4. Next, we have a motion dealing with Senator Gregg's (R-NH) clever little language that the public debt level in 2019 must be lower than the total public debt accumulated between 1789 and 2009. We talked previously about the stupidity of this idea, mostly because it completely ignores that whole "inflation" thing. Luckily, his motion was defeated 40-54. The only Democrat stupid enough to join Mr. Gregg was Ben Nelson (NE). Zero Republicans voted against it.

5. Then came a motion from Senator Sessions (R-AL) that instructs conferees to include a freeze on non-defense discretionary spending. I've talked about the lunacy of this idea numerous times. Thankfully the motion was defeated 38-56. Self-appointed centrist Bayh (IN) joined Republicans in voting for it. ZERO Republicans were smart enough to realize that freezing discretionary spending when we have a huge lull in consumer demand is a horrible idea.

6. Next was a motion by Senator Cornyn (R-TX) that instructs conferees to include language that creates a point of order against tax increases for small businesses. It passed 84-9. To me, this would have to depend on their definition of "small business," which is not specified in the motion. All no votes were from Democrats, the most surprising perhaps was pro-business freshman Mark Warner (D-VA).

7. Next was a motion offered by Senator Alexander (R-TN) that instructs conferees to include language encouraging a "competitive student loan choice" for college students. This somehow passed unanimously. Doesn't it seem like it's geared towards President Obama's plan to do away with wasteful private student loan companies?

8. Senator Coburn (R-OK) instructed conferees to insist that the final legislation include a reserve fund to go through the budget "line by line" to find and eliminate wasteful, duplicative or inefficient spending. It passed by voice vote.

9. The next one totally baffles me. Offered by Senator DeMint (R-SC), it instructs conferees to include in the final legislation "include a point of order against legislation that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan and eliminates the ability of Americans to choose their doctor, as contained in section 316 of the concurrent resolution, as passed by the Senate, and insist further that an additional condition be added providing such legislation shall not decrease the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance, while increasing the number of Americans enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care." Obviously this is a political statement disguised as a parliamentary instruction. This makes it all the more worrisome that the motion passed 79-14. All dissenting votes were from Democrats. It is DEEPLY disturbing to me that Democrats fell for this political trick and put themselves on record against decreasing the number of people enrolled in private health insurance. If Obama's plan includes a public option, it's inevitable that some people will opt for the cheaper, more effective government plan.

10. The final motion was offered by Senator Clown (R-LA) (some people pronounce it VITT-er). This motion would instruct conferees to include language that prohibits bills being considered that raise energy prices on American consumers, or raises the cost of drilling for oil and gas. It passed 63-30. The spineless, oil-loving Democrats were Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Begich (AK), Bennet (CO), Byrd (WV), Carper (DE), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Feingold (WI), Hagan (NC), Johnson (SD), Klobuchar (MN), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Reid (NV), Stabenow (MI), Udall (CO) and Webb (VA).

The Senate will be voting on cloture of the mortgage fraud bill on Monday. I expect that they can muster 60 votes to shut off debate. If so, all of the pending amendments will be disposed with. Democratic leaders probably got tired of dealing with endless Republican amendments. Vote on final passage of the bill, as amended, will come on Tuesday. Also Tuesday, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Republicans have agreed to hold a vote if it is subject to a 60 vote threshold. I expect Sebelius to be confirmed with about 65 votes or so. Republicans have raised a ruckus on her nomination because of her association with an abortion doctor in Kansas.

NY20: It looks like Democrat Scott Murphy has won that House seat in upstate New York. He now leads the race by over 400 votes, with about 1,000 ballots in question. A majority of those ballots come from registered Democrats, making a victory by Republican Jim Tedisco virtually impossible. Word is he might concede in the next few days.

COMMENT OF THE WEEK: Tonight, as promised, a comment of the week. This one comes from our good friend Small Town Roots, who also wrote a GREAT post on the torture debate. Please read it below.

Small Town Roots said...
Over under on days until the
Chavez/Obama photo is used in a Republican Ad: 8.5
April
18, 2009 11:34 PM
Small
Town Roots said...
Secondly, thank you to the strike for realistically
criticizing our great president. Just because Obama represents a historic step
forward for the progressive movement can we forget to be critical and skeptical
of our leaders at times. Obama is after all a politician, whose driving motive
still comes down to re-election in many situations. Remaining optimistic about
our times while still holding Obama accountable is the advisable way
forward...

The Daily Strike-4/22/09-Earth Day

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. Happy Earth Day! A new feature today is that when we talk about a random parliamentary term, we will provide a link to the definition, so you are all up to speed!

THE WHITE HOUSE: The President today ventured to Des Moines, Iowa. It must have given him memories of January 3rd, 2008, when his meteoric rise to the Presidency. He toured a plant that makes wind turbines to highlight his administration's commitment to clean energy. The President emphasized the duel benefit of clean energy: it helps grow the economy and it helps save the planet. It's a mantra the President will have to repeat numerous times to counter conservative criticism of his cap-and-trade proposal. The President returned to Washington this afternoon.

The real action today was on Capitol Hill. There were two very important hearings on the House side today. The first was in the House Foreign Affairs committee, where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her first Congressional testimony. Clinton surely intended to talk about Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, war funding, Venezuela, human rights, North Korea, Israel etc...but instead she was asked questions about abortion and Dick Cheney. New Jersey Rep. Christopher Smith, a Republican, asked Clinton how she could have praised the head of NARAL when she has caused the death of millions of unborn children. Clinton dismissed the question by saying that they had a fundamental disagreement, and that Clinton had worked as First Lady to minimize abortion. The next absurd question was from California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who fulfills his role as Bush administration apologist. I'll let you watch their entertaining exchange here.

There was also an interesting hearing on climate change legislation in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Energy Secretary Stephen Chu were the witnesses. The most interesting thing about this hearing was a bit of bickering between LaHood (a former Republican Congressman) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX). Barton asked LaHood if he intended to continue aiding auto companies, and the two of them went back and forth on the merits of the administration's bailout plans. LaHood was quite the Obama loyalist. It's amazing how LaHood can just transform himself into a liberal as soon as he joins the Obama cabinet. I wonder if the same thing would have happened to Judd Gregg. Barton also asked Secretary Chu why there is natural gas in Alaska. (Barton was trying to make the point that Alaska wasn't always a frozen tundra, meaning that somehow global warming doesn't exist). Chu talked about the shifting tectonic plates and the like. Barton responded by acting shocked that Alaska just "slid up there." Actually, Barton, that's exactly what happened.

THE HOUSE: A mostly low-key day in the House. Members mostly considered a slew of suspension bills. The one very important vote was on a non-binding motion to instruct the conferees that will help negotiate a final version of the recently-passed budget resolution. The motion "instructs" conferees not to use reconciliation instructions in the final version of the bill. Democrats want to include reconciliation language so that they can pass health care reform and education policy under expedited procedures that only require 51 votes in the Senate (instead of the usual 60). Even though a motion to instruct conferees is non-binding, the vote was a good bellwether to see if the House would support a final bill that had reconciliation instructions in it. The result was decidedly positive. The motion was defeated 227-196. All Republicans voted for it, as did 23 Democrats. These Democrats almost exactly match those who voted against the House version of the budget resolution. The good sign is that if a majority of the House of Representatives would want to use expedited procedures to get health care reform passed, you can bet that they would vote for a pretty ambitious bill.

THE SENATE: The Senate today resumed consideration of a bill to enacts new mortgage fraud regulations. The measure, among other things, increases liability for companies who make false or fraudulent claims. Senators voted on two amendments to the bill. The first, offered by Senator Kyl (R-AZ) modifies the definition of the word "obligation" under the False Claims Act. Your guess is as good as mine as to what that means. The amendment was approved 94-1, with the only dissenting vote coming from avowed socialist Bernie Sanders (VT). The second amendment, offered by Senator Isakson (R-GA) would establish a new advisory board on mortgage policy called the "Financial Markets Commission." The amendment was approved 92-4. The only no votes came from fiscal conservatives Bunning (KY), Grassley (IA), Kyl (AZ) and McCain (AZ). I guess these Republicans don't want to spend the money necessary to set up such a commission. More amendments (a lot of them) coming tomorrow.

That's it for today! Leave your comments and tell me what you think about including links to those definitions!

The Daily Strike-4/20/09-Faux Spending Cuts/CIA Visits/Senate Returns

Good Monday evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. A busy day in Washington, let's get to it. Make sure you're fully informed on the upcoming week in politics by reading The Weekly Strike below. Also, don't forget to post your comments! The best comment will be featured in Friday's Daily Strike!!

THE WHITE HOUSE: President Obama had his first full cabinet meeting this morning at the White House. The only missing member, as we noted earlier, was HHS nominee Kathleen Sebelius who is expected to be confirmed some time in the next week. Obama touted the $100 million in spending cuts he's instructed agencies to take in the coming weeks. Republicans mocked the President (and rightly so) for touting cuts that amount to a minuscule percentage of the federal budget. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs defended the President by saying he "sending a message." Gibbs scoffed at the notion that $100 million wasn't a lot of money by telling CBS' Chip Reid that "only in Washington is that not a lot of money." That is just totally dishonest. In fact, I heard George W. Bush use the same line. It ISN'T a lot of money, and we shouldn't mislead the American people into thinking that it is. Furthermore, we should be focusing on reviving the economy and creating jobs rather than capitulating to the "reasonable centrists" in Congress with tiny agency budget cuts.

The President ventured this afternoon to the CIA headquarters this afternoon to address the rank and file. He thanked them for their service in helping to protect the American people. He also said that he understood that they sometimes act with one hand tied behind their backs. The United States operates under the rule of law, unlike our enemies, and thus we don't do certain things that may make intelligence gathering easier. Over the long term, Obama said, we will defeat our enemies because we're on the better side of history. The President is still is facing harsh criticism for releasing CIA torture memos last week. Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss said that Obama "overstepped his bounds." The vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Kit Bond (R-MO), said Obama's decision undermines the CIA intelligence-gathering process. In this case, I'm fully on the President's side. As I said yesterday, most of this information was already known, and the American people have the right to know about it.

This wasn't the only criticism leveled at the President today. Two of the least popular and most maligned politicians in the country, Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney, said that Obama is emboldening our enemies by shaking Hugo Chavez's hand. If I had a nickel for every time these two hacks have said similarly ludicrous things, I would be...um....very wealthy.

CONGRESS: Hooray! Congress is officially back in session. At least one branch, that is. The Senate returned this afternoon to vote on three assistant attorney general nominees, and to cut off debate on ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill. All three justice department nominees were confirmed:

-Tony West by a vote of 82-4. Dissenting Republicans were Bunning (KY), Chambliss (GA), Isakson (GA) and Shelby (AL). What did he do to the state of Georgia?

-Lanny Breuer by a vote of 88-0.

-Christine Varney by a vote of 87-1. Bunning (KY) was the lone dissenter.

Hill's nomination was just advanced moments ago by a vote of 73-17. All opposition was from Republicans, who stalled his nomination because of his past work as ambassador to North Korea.

The House is back in session tomorrow. Two important developments happened today off the floor. First, budget committee staffers in both chambers say that conferees could be named this week to reconcile that House and Senate versions of the budget resolutions. Once the conferees are appointed, the conference will take place. The major sticking point will be on whether to include fast-track "reconciliation" procedure to make it easier to pass health care reform. Reconciliation, for those of you new to the blog, is a special procedure that calls for committees to adjust mandatory spending to pre-set levels. A reconciliation bill is not subject to a filibuster, meaning it would only require 51 votes to pass the Senate. The House had reconciliation in its version of the non-binding budget resolution, but the Senate did not. If I had to guess, they will include reconciliation language in the final version.

On that same subject, the chairmen of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, Ted Kennedy, and Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, outlined a timeline to pass health care reform legislation. The two committees hope to mark up a comprehensive bill by mid-June. This most important part of this announcement is the willingness of Baucus and Kennedy to work together to create one bill. This was not the case during Clinton's health care reform effort in 1993.

That's it for tonight. Before we go, I bring you our second edition of the Big Picture's Corner. He was reacting to Obama's call for minuscule spending cuts. Very good insight here. See you tomorrow!

What's particularly poor is that cutting $100 million means cutting jobs. That's a huge thing that just isn't understood enough, which is that all of this spending isn't just flushed down the toilet, it actually pays people. Now, perhaps the money could be better spent, more equitably distributed, on better priorities, but it's completely insane just to oppose "spending" in a time when the economy is so under-capacity.

That could be part of a series of "Things the Mainstream Media Refuses to Understand":

1. What spending actually MEANS

2. That Tax Cuts are by far the most fiscally irresponsible thing you can do, the biggest cause of deficits

3. That deficit spending is neither bad nor good - it completely depends on WHAT the money is being spent on, and especially when the economy is drastically under capacity, it's most likely good unless it's tax cuts.

4. The only way to close the budget deficit short and long term is to eliminate unnecessary tax breaks and useless subsidies, and use that money to invest in the American people, in good jobs, and sustainable job producers.

5. (and most important) The majority of Americans care far far more about their job, their pay, their benefits, their bills, and their long-term prospects than they do about tax cuts, "spending" or other stupid obsessions.

The Daily Strike-4/4/09-NATO

Good Saturday and welcome to the Daily Strike. It's cherry blossom weekend here in Washington, but the President is thousands of miles away in Europe.

NATO: The President today met with the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Strousburg, France. The first purpose of the meeting was to welcome new members Albania and Croatia. The second was to choose the next Secretary General of NATO, which will be Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark. President Obama played a key role in the choice of the new Secretary General. Turkey had taken issue with Rasmussen because Denmark has allowed the broadcast of "Roj TV" which Turkey considers to be a mouthpiece for Kurdistan Workers Party. Turkey, as well as the United States, considers this party to be a terrorist organization. Obama was able to help assuage Turkey's concerns.

The other important development from the NATO meeting was the response to the President's new Afghanistan policies. European leaders, like Germany's Merkel and France's Sarkozy expressed optimism about the plan, and committed to ensuring its success. NATO even agreed to send about 5,000 peacekeeping envoys into the region. They did stop short, however, of agreeing to send combat troops, which is what President Obama has been pushing for. Obama has tried to make the case for the last couple of days that victory in Afghanistan must be a joint effort between the United States in Europe. But European countries have almost as much war fatigue as we do, and I think there is still some healthy skepticism across the pond as to whether there are reachable goals in Afghanistan. Consider me one of those skeptics. Obama has arrived in Prague this evening, where he will hold a series of bilateral meetings and speak to an EU summit.

WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama used his weekly radio address to talk about how with globalization, the world's problems are interconnected. He talked about how terrorists that attacked the U.S. trained in Afghanistan, plotted in Germany, and sought to attack many western countries. He mentioned how cars in Boston and Beijing both contribute to the melting of the polar ice caps. He heralded this weekend's G20 summit as a first step to solving the global financial crisis. Because the world's economies are now more dependent on one another, the importance of diplomacy and international cooperation have enhanced.

Giving the Republican response was Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking member of the House Budget Committee. The young, fresh-faced Ryan repeated the GOP mantra on Obama's budget, that it "spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much." They have been repeating this slogan incessantly over the last week. Every speaker on the House or Senate floor pretty much said this phrase verbatim. I think it's really politically tone deaf, personally. First, it makes it seem like the Republicans have no actual convictions, but are rather simply repeating a catchy Frank Luntz slogan. I'm sure they poll tested this among Limbaugh listeners, and it totally caught on.

I apologize for the passive voice in the previous paragraph. Mother Strike would not be happy. See you tomorrow!

The Senate Amendment Parade

Well, I'm home on a Friday while Lady Strike recovers from her wisdom teeth operation (which was a success!). What better way to occupy my time than to talk about the Senate's "Vote-a-rama" yesterday. In total, the Senate took 27 roll call votes over 12 hours, each taking 15 to 20 minutes. Apparently that was "light" compared to usual budget resolution marathons. I want to give as complete of an account as I can without going crazy, so I'll only cover the interesting (controversial) amendments. To get the full list, you can enjoy this somewhat poorly designed website.

But I want to start backwards, by describing the scene at the end of the hectic day, around 11:00pm. While watching CSPAN coverage of the last amendment vote, I saw Vice President Biden walk into the chamber. My first thought was that the Democrats only had 49 votes for the budget which would have resulted in a tie (because Al Franken hasn't been seated yet, and Ted Kennedy was still sick). Vice Presidents can vote to break ties according to the constitution. Then I saw Ted Kennedy walk into the chamber, so I knew there was an odd number of Senators present.. My next thought that maybe they just brought the Vice President in for a little pomp and circumstance. Before the final vote, a slew of Senators stood up to thank the body for going through such a smooth budget process. The usually hyper-partisan Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that this was one of the easier budget vote-a-rama's he's ever taken. Next to take the floor was Republican Senator John Ensign (NV) who was like "I hate to end this Kumbaya moment..." and then asked a parliamentary inquiry as to whether the adoption of "non-germane" amendments had made the resolution "not privileged" and therefore subject to a 60 vote threshold. The usually loquacious Biden answered with a simple "yes, it is still privileged." The chamber chuckled at Biden's bluntness, and then proceeded to final passage. It seems like Vice President Biden was there to rule on the parliamentary inquiry, because otherwise that duty would have fallen upon some unsuspecting freshman Senator taking their turn presiding over the chamber.

The final vote, as we mentioned last night, was 55-43. It turned out that 92 year old Senator Robert Byrd was the only Senator not voting. My guess is that he's physically incapable of staying up past 11pm, which is understandable.

Now, to the amendments. First, I should note that 72 amendments were accepted by voice vote or unanimous consent. I won't even attempt to cover these. If Senators had insisted on roll call votes for a quarter of these, they'd still be voting right now. I think a lot of reasonable Senators also decided to withdraw amendments, because originally there had been something like 300 amendments proposed. If this were any other institution besides the United States, people wouldn't be so narcissistic and insist of political "gotcha" votes, even if it means voting on amendments to a non-binding measure for 12 hours. But alas, that's how the upper chamber goes about it's business, for better or worse (hint: worse).

Now onto the roll call votes. Here are some of the interesting ones:

1. The first vote was on an amendment to means test the Medicare Part D program, so that richer seniors would pay higher premiums. President Obama suggested this approach in his own budget outline, but I happen to strongly disagree with it. Sort of undermines the point of an entitlement program, don't you think? You won't be able to sustain political support for Medicare if rich people bolt for private insurance. The amendment failed 39-58. Only Senators Feinstein (CA) and McCaskill (MO) voted for it on the Democratic side.

2. Next, was the only full "substitute" amendment from the minority, and it came from good old John McCain. His amendment would have frozen discretionary spending, increased the military's budget, and cut corporate tax rates. Not a chance. It lost 38-60. All Democrats voted no, as did Republican Maine-erates Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. The only other Republican no vote was a curious one from conservative Bob Corker of Tennessee. I guess he has a moderate streak once in awhile.

3. There were a bunch of votes on various TARP (bailout) related measures. The most noteworthy came from Clown Senator David Vitter, who proposed a moratorium on bailout spending. The amendment failed 28-70. It did get the support of Democrats Feingold (WI-an anti-corporate crusader) and Nelson (NE).

4. The next truly interesting amendment (I skipped over a few energy-related ones) came from Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa. He proposed extending the provision that exempts middle class payers from the alternative minimum tax through 2014. Congress has ducked the issue for years by supplying temporary fixes that don't show up in yearly budget projections. Democrats (besides Nelson of Nebraska). The amendment failed 40-58.

5. Alright moving past some amendments dealing with "usury" law, we come to an amendment by Senator Bennett (R-UT) that would cut FY 2010 spending by the equivalent of what was in the economic stimulus bill. Herbert Hoover Bennett's amendment failed 42-56 with Nelson (NE) the only crossover on either side.

6. Next was the second most egregious vote of the night (the first is coming up later). This amendment, offered by Senator Wicker (MS), would allow passengers to carry firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak. This was another one of those votes where Senators were afraid of angering the NRA. What's worse is that because someone raised a point of order that this amendment was not germane, it was subject to a 60 vote threshold, and STILL passed 63-35. Guilty gun-toting Democrats: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Begich (AK), Bennet (CO), Bingaman (NM), Casey (PA), Dorgan (ND), Feingold (WI), Hagan (NC), Johnson (SD), Klobuchar (MN), Kohl (WI), Leahy (VT), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), Nelson (NE), Reid (NV), Shaheen (NH), Tester (MT), Udall (CO), Udall (NM) and Webb (VA).

7. This amendment takes the cake. It almost made me think we were still in 2005. Proposed by Senators Kyl (R-AZ) and Lincoln (D-AK), the amendment would cut marginal estate tax rates by 10% and increase the exemption to all estates under $5 million. This amendment is so wrong for so many reasons. First, any estates under $3 million (99% of all estates) are not taxed at all. Therefore, the tax only hits the super wealthy. Second, Republicans and moderate Democrats have whined all week about the budget not being "fiscally responsible," but they're willing to give billions of dollars to the top 1% of families. Third, this amendment creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund, meaning that it has to be offset with cuts elsewhere. This makes me so angry. What are we gonna cut so that Donald Trump's kids can get an extra billion dollars? Public health? Education? There are two small silver linings. First, the next vote after this was an amendment from Senator Durbin (D-IL) that would prohibit estate tax cuts unless taxes were also being cut for those making under $100,000. Still bad, but at least Durbin's amendment makes it harder to push through an estate tax cut. Second, House Democrats would never support this, so it will definitely be stripped out in conference. Senate Republicans won't support the budget anyway, so why accommodate them by keeping this provision in the bill? The amendment passed 51-48, with support from the following Democrats. PLEASE call their offices if you live in one of these states and tell them that we can't afford to be giving away money to the wealthy when so many Americans are suffering.

-Bayh (IN)-not surprising
-Cantwell (WA)-unforgivable
-Lincoln (AR)
-Murray (WA)-totally puzzles me. She's usually a reliable liberal, and voted against the Iraq War. An extremely disappointing vote from her.
-Nelson (NE)
-Nelson (FL)
-Pryor (AR)
-Tester (MT)

All of these Senators (besides Nelson) voted for the Durbin amendment.

8. The last amendment I'll talk about was proposed by Clown Senator Vitter (R-LA). The amendment would prohibit welfare (TANF) money from being given to twice-convicted drug-offenders. As Senator Baucus pointed out, not only was the amendment unnecessary and meanspirited, it was a) an unfunded mandate and b) would almost certainly make the problem worse. An amendment, in my view, based on pure ideology. Luckily it was soundly defeated 79-18.

Yes, it was quite a day in the United States Senate. While I'm very disappointed in the estate tax vote, we need to put things in perspective. Both chambers of the United States Congress approved very progressive budgets yesterday.

Late Night Strike...Senate Passes Budget Resolution

The final vote was 55-43 with Senators Nelson (NE) and Bayh (IN) the only Democrats voting no. Zero Republicans, as predicted, voted for the resolution.

Thank God Obama didn't choose Bayh as his Vice Presidential running mate.

The Daily Strike-4/2/09-Budget/G20

Ladies and gentleman, we have a budget resolution! Sort of. The House passed its version moments ago, while the Senate slogs though a "vote-a-rama" (that's what they call it) of amendments. Because the Senate might be working past my bedtime tonight, I'll write about their insane day tomorrow morning. I will say that they will have taken something like 30 recorded votes before the day is over. Lady Strike is getting her wisdom teeth removed, so I should have some time to blog between smoothie runs.

Oh yeah, and the President agreed with world leaders on a global stimulus plan. We'll get to that later.

THE HOUSE: The House just passed the annual budget resolution by a vote of 233-196. As expected, no Republicans voted for the resolution, while 2o Democrats voted against it. The list of offenders is as follows: Barrow (GA), Boren (OK), Bright (AL), Childers (MS), Donnelly (IN), Foster (IL), Griffith (AL), Kosmas (FL), Kratovil (MD), Kucinich (OH), Markey (CO), Marshall (GA), Matheson (UT), McIntyre (NC), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ), Nye (VA), Perriello (VA), Taylor (MS) and Teague (NM). This is pretty much your standard Blue Dog list, with a good chunk of newer members who may not be ready to take a political leap on an ambitious budget. The exception would be Dennis Kucinich, who as I said, won't vote for any bill that would fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But this is a day for liberals to celebrate. This budget largely reflected the progressive one proposed in February by President Obama. It makes historic investments in health care, education and energy, increases discretionary spending to fund other key priorities, and allows for the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire. It also authorizes use of the fast-track reconciliation procedure to help pass health reform this year. It's a big deal. Go out and have a toast!

The vote on the underlying budget came after votes on four separate alternatives. None of these substitutes had any chance of passing, but they are good vehicles for various groups to express their legislative priorities. Let's go through them one by one.

1. The first was the budget laid forth by the Progressive Democratic Caucus. In previous years, their budget was regarded as somewhat of a radical joke, but this year, it only contained minor differences with Obama's proposal. Under the progressive budget, the Bush tax cuts would expire this year instead of next, there would be a new surtax on all stock trades ($.25), defense spending would be drastically cut, and domestic discretionary spending would be about $400 billion higher to accommodate an anti-poverty initiative and a new veterans health care entitlement. One day we'll enact a budget like this, but today, we can only dream. The proposal lost 348-84. As you can imagine, all yes votes were Democrats.

2. Next, was a proposal from the ultra-conservative Republican Study Committee. The committee boasted that it was the only alternative to truly balance the budget in ten years. How would it do this? Well, it would freeze all non-defense discretionary spending, for starters. It would actually cut last year's spending levels by one percent. Do they think we're just throwing this money in a black hole? This alternative was too extreme for even Republican leader John Boehner. It failed 322-111. Thankfully, no Democrats walked the plank on this one. I was sort of hoping the progressive budget would beat this one in "yes" votes, but oh well.

3. Third was the substitute proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus. They propose their own budget annually, and it, like the Progressive budget, is usually so far off base that it bares little resemblance to the actual budget proposal. This year, it explicitly stated that it was "expanding upon the recommendations of President Obama." The most radical part of this proposal would be a .565% surtax on incomes over $500,000. I wish this idea wasn't so radical, because it would be a great way to bring down the deficit while not inflicting pain on vulnerable people. Again, we can only dream. The amendment lost by a vote of 318-113. But it beat the RSC substitute!

4. Finally, the House considered the Republican alternative, which we wrote about the other day. As we mentioned, it would cut taxes on the wealthy, freeze discretionary spending, and partially privatize Medicare. The Big Picture rightly calls the alternative "treasonous, nihilistic and clownish." Apparently, the House agreed. The amendment was rejected 293-137, with 38 Republicans voting against their own party.

So there you have it. As soon as the Senate agrees to their version (presumably sometime between now and Lady Strike's appointment at 7:45 tomorrow morning), the differences will be reconciled in conference during Congress' upcoming two week recess. The biggest sticking point will be the House's reconciliation language for health care reform. Everyone who cares about health care reform should call their Senators and tell them to include reconciliation language in the conference report. If this budget is enacted, it will constitute a radical change in economic policy. Today was a great start.

THE SENATE: The one thing I'll mention about the Senate tonight is that the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius for HHS secretary will NOT be voted on tonight because of an objection from a Republican Senator.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The President continues his European trip today by accomplishing a truly significant pact with other members of the G20. The pact calls for an infusion of over $1 trillion in capital to be paid out by the International Monetary Fund. I happen to think this might be too small in the context of a global economy, but I only minored in economics. The pact also enacts new global financial regulations against risky schemes like hedge funds, and creates an international financial regulatory board.

The compromise agreement fulfills the desires of Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the one hand, who wanted a global fiscal stimulus, and French President Nicholas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel who wanted tough new financial regulations. Brown called the agreement the beginning of a "New World Order."

It does seem that Obama has injected a new spirit of international compromise during his first overseas trip. He came up with a general framework for an agreement with Russian President Demitri Medvedev, this pact with the G20, and a joint statement with South Korea opposing new weapons testing by North Korea. As the Big Picture points out, this is a major lesson of why elections have compromises. John McCain would have called for global cuts in spending and less financial regulations.

Anyways, that's it for tonight, but please stay tuned when I go over the Senate's day tomorrow morning. I just finished watching a disgraceful amendment adopted, which cuts estate taxes for millionaires. I may need a good night's sleep to get over the fact that a Democratically-controlled Senate would do something like this.

Senate Amendment Review

As promised, I will now bring you coverage of yesterday's numerous Senate amendments to the budget resolution. I know some of you are not as gung ho as I am about covering amendment votes, but the budget resolution is perhaps the most important piece of legislation that we'll see for the rest of the year. I'll try to make as quick as possible.

1. Let's first go through the amendments that were accepted by voice vote.

a. A good amendment by Senator Lincoln (D-AR) that keeps GI education benefits up to pace with the national cost of college tuition.

b. Another Lincoln amendment to provide a deficit-neutral reserve fund for child welfare.

c. An amendment by the moderate duo of Senator Collins (R-ME) and Lieberman (?-CT) that would provide an extra $550 million to fight drug trafficking on the Mexico border.

d. An amendment by Senator Casey (D-PA) to provide a reserve fund for low income housing assistance.

e. A clarifying amendment from Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) to fully fund international affairs programs.

f. An Isakson (R-GA) amendment that provides a reserve fund for a tax credit for home buyers. He proposed a similar amendment to the recovery bill, which passed in the Senate but was stripped out in conference. Why accommodate him if he's going to vote against the bill anyway?

g. A Shaheen (D-NH) amendment to provide a reserve fund to monitor FHA loans.

h. A Reed (D-RI) amendment to increase funding for low income heating assistance by $1.9 billion. Surprised no Republicans objected to that one.

Alright, now to the Roll Call Votes. Let's go through them quickly.

1. The first vote was on an amendment by Senator Alexander (R-TN) that would create a budget point of order against any bill that raised the national debt above 90% of GDP. This is slightly better than the absurd Gregg amendment the day before, because it takes inflation into account, but still not a great idea in a recession. A budget point of order would mean that any such increase would require 60 votes. The amendment was defeated 55-43. Klobuchar (MN) and Nelson (NE) were the Democratic crossovers. Seriously Klobuchar? You're supposed to be a reliable liberal!

2. Next was an amendment to propose freezing discretionary spending for five years offered by Senator Sessions (R-AL). Thank God we can vote down these amendments. This one failed on a 58-40 vote, with only retiring Republican Mel Martinez voting with the Democrats in opposition.
3. Next, an amendment by Senator John Ensign that creates a budget point of order on any tax increase for those making under $250,000 per year. Probably wouldn't be a good idea politically to oppose this. That's why it passed unanimously, 98-0.

4. Another budget point of order amendment came up, this time from Republican John Cornyn, that would prohibit an direct or indirect tax on small businesses. I'm worried about the effects of this because the Republicans may, at some point, say that our taxes on BIG business are actually taxes on small businesses. The Democrats caved pretty easily on this and the amendment passed 82-16, with only the most liberal members voting against it.

5. Then came another Gregg amendment, this one setting aside a reserve fund to form a task force to address entitlement reform. This sounds good on paper, but Gregg has long been a proponent of entitlement "reform" (read: privatization). The amendment failed 54-44. Lieberman (CT), Nelson (NE), Warner (VA) and Webb (VA) were crossovers for the Democrats. Snowe was the only Republican voting no.

6. Next was an amendment by Idaho Senator Mike Crapo (it's pronounced CRAY-po) that would prohibit any discretionary spending increases beyond what's outlined in the resolution. The amendment failed 55-43. Democrats crossing over were Bayh (IN) and Nelson (NE). Not surprising.

7. Next, was a pair of votes on using the fast track reconciliation process on a climate change bill. Democrats have considered using this process to prevent Republicans from filibustering a bill. Republicans and some "principles of the process" Democrats objected to using this procedure on important legislation, even though Republicans have done so NUMEROUS times in the past. Nebraska Republican Mike Johanns proposed an amendment prohibiting climate change legislation from being brought up under reconciliation, and the Democrats (shamefully, in my view) easily caved. That pretty much kills climate change legislation for the year. Of course, if Republicans truly don't cooperate, the Democrats could write another budget resolution that includes reconciliation instructions for climate change, but this vote seems to indicate that many Democrats are more concerned with not hurting the Republican minority's feelings than with getting things done. The Johanns amendment was approved 67-31, with 26 Democrats voting in favor. The Senate also rejected a Democratic proposal to waive the budget act to support a reserve fund for climate change legislation by a vote of 42-56 (it needed 60 votes to pass).

8. Finally, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona proposed an amendment seeking to clarify that any comparative effectiveness research cannot by used to ration health care in any federal program. This, of course, is a useless amendment, because comparative effectiveness would do no such thing. Conservatives have ratcheted up this narrative that comparative effectiveness research in health care will cause rationing, when in reality, it actually makes it easier for doctors to use best practices to improve patient care. Thankfully, the Kyl amendment was defeated 54-44, with only Democrats Feingold (WI) (seriously?), Lieberman (CT) and Nelson (NE) crossing over.

Alright, you are now up-to-date. Unfortunately, there will be a million more amendments voted on today, so we'll have a lot to cover tonight. I'm not exactly sure when the vote will be on final passage, but it could be as early as this evening. The House will vote on their version tonight, after disposing of three alternatives.

The Daily Strike-4/1/09-Vote-a-Rama Part I

Good evening and welcome to the Daily Strike. The two most newsworthy stories of the day are the Republicans' alternative budget proposal and the President's excursions in Great Britain. The Big Picture covers the former in a great post below that you all should read. As for the latter, I don't really care what kind of iPod Obama got Queen Elizabeth, so instead I'll cover an unusually busy day in Congress.

Because I'm somewhat tired, and because the Senate website is not working very well, I will cover the myriad of Senate amendments to the budget bill tomorrow morning in Part II of the Daily Strike. Tonight's entry will focus on the House.

First, an update on that race in New York's 20th Congressional District. When we left you last night, Democrat Scott Murphy had a 65 vote lead (out of 125,000 votes cast) over Republican Jim Tedisco. Today, that margin is down to 25 due to an error at a Saratoga county precinct. They start counting absentee ballots next week. Stay tuned.

THE HOUSE: Where to start? Usually, the House of Representatives gets to maybe one or two substantive bills per week. Just today, it considered 3 incredibly important measures and voted on two of them. The House took 10 total record votes today, which is quite a few. I have to warn you that I'll be getting down in the weeds in this section, so either bear (EDIT-thanks to Mother Strike for the grammar correction on this one) with me or scroll down.

First, the House was, for the 7th time, forced to table a privileged resolution offered by Rep. Flake of Arizona on the relationship between earmarks and the lobbyist group PMA. He'll just keep bringing this up every couple of days, I can assure you. Amazingly, his strategy seems to be slowly working. Three more Democrats crossed over and voted against killing the resolution, bringing the total list of discerning Democrats to 27. The motion to table was agreed to 217-185 with 16 members voting "present."

Next, the House considered an important special rule governing debate on the budget resolution. This rule provides for four hours of debate (which will allow for most members to get a chance to speak). The rule did not specify which amendments will be considered. That will be decided by an additional special rule, which is to be considered tomorrow. Republicans would vote against anything remotely related to this bill, even procedural measures. It passed 234-179 with zero Republican votes (I expect the vote on the final budget resolution to be pretty similar). The five dissenting Democrats were conservatives Barrow (GA), Childers (MS), Minnick (ID) and Taylor (MS) plus liberal Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) who won't vote against anything that would potentially provide funding for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The House then moved onto a bill to limit executive compensation to executives working at companies receiving federal bailout money. This, of course, was conceived under the backdrop of the AIG scandal. The bill would prohibit "unreasonable and excessive compensation" and compensation not based on performance. The million dollar question is how we define "unreasonable and excessive." The bill calls for the Secretary of the Treasury to come up with the definition, with counsel from a Congressional panel.

Republicans, of course, accused Democrats of only introducing this bill to "cover-up" the fact that they stripped an executive bonus provision from the stimulus package. Of course, the bill was trying to solve the very issue the Republicans were complaining about. This led to a rather humorous exchange on the House floor, in which the always funny Barney Frank said that Republicans "don't want to undo the thing they hate." He was like, "there must be a disorder for this, but I can't diagnose it. Can anyone else diagnose this disorder? I'm grieving along with the Republicans that they'll no longer have this talking point."

The House accepted amendments on voice votes that sought to:

1."exempt financial institutions receiving TARP funds under a certain threshold,"

2."to clarify that an institution that is not a TARP recipient will not be subject to the requirements of the bill as a result of doing business with a TARP recipient"

They also rejected by voice votes an amendment to make the bill retroactive (which despicably was proposed by a Democrat) and to make shareholder votes on executive compensation binding upon the Board of Directors.

The House recorded votes on two amendments to the bill. The first, offered by moderate Democratic Rep. Melissa Bean (IL), would prohibit the bill from applying to situations in which the terms of compensation were previously negotiated with the Treasury Secretary. The amendment was agreed to, even though it was opposed by a majority of Democrats. Freshman Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) proposed an amendment that clarified that even bonuses paid to foregone employees could be regulated by this act. The amendment was approved 246-180, with support mostly coming from Democrats.

The final bill passed largely along party lines, by a vote of 247-171. Only 10 Republicans supported the bill, while 8 Democrats opposed it. Minority Whip Eric Cantor pulled an Obama and voted "present" for some reason. My guess is that this bill dies on arrival once it gets to the Senate cooling saucer. The upper chamber seems far less inclined than the lower to consider executive pay restrictions.

It wasn't all good news for anti-bonus crusaders. A separate bill, considered under suspension of the rules, would have allowed the Attorney General to recover "excessive compensation payments." The bill failed to get the 2/3rds vote necessary to proceed under fast-track rules.

The House, after voting on a few more suspension bills, moved on to consideration of a bill making it easier for the FDA to regulate tobacco products. The bill was written by Energy and Commerce committee chair Henry Waxman. A substitute amendment and the underlying bill will be voted on tomorrow.

As for the budget, the House just got underway with the scheduled four hours of debate on the budget. I assume that the House will use some of those hours tonight, and some tomorrow morning. The chamber will then consider four budget alternatives: the Republican alternative, an alternative from the ultra-conservative Republican Study Committee, an alternative from the Progressive Democratic Caucus and one from the Congressional Black Caucus. As a sign of the times, the Progressive Democratic Caucus and CBC alternatives only make minor changes to the President's proposal. I expect each alternative to fail. The final vote on the resolution should be tomorrow night.

Oh, lord. The Republicans are now complaining that they're debating the budget at night. Seriously. Wow. I need to go to bed so I don't break my TV.

Please come back tomorrow for Part II. Tomorrow is going to be even more eventful, because both the House and Senate will take several crucial votes on their budget resolutions. I'll probably do a Part I and Part II tomorrow night as well.

The Big Picture: Reaction to The Republican Budget

The Strike: Today, the Republican party unveiled their alternative to President Obama’s proposed budget, and for those of you keeping score at home, it did indeed include actual numbers. Their proposal would freeze non-defense discretionary spending at the end of this fiscal year to its current levels, it would create a “simplified” tax code in a way that would cut rich people’s marginal taxes by 10 percent and slash corporate and capital gains taxes, and it would take steps to privatize Medicare. I would understand, not even think about supporting, but would understand if you were making these cuts as a genuine attempt to reduce the deficit and national debt. Of course, this budget doesn’t do that at all. For all the Republican yapping about the Obama budget’s $4 trillion deficit, this proposal would cause a $3 trillion deficit. It would let national debt climb to 75% of GDP. When I first saw this Washington Post headline, I thought it was an April Fool's Joke:

GOP Offers Alternative Budget
House Republicans would cut taxes, freeze most spending for five years, halt stimulus and slash federal health programs for the poor and elderly.
Lori Montgomery 2:37 p.m. ET

The Big Picture offers his slightly less restrained reaction to the budget below.

The Big Picture: This is an unbelievably outrageous budget. In my opinion it's far more outrageous than any racist or sexist or homophobic remarks, any stupid talk about religion or Islam, any lobbying scandal, any bonuses or insider dealing, or anything like that. I think it's about as outrageous and immoral thing as you can do. Anybody associated with that budget proposal should never hold any position of power again - I mean, that's what happened to Eliot Spitzer for a "crime" that is 1/1 millionth as bad as this. It proposes to give everything to the rich and destroy our democracy, our economy, and the lives of millions of people. This budget is pure nihilism. It is beyond a catastrophically stupid policy idea. For all the arguments for the immorality of the Bush Administration's proposal of the Iraq War, one could not reasonably say that the Bush Administration set out to intentionally severely weaken America. There is no evidence that they invaded Iraq because they wanted to ruin our country, and in fact they were surely aware that it would be far better for their political careers for their war to strengthen America. In contrast, the Republicans who support this budget clearly take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who clearly, unambiguously state that they want Barack Obama's policies, which are America's policies, to fail. More specifically, a powerful House Republican named Patrick McHenry has stated that Republican's goal should be to bring down Nancy Pelosi's approval ratings - not to rescue the economy, help struggling people, or anything else. And every astute political observer knows that the only way for the Republican Party to come back to power is for Barack Obama's policies to fail and for economic conditions to worsen, the worse the better, as far as they're concerned. Finally, there is zero evidence, from any economist anywhere on the political spectrum, that the Republican budget would do anything other than severely weaken our economy and society. So there is persuasive evidence that not only would the budget devastate our country, but that this devastation is its very intention. I don't say this lightly, but the evidence points to only one conclusion: this is an anti-American budget. It is treason.

I sincerely hope that signing onto this budget will be the equivalent of joining the Communist Party during the Cold War - anyone who signed this treasonous budget should be hounded out of public life, and anyone who even expressed words of support, or even words that weren't strict condemnation, should be regarded with high suspicion for the rest of their political careers. I hope that in the Presidential campaign of 2028, the Democratic candidate will be able to say to the Republican candidate, "We have documentation of an e-mail you wrote as a young lawyer in 2009 which expressed an ambivalent, arguably even mildly approving, attitude toward the Republican Treason Budget of 2009. How can we trust you after you were a fellow traveler with those nihilists?" And the Republican is forced to apologize for his conduct, and repudiate and denounce any and all support from anyone associated with the 2009 Republican Party leadership.