Change I Can Believe In

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) is pushing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to take a harder line with the Senate after a trio of Republican senators forced Congress to trim billions from the $787 billion economic stimulus package.

It’s not clear how far Pelosi is willing to go in standing up to the Senate — or, realistically, what effect Hoyer and Pelosi combined could have in the face of the 60-vote hurdle Senate Democrats face.

But after last week’s stimulus votes, Hoyer called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to force Senate Republicans to mount actual filibusters if they want to stand in the way of bills “so that the American people can see who’s undermining action.”

And in a private conversation with Pelosi, aides say Hoyer reminded the speaker that they’d talked previously about tolerating Senate strong-arming on the stimulus and on children’s health insurance — two Democratic priorities — but then holding their own on future legislation.

It is about time you make these motherfuckers put on their their adult diapers and read the dictionary on the Senate floor. You don't have to take the filibuster away, as the Republicans threatened to do, you make them go up there and filibuster health care reform. Quit letting them poison your priorities without having to get on the TV obstructing legislation.

We've got your backs.

Surprise.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill.—Sen. Roland Burris admitted Saturday that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother asked him for a campaign contribution before the governor appointed Burris to the Senate.

The disclosure is at odds with Burris' testimony in January when an Illinois House impeachment committee specifically asked if he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich or other aides to the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

Burris issued a statement Saturday saying he voluntarily gave the committee a Feb. 4 affidavit disclosing the contact with Robert Blagojevich because "there were several facts that I was not given the opportunity to make during my testimony to the impeachment committee."

Poor Arlen

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama's stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences.

"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"

Another casualty of the South rising again, otherwise known as "what hath conservatives wrought."

To sum up, the entire stimulus bill has been junked by Republicans, of whom, Obama has received 0 votes from the House, and presumably 3 votes in the Senate.

Statesmanship, indeed.

Next time, make these motherfuckers filibuster.

$650 billion.

That's how much it's going to cost you for Obama to learn his lesson about bipartisanship.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel conceded President Barack Obama and his team lost control of the message for selling their massive stimulus bill last week, fixating on bipartisanship while Republicans were savaging the legislation.

Assuming any kind of stimulus could help at this point, the stimulus bill appears to be a wasted opportunity. In the end, only about $150 billion would go towards infrastructure projects which would be the best use of stimulus funds. It isn't that the other $650 billion or so was absolutely wasteful--the vast majority of it will be spent on good things. However, with the concessions and tax cuts gained by the Republicans, who will still vote nay, I'm afraid we're left with a spending bill which, in addition to not doing nearly enough to make up for consumer spending in any meaningful way, will also do very little to make it easier to pay back the money.

So the question is, was there a real opportunity to pick up bipartisan support that Obama and the democrats completely flubbed, or was every concession in the process only doomed to weaken the stimulative effects of the bill?

Appearing on CNBC the day after he abruptly withdrew his nomination for Commerce Secretary, Sen. Judd Gregg made a rather blunt admission about the partisan intransigence that the Obama administration is forced to deal with.

From the transcript:

Carl Quintanilla: Well, Senator, since you were nominated it's become quite clear that the margin that the president is going to rely on in the Senate has come down to really three Senators."

Sen. Gregg: I think it's always been that margin.

The point Sen. Gregg seems to be making, is that, no matter what, Obama was never going to get any of the 38 Republican votes he was seeking.

This leads to an important question: if the Republicans had no intention on voting for the bill, no matter what it contained, what was the point in bringing them into the legislative process at all? What Gregg is saying is, and what Limbaugh has emphatically stated, is that the Republicans' only interest is that the Democratic agenda fails, regardless of its intention, or regardless to the interests of the American people.

For the sake of being charitable, allow me to posit that it would seem unfair to say that Republicans value partisan advantage over national interest. After all, would not partisan opposition to a party, whom you believe are not acting in the national interest, be in the national interest?

I would accept this theory, had I not considered their record of governance.

While enjoying a comfortable majority in Congress and the Supreme Court, and with control of the executive, Republicans should have balanced the budget, cut government spending, in particular, cut entitlement programs like social security and medicare, given states more latitude to adopt their own policies, increased individual freedom, repealed gun control legislation, and worked to outlaw gay marriage and abortion. In short, accomplish their agenda.

In fact, we see that Republicans have done none of these things. They do not seem to be interested in enacting their own agenda, let alone that of the opposition's.

Therefore, since they do not seem interested in advancing what they believe to advance the national interest, can we not conclude, then, that their entire philosophy is maintaining partisan advantage?

Health Care Reform

Just read Krugman's column from Jan. 29, Health Care Now.

I can't argue with him about the economics of it. I'd love single payer yesterday.

He mentions why the entire column is shit in this paragraph:

Finally — and this is, I suspect, the real reason for the administration’s health care silence — there’s the political argument that this is a bad time to be pushing fundamental health care reform, because the nation’s attention is focused on the economic crisis. But if history is any guide, this argument is precisely wrong.

Maybe. It's still wrong to bring it up now. I'm not sure how you can make the argument that Obama is not doing enough with the stimulus and then turn around in the next column and say that he should immediately work to implement a hugely complex social spending program.

First, if you tip the Republicans off to your hand now, before the stimulus is done, you make Harry Reid's job even more difficult than it is right now. And the man has a hard time meeting minimum expectations as it is.

Second, you need to give Obama time to catch his breath. How about we get an HHS secretary who can take some of the responsibility for selling this to Congress? Can we upgrade the White House computers to XP? In the meantime, let him get some easy bipartisan wins on stupid shit. Everybody has to get to know each other, like it or not. If you start out clubbing baby Republicans with the baseball bats too soon out the gate, they will hate you and obstruct everything for the next two years. I know, they already hate you. But they will hate you so much more. Shock and Awe will not work with these people. Obama will need some quick wins, learning how to work with these assholes on stuff they really don't care about but will go to the mattresses on. Gays in the military--stuff that helps America without spending a lot more money on government stuff would be nice.

Third, if the stimulus does nothing, and I have a feeling it will underachieve in a spectacular way, then you're left with two potential whammies. One, the market will crash right in the middle of the health care debate, and two, the spectre of having to raise taxes to pay for all of this shit exactly when the economy starts to improve--not when you wanted the stimulus to do it, but when it naturally recovers, if it recovers, years and years later, you would effectively kill the momentum of the recovery.

Fourth, I think you gain momentum for universal health care when the unemployment rate start creeping up and more and more people are taking the status of their employment a lot more seriously than they are right now. I think we're in for a bad first half of the year. This will do little to decrease public support for something like universal health care.

Fifth, the benefits of universal health care will be immediate, and will greatly improve millions of Americans' quality of life. What Krugman is advocating is a simultaneous left and right. I'm in favor of a one-two punch. I really want to land both squarely on the jaw of one of the most pressing problems our country faces, as powerfully as we possibly can. Can't do that if your feet aren't set.

Does universal health care help strengthen the economy? Absolutely, I think it does. Is it the right thing to do? Yessir. Do I want to stomp Republicans whenever I get a chance? Fucking A. Is this the most absolutely worst time to bring it up? Goddamn right it is.

I almost posted this yesterday,

but I did not want to admit the defeat of the western economy. Presumably out of self interest.

For those of us who have been following the stimulus progress, I think we realized today that it's over. Congress is unwilling to provide the economy what it needs to stop the free fall.

And there is nothing anybody is going to be able to do to stop it once its gets rolling, and oh brother, it hasn't even started yet. You will know it's started when the market rallies the second time after this piece of shit bill passes. The first will be the sucker euphoria, the second rally will be the vultures, the shorts, covering. And then I do not see a floor.

If you haven't already, immediately start putting away six months worth of living expenses into your savings. Assume high energy prices.

Dear reader, good luck. You will need it.

If you prefer to go out swinging, call, do not e-mail, your senators. http://www.senate.gov

We are that close, and it is that dire. And it appears that finally Obama is getting it.

I've told you, I tell you, and will continue to tell you that the enormity of the problem--and the enormity of the only logical solution--is almost incomprehensibly awesome.

There has been a vacuum of leadership that Obama, for whatever reason, has been unwilling to rightfully step into.

Congressional democratic leadership are mindless, soulless puppets of no discernible vision. They display the leadership instincts of sheep, who have been successfully played and shepherded by the inept Republican bumblers who have just had their asses handed to them in an electoral rout not seen in decades--consider the height of the Republican House advantage in the 1990s: 24 votes, which they achieved in 1994. The Democrats in the house currently have a 77 vote edge.

In the two years they have been in power, they have not made one decisive stand for the interests of the United States of America. Not one. Obama has wrongly allowed them the opportunity to show their meddle on an issue of such importance.

Give them a microphone and they will dribble platitudes of no consequence from their worthless mouths. They speak of generalities and the need for decorum and forbearance and restraint. Feeble in mind and adverse of the slightest risk, they cede initiative to shadows.

They do themselves, their party, the American people, and the Constitution a disservice.

This farce needs to end. I believe in the separation of powers of government. I believe in the ability to find bipartisan solutions to common problems. I believe in compromise. And I sure as fuck do not believe in the superiority of the theory of the unitary executive.

But Obama is going to have to kick them in the ass. Very, very hard. And make them do his bidding. I believe this not because the President should, but until we have a change in leadership, the President must.

There are no words to describe the current bill as anything other than a shameful, hopeless, tragic farce of deliberative politics. This is not American government at its finest hour, and we do not have the ability to wait for Congressional statesmanship to show up. The President must kill this bill right now, submit a new one mindful of introductory fucking macroeconomics, and inflict as much pain on Democrats as possible to pass. the. bill.

Don't Have the Votes

Oh for fuck's sake (a phrase which is clearly becoming the number #1 alternative name for this blog).

Democrats do not have the votes in the Senate for cloture on the stimulus bill.

Which means more tax breaks for Paris Hilton.

I actually heard about a pretty good proposal from the Republicans. The focus is on housing, and specifically extending and expanding the current $7,500 tax credit for first time homeowners, as well as moves to help lower interest rates, with a target of 4%. Practical ideas, surely, that I can support.

Obviously it's better than handing out money to ever goddamn government program that Democrats have tacked onto the bill, I guess for new copiers and clerical temps or whatever else that money is supposed to be spent on to "stimulate" the economy. Once you're out of infrastructure ideas, guys, stop spending. I've alluded to this before--not enough spending is worse than spending too much, but you absolutely cannot throw the money away. It will rob you of future economic growth. Free condoms and 26 more weeks of unemployment are good things, I think, but not in a stimulus bill.

Tax "relief" is, again, retarded, and the inability for Republicans to understand this is frustrating. However, providing carrot and stick incentives using tax credits to temporarily (& artificially) floor housing prices is a good way to staunch the bleeding, provided the band-aid sticks.

The proposal cannot stand on its own. It will have to work with a variety of other programs that target other sectors of the economy, that are designed to get people back to work and keep them there. Otherwise you're just attracting more suckers, adding more foreclosures 12 months from now, plus or minus a percentage or two, as more and more suckers lose their jobs. There's a big difference between delaying the inevitable and retooling your economy to become less reliant on the magical ability of housing to make everyone rich.

It's a stimulus bill, not a Christmas list, of which not a penny will be paid from 2009 tax receipts. In other words, Democrats are going to have to grow up, and not support spending on social programs that do not stimulate the economy. Separate bills are needed for that stuff.

I have to say I chafe a little at the idea that initiative for smart spending comes from R's and not D's, but it in no way diminishes my support. It's a good idea.

60.

Josh Marshall just made my day.

Political Capital Stimulus Spending

The stimulus sucks. I hate the House bill. Maybe the Senate one will do better, and since they both have to be reconciled to each other, maybe we'll be surprised by the political alchemy. I hate the Senate more than I hate the House, so you have no idea how much it chafes me to write this.

The current form of the "stimulus" is a complete waste of money. The tax cuts are just fucking stupid. A lot of the Democratic initiatives in the bill are fucking stupid, too. As far as I can tell, most of the spending is in the form of political caricature. Hundreds of billions going toward idiotic Republican tax cuts, and more hundreds on retarded government programs, with very little stimulative spending, with a large chunk going to states simply to keep them solvent, I suppose.

$42 billion, total, for transportation infrastructure development and expansion, outside of the state funding, which as far as I know does not have any sort of provision that would force states to augment this with their cut. Killing me here. Telecommunication and transportation projects should be half the entire stimulus, and instead we're talking about 5%? The proportion of junk/good stuff should look like the exact opposite of what we're getting from the House. I don't understand the necessity for that.

I'm sniffing a strategy here, and if I'm wrong, I will totally own up to simply being an apologist for Dems. I think that's fair, but I will defend myself by saying I don't agree with the strategy.

Let's say the economy can handle $400 b investment of infrastructure over the next two years. We just passed an $850 b or so bill which accomplishes very little to this end. So, best case scenario, the Senate axes $600 b of the stupid shit, gets a much smaller number, and is publicly prodded to double the stimulus specifically for infrastructure back up to that usable $400 b.

If it goes down like this, Republicans say they blocked the most egregious Democratic spending, Democrats get to say they blocked more Republican tax cuts for the wealthy, and both sides get credit for the robust infrastructure money. Republicans win because people think they are a strong opposition party asserting conservative values, Democrats win because people think they are an effective majority party with liberal bona fides, and Obama wins a victory for bipartisanship.

(He'll need all he can get when they eventually have to nationalize the banks in the Swedish model sometime this year. I don't think there's enough job creation out there that will buoy home prices, so I think this nationalization event is inevitable. This will probably be the big story out of this mess, so obviously it deserves treatment later on. )

The problem, as I see it, both in reality and in my pet theory, is that they started out with far too little of the easy win stuff. $42 billion for transportation? Don't get this at all. My only guess is that the $30 b in highway stimulus funding is probably the cap on smart spending in this area, but that seems low. If only there was a very likable Republican as the Transportation Secretary that could sell appropriations committees on the benefits of more investment in rail and other transit. With the construction industry taking such a hard hit, it would make sense to me to spend more money building shit, so I hope we're looking at more than transportation.

I'm almost 90% sure I'm giving all of the players in this too much credit, though it is my hope that I haven't shot too far. It's far too early to tell what the result will be, and I think there will be errors in judgment, but I really do think there's a plan here that will be evident later--Goddamn I hope there is, anyway.

This is here and now, though, and when we get to the other side of this mess, I don't think this bill will be much of a factor in the history of the recovery.

Follow-Up to "Infuriating"

This will probably come as quite a shock to you, but even as I wrote that the Republicans were doing their best to water down the stimulus bill in the house, I knew they would never vote for it.

And not a single one did.

So I just wanted to say here, "I told you so," because I told you so.

It's just as easy, if not easier, to show you how this will work in the Senate.

Junior Senator.

As I'm sure you've heard by now, Roland Burris was sworn in Thursday by Vice President Motherfucker as senator of the state of Illinois.

I have nothing against Roland Burris, a man who is qualified to be senator, at least in terms of what the establishment defines as "qualified." This definition, as far as I understand it, means he has gotten far enough in politics to owe people.

Ostensibly, although he is in some sense a product of it, he is relatively untarnished by the governor's corruption, and has served in Illinois government long enough to have learned his craft. In other words, he has the resume to be a senator. It isn't too big of stretch to assume he will be an extremely reliable vote for Obama's agenda for the remainder of the term. I would feel easier about him though if the problems we face today could be solved within two years.

The obvious strategy for Republicans between now and the midterm elections will be to obstruct as much legislation as they possibly can. This is not an ideological thing, this is political strategy.* The reality is that Republicans will win when Democrats fail to do. And it is painfully obvious to me that Congressional Democrats, particularly in the Senate, will fail to perform at a level requisite to the crisis. Regardless of Obama's success in getting his policies enacted into legislation (and I think he will do quite well considering what he has to work with in the Capitol), the national mood towards Congress will as sour as it is at present. This puts all Democrats up for re-election in 2010 at a genuine disadvantage. I think Burris will have a tougher slog than most.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Illinois political landscape, on a level playing field, a serious Republican challenger can defeat a sitting Democratic senator in Illinois. Approximately 8 million people live in the Chicago area, and another 8 million live downstate. Illinois without Chicago is Indiana, and more closely resembles Kentucky the farther south you drive on I-55. It votes almost exclusively Republican outside of the Loop. In other words, a Republican other than Alan Keyes or a man who forces his incredibly hot wife to perform public sex acts in European swingers clubs can overwhelmingly win most of downstate Illinois and suburban Chicago (and I am almost sure that if there had been a videotape, Ryan possibly could have survived the scandal). If Democratic voters' confidence and enthusiasm wanes by 2010, which I think is a certainty, the reduced effectiveness of the Chicago machine could make this a very tight race, and this is without taking into consideration Burris' character.

Which brings me to his unique vulnerabilities. The small amount I currently know about him, I do not like. I think he is in many ways a charming person--he has a certain underdog sense about him, but his personality strikes me as more of a vain and crafty old codger than a serious statesman. This is solely my first impression of him, and if I am in any way representative of downstate Illinois voters, this means even if he were given the benefit of the doubt in regard to gaining the appointment, he is already in a hole. Nobody on either side seriously considers that Burris did anything improper to be appointed. It is clear why he was offered the seat, and why he took it, and that why will be open game. While Republicans might have better trump cards to play, his ego will certainly be an issue in the campaign.

If I could advise Senator Burris, I would tell him that he will have to define himself, and soon, as an elder statesman, and not an egotistic microphone seeker (which, admittedly, is a fine distinction for a senator). He will have to show not only a real grasp of the complexity of the issues we face, but also an approach to handling these issues in a way in which the voters of Illinois can identify. Right now, all I know about him is that he was appointed to his seat by a crook, and has a tacky monument to his political career already erected at his grave site, with enough room left to catalog this latest position. And nothing he has said since his appointment has led me to believe he accepted it except to further his own ambitions.

If he is unable to redefine himself, he will be extremely vulnerable to the inevitable character assassination and guilt by association techniques the Republican candidate will no doubt employ against him.

I am not sure that a man who appears to feel entitled to his seat by virtue of his awesomeness, in a time where we could be experiencing a very tough economy, hamstrung by high gas prices, the unfolding of any of numerous negative scenarios being played out in the Middle East in the wake of the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and an escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan, record deficit spending, and a general disdain for Congress by the public, can hold onto a seat the people of Illinois have never elected him to serve in. If there are any skeletons in his closet, if there is any evidence of corruption or impropriety, he will most certainly lose it.


* It is a cynical strategy, but this does not make it less effective. The willingness of the Republican party to fuck the country over for their own gain, combined with its uncanny ability to get away with it, has been proven by preponderance of fact.