But…but…this goes against the Republican narrative!

American Jobs Act — Final

There really aren’t any controversial elements in here at all. Yes, Republicans are going to push back on any additional spending, but it’ll be hard for them to break this apart and only get the tax cuts through. So it’ll be up to them to go all or nothing. And that’s a risky move right now.

More as it develops…

In my opinion, any company that opposes net neutrality is nuts. Because what they’re proposing is treating different web sites as if they were cable channels. That means they could make you pay more to visit sites that aren’t in their approved list of preferred sites.

Newsflash…give me 2 minutes and I can create a website. The Internet isn’t cable. Why Verizon and others think it should be treated as such isn’t hard to figure out…they’re greedy. And that’s fine. Fight that fight. But they’re wrong and will not win this fight. So I don’t even know why they’re trying to challenge it.

Here’s more from Politico:

“Today’s filing is the result of a careful review of the FCC’s order,” Michael Glover, a Verizon lawyer, said in a statement.

“We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself,” he said. “We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.”

Let’s parse this. Verizon wants to limit which sites you can visit…so they can charge you more money. On the other end of the spectrum…the government wants to make sure they can’t do that so you can visit the BILLIONS of websites that exist. That’s very different than the HUNDREDS of cable channels.

Understandably, Republicans praised Verizon’s decision to actually regulate and limit the internet…even when they’re claiming that the FCC is doing it…

“We welcome the decision by Verizon, and hopefully others … to block the FCC’s misguided attempt to regulate the Internet,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in a joint statement with Reps. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.) “Between our legislative efforts and this court action, we will put the FCC back on firmer ground.”

Seriously, this is absolutely crazy. Net Neutrality is a no-brainer for consumers. This is such a bad move by Repubs. Oh well.

Republicans said they were going to do it…and so they did. And 3 Democrats joined them.

From The Hill:

The House voted on Wednesday to repeal the sweeping healthcare law enacted last year, as Republicans made good on a central campaign pledge and laid down the first major policy marker of their new majority.

The party-line vote was 245-189, as three Democrats joined all 242 Republicans in supporting repeal.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the healthcare law on the books would increase spending, raise taxes and eliminate jobs.

This is the same House that barely passed this legislation last year roughly around the same time (March 2010). That vote was 219-212. In November 2010 it was 220-215.

What a difference an election makes.

Still, this is just a symbolic vote. The Senate won’t pass this so it’ll die.

More as it develops…

It’s pretty simple. No guns within 1000 feet of a federal politician. This means that those folks who feel the need to exercise their 2nd amendment rights won’t be allowed into political rallies any more.

Good.

The National Review asks King some leading questions…

King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, acknowledges that his legislation, if it had been on the books, might not have prevented the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D., Ariz.) and others. “Maybe not in this case, but in others it could be prevention,” he argues.

“It would be helpful to the extent that if the police saw him with a bulge in his pocket or saw him touching his pocket or rubbing his jacket, it could raise their suspicion. Then they could go over, and if he had [a gun], they could make him leave,” King says. “But do I expect someone like [Jared Lee Loughner] to follow the law? Absolutely not.”

What about a situation where a gun is fully concealed and law-enforcement officials are unable to spot anything suspicious? “In that case, then this wouldn’t work, but there can be cases where it will. Would it work in five percent of cases? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Thirty percent? I don’t know, but I do believe it would certainly work in some instances. I don’t see the downside.”

Yes, National Review…people are sneaky and break laws. But some common sense measures can be put into place to possibly stop similar things from happening again. Laws are designed to act as a deterrent, not a cure all. If somebody wants to do something crazy, they will.

Still, they go on to cite the gun owner who could have…possibly…maybe taken Loughner out as an example of why you’d want armed citizens near public officials…

In Tucson, onlooker Joe Zamudio was armed when he witnessed the developing scene in the parking lot. Zamudio, within seconds, had his hand on his gun, ready to shoot, in case Loughner was not subdued. Does King think citizens have the right to be armed, and respond, during unexpected violent outbursts in public?

Note the framing of the question there. It turns from having a gun near a politician to a broader “do citizens have the right to be armed and respond to violent outbursts in public?” Of course they do, but can their be exceptions? Yes. Take the First Amendment. Yes, you have the right to be a complete ass if you want, but the moment you start to defame or libel somebody…guess what? That ain’t free speech. Also, you can’t incite violence or panic with your speech…or plan a crime…or any number of other things.

Also, there’s a reason we have cops. Sure, in the absence of security it may be better to have armed citizens there, but the problem there is you have no idea if they’re trained or not. And maybe it’s just me, but that’s a big reason why I hate conceal and carry laws. How do I know the guy who’s carrying a gun is a) responsible, b) mentally stable and c) a good aim?

One other thing detail that should be highlighted…that armed Arizonian wouldn’t have stopped Loughner either. Only more gun control that would have prevented Loughner from easily obtaining a firearm and bullets would have. Of course nobody wants to talk about that.

King responds appropriately…

“It’s more helpful if you had security in the area,” King replies. “If something did start, and police were firing, I would not want a civilian firing at the same time. When we balance the equities, I’m saying there is a greater good to be obtained by keeping weapons out of that thousand-foot zone.”

The greater good? What’s that?

If the President gets protection against threats on his life, the same should go for elected officials and government appointees.

From CNN:

Washington (CNN) – Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pennsylvania, said he will introduce legislation making it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.

Brady’s decision to offer the legislation comes less than 24 hours after a gunman attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, in a shooting that claimed the lives of a federal judge, and a nine year-old girl, among others.

“The president is a federal official,” Brady said in a telephone interview with CNN. “You can’t do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge.

Honestly, I’m surprised that this doesn’t already exist. And it’s truly unfortunate that a tragedy like this had to bring it about.

Let’s just hope it’s bipartisan when the vote comes up.

After the self-described “shellacking” Obama and the Dems got in November, the turnaround in this lame duck session has been nothing short of extraordinary. 5 major pieces of legislation were passed during a time when nothing usually gets done. And all of it was bipartisan in one form or another.

Let’s run down what they were able to accomplish in this lame duck session.

• Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The moderate Clinton wanted to repeal, without doing the studies, so he had to make this compromise. This was one of Obama’s key campaign promises and he delivered a huge civil rights victory. At the same time he made John McCain look like a liar for saying he would support it if the studies showed a repeal would do very little harm to our military. They did, and he still didn’t back it. Oh well.
• Extension of Tax Cuts. Plus Obama got a new payroll tax holiday and new write-off rules for businesses that could generate a ton of new investment in every sector of the economy. A lot of Dems didn’t like that tax cuts were being extended for the rich (income and estate), but they were able to get unemployment insurance extended in a time when we need to make sure that money doesn’t dry up. Not only that, polls showed that a large majority didn’t favor extending the tax cuts for the wealthy, so the national/independent mood was right in line with where Obama was at. Trust that this will be used against Repubs in the coming years as they try to slash federal programs…while still trying to maintain those tax cuts. If they were smart, they’d let them expire in 2012.
• Ratification of the START Treaty. No small feat since Repubs had the votes to strike this one down, but ultimately their hand was forced when some Republicans started jumping ship and siding with Dems. Why? Because the treaty is solid and the reasons Repubs were going to vote against were very thin.
• Passing the 9/11 health bill. The administration owes Jon Stewart a big thanks for dedicating an entire program to this topic and putting it back on the media’s radar. Why Republicans voted against it in the first place is beyond me. Well, I know the reasons they cited…like saying it was a slush fund for special interests groups. Sure, if it were a massive health care bill for ALL first responders, that would have been understandable, but Repubs really overreached and made a huge strategic error.
• New Food Safety Bill. In much the same way the financial regulation legislation passed earlier this year was the most substantive since The Great Depression, so too was this. And it helped local farmers at the same time. Basically, big Agra needs to be more accountable and the FDA can demand recalls. Right now they have to rely on producers to do it. Local farmers are not subject to these new regulations and that’s sure to drive more competition for the increasingly local/sustainable markets.

All of this begs a couple questions. 1) Did the election really diminish Obama? 2) Or has it helped him quickly move back towards the center to capture the spirit of his presidential campaign as we head a season where he’s sure to get attacked by GOP hopefuls?

What do you think?

Last week, Arizona Senator and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl came together with other members of the GOP and passed a non-binding resolution that called a sweeping moratorium on earmarks.

And this week…

Well…

Only three days after GOP senators and senators-elect renounced earmarks, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, got himself a whopping $200 million to settle an Arizona Indian tribe’s water rights claim against the government.

Kyl slipped the measure into a larger bill sought by President Barack Obama and passed by the Senate on Friday to settle claims by black farmers and American Indians against the federal government. Kyl’s office insists the measure is not an earmark, and the House didn’t deem it one when it considered a version earlier this year. [...]

The money for the 15,000-member White Mountain Apache Tribe was one of four tribal water rights claims totaling almost $570 million that was added to the $5 billion-plus bill. Black farmers will get about $1.2 billion to settle claims that the Agriculture Department’s local offices discriminated against them in awarding loans and other aid. Another $3.4 billion goes to American Indians who say the Interior Department swindled them out of oil, gas and other royalties.

No, those aren’t earmarks. They’re not requests from a single Senator for a very particular project that will only benefit his state. Not at all.

Cue the laugh track…

Looks like the new batch of Republicans are already signaling that they’ll refuse to raise the debt ceiling… even though John Boehner is telling them they must.

From WSJ:

[...] on Thursday, Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) said he’s been talking to the newly elected GOP lawmakers about the need to raise the federal debt ceiling when it comes up early next year.

“I’ve made it pretty clear to them that as we get into next year, it’s pretty clear that Congress is going to have to deal with this,” Mr. Boehner, who is slated to become House speaker in January, told reporters.

“We’re going to have to deal with it as adults,” he said, in what apparently are his most explicit comments to date. “Whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations and we have obligations on our part.”

Why is this so important?

If an increase in the current debt limit of $14.3 trillion does not pass, it would suggest the country may not meet its obligations and would shake the financial system. It could rock the bond market, rattle the dollar and scare away foreign buyers of U.S. debt.

It’s one thing to win an election with a lot of incendiary rhetoric. It’s another thing to actually get things done. And it appears that the new members of the GOP are determined to make obstructionism their bread and butter.

Here’s a taste of what some said during their campaigns…

The campaign of Rep.-elect Kristi Noem (R., S.D.) attacked Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin for voting to raise the debt limit. Rep.-elect Tim Scott (R., S.C.), who like Ms. Noem is joining the House Republican leadership, reiterated Friday that he wouldn’t vote to raise the ceiling.

In February, Republican Reid Ribble blasted Rep. Steve Kagen (D., Wis.), whom he defeated, for voting to increase the debt limit, calling it “unconscionable” and “insane.” He added, “Congressman Kagen is on notice that the people of northeastern Wisconsin are watching and we are outraged.”

Similarly, Rep.-elect Steve Stivers (R., Ohio) blasted Democratic Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy for voting to raise the debt ceiling. “That shows a reckless desire to spend money we don’t have, and borrow money we can’t afford to pay back,” he said.

Rep.-elect Lou Barletta (R., Pa.) cited the raising of the debt limit during the campaign in saying that “Congress and the president are spending our country into servitude.”

So what’s the solution? Well, at least one GOPer is floating the idea of tying a debt ceiling vote to repeal of some of the recent health care legislation. Since we all know that won’t happen…what’s next? Conditional on extension of the Bush tax cuts? Again, seems like a loser when it comes to public perception of not wanting to raise our debt and yet approving unfunded tax cuts for very wealthy people.

What do you think the solution is going to be?

Ezra Klein throws it out there, and I could see it working.

From Wash Post:

On Feb. 5, 2011, the president signed the Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction Act of 2011 into law. The legislation lifted the employer-portion of the payroll tax for a year, approved more than $50 billion in infrastructure investments, and cut the deficit. The markets cheered the move, and employers, realizing that consumers were about to have more money in their pockets and that hiring new employees had suddenly become a bargain, quickly moved to expand their labor forces. It was a coup not just for the president, but for the new speaker of the House.

Six days after the 2010 election, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell were invited to the White House to meet with President Obama. When they got there, they found Obama and Pete Rouse sitting at a table with a single piece of paper in front of them. It was a clipping of Gov. Mitch Daniels’s September op-ed proposing a conservative stimulus plan. “Congratulations on your win last week,” said the president. “You really thumped us. What do you think of this?”

Frankly, this is the type of bi-partisan legislation that makes sense…but I doubt Republicans in the House (especially the Tea Party crew) will want to work on any legislation that appears as if they’re spending money. Because let’s remember, they derided legislation to help the unemployed that was paid for by spending cuts and would have reduced the budget deficit (according to the CBO). If that’s the case, any agreement on bills like the above are doubtful.

Proponents and opponents of gay marriage, the end is nigh.

The ruling today was a thing of beauty, not just because Prop 8 was overturned, but because the language in the decision basically positions Gay Americans as equal to every other American in every single way.

And, the cherry on top of the judicial sundae? A Republican appointed judge wrote a lengthy repudiation of every single conservative talking point against gay marriage.

Why? Because the defense didn’t present any compelling reasons why Gay Americans should be denied marriage rights. In fact, in many cases during the trial they had to admit that gay marriage has absolutely no effect on straight marriage.

More from ABC:

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in a 136-page decision. “Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.” [...]

Lawyers supporting the ballot measure had argued that voters endorsed a “fundamental, definitional feature” of marriage that has historical roots “in this country and, almost without exception, in every civilized society that has ever existed.”

But Walker found the plaintiffs in the case — one lesbian and one gay couple — demonstrated by “overwhelming evidence” that Proposition 8 violates their rights to due process and equal protection under the Constitution.

“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples,” wrote Judge Walker.

Now it’s on to the Supreme Court, where it’s extremely likely that the decision will be affirmed…which will then nullify all of the state amendments that define marriage should strictly be between a man and a woman.

Long story short, it’s a good day for all Americans in the long run, even though many don’t think so today.

Please leave your thoughts below.

As this issue becomes less politicized, more folks seem to warm to the legislation.

Wait…what???

To me this is encouraging. Of course, we all know there are problems with the legislation that passed, but I think we can also collectively agree that the current system is completely unsustainable. So some type of fix had to be made, and Obama made his move.

Personally, I didn’t think it was smart politically, but I respect that he was able to at least draw some support from the other side of the aisle wit the compromises he made. After all, politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal.

Here’s more from Wash Post:

Opposition to the landmark health care overhaul declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday.

Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent a month ago, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The approval level was the highest for the legislation since it was enacted in March, after a divisive year-long debate. In April, the poll found 46 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed.

But wait…what do independents think?

Well, they’re more in favor than they were…

Independents, who can tip the balance in elections, split 48 percent to 37 percent in favor, compared with 49 percent to 41 percent a month earlier.

However…

The intensity of opinion among this group showed little change; just less than a fifth expressed a very favorable view, and just more than a quarter expressed a very unfavorable view.

So some in the middle have switched to the undecided column. That’s net win for Obama and Dems, regardless of the unfavorable view.

And that begs the big question: do we really think that Republicans can run on “Repeal It!” this year or in 2012?

I think not.

What do you think?

Republican lawmakers Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe jumped on board to give Dems the votes they needed to pass a sweeping financial reform law. Susan Collins had previously committed to supporting the bill.

And one has to wonder, after reading what’s in the legislation…why are Republicans opposing this?

From The Hill:

The legislation aims to prevent future taxpayer-funded bailouts; would boost regulation over credit cards, mortgages and other products; regulate the $600 trillion derivatives market; and increase oversight of broad financial system risks, among other measures.

So how did the Dems get Brown’s support? Well…

Brown, the Massachusetts Republican who succeeded Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) in January, declared his support for the bill after Democrats removed a provision he had opposed in the conference report that would have levied $19 billion in taxes on financial firms.

Hey, if that’s what it will take to get reforms in place and finally be able to look into the black box that is the derivatives market, so be it.

Still, this really should have been a bipartisan bill. After those taxes were taken off the table, no good reasons remained for not supporting this legislation. So those Republicans are now going to have to answer questions in the fall about why they aren’t supporting anything that is attempting to fix the system they created that broke everything. Good luck with that.

More as it develops…

Really Arizona legislature? Really Governor Jan Brewer? This is the time when you decide to make this switch?

And, from Politico, the text of the bill reads like some of the craziest satire…

“Public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people,” the text of the bill reads.

Haha, so…that legislation you passed several weeks doesn’t teach people to resent other races or classes of people? Hmmm….

Here’s more from this wacky law…

The law prohibits the teaching of any classes that promote “the overthrow of the United States government,” “resentment toward a race or class of people,” “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

Neither the governor nor the bill’s supporters have identified examples where a Chicano studies class has advocated the “overthrow” of the federal government, and the bill’s opponents in the state have expressed outrage over what they see as a law that unfairly targets Hispanics.

Here’s more about the schools that are the target of this bill…

The Tucson Unified School District program offers specialized courses in African-American, Mexican-American and Native-American studies that focus on history and literature and include information about the influence of a particular ethnic group.

For example, in the Mexican-American Studies program, an American history course explores the role of Hispanics in the Vietnam War, and a literature course emphasizes Latino authors.

So then…how many of you have taken ethnic studies classes in college? Remember them? If so, remember how they were EXACTLY like what’s described in the above quoted passage? If not, please tell me, but that’s what I remember.

But now we find the real reason why this is happening…political opportunism…

[State schools chief Tom] Horne, a Republican running for attorney general, said the program promotes “ethnic chauvinism” and racial resentment toward whites while segregating students by race. He’s been trying to restrict it ever since he learned that Hispanic civil rights activist Dolores Huerta told students in 2006 that “Republicans hate Latinos.”

Really? You’re going to not only get offended but also quote a civil rights activist?

Another question…it seems like the only schools affected are in Tucson, but obviously bills have broader implications once passed. What about the universities? Are they prohibited from teaching Chicano studies or Black studies classes?

The answer is no, not at all. In fact, apparently no ethnic studies classes at all will be affected in any way whatsoever…

The measure doesn’t prohibit classes that teach about the history of a particular ethnic group, as long as the course is open to all students and doesn’t promote ethnic solidarity or resentment.

But hey, thank whatever deity you believe in for laws that solve problems that haven’t even started yet. Whew!

And, by the way, for those of you who have taken any sort of ethnic studies classes…did you ever advocate overthrowing the government or hating people of other races after you took them? Sure, some may build up a healthy disdain for those forefathers and foremothers who violently discriminated against folks just because they were different, but unless “learn to hate people of other races” is in the curriculum, it’s up to the individual to not place the sins of the past on the present’s shoulders.

Of course, you know what might cause hate and resentment towards an ethnic group?

Arizona knows!

And scene…

Heard about this? Well, you will.

Basically, open primaries are where the top two vote getters move on to the general, with the hopeful net result being that Dems and Repubs wouldn’t have to appeal to the more extreme elements of their party to get to the big show.

Here’s more…

So, no more party primaries. And that has folks on both sides up in arms.

Republicans think it would result in general elections where you have Democrat vs Democrat instead of Republicans vs Democrats.

Others are worried that it would mean that whoever spends the most money in the primaries will get the most votes and proceed to the general.

Still others think that this would actually crowd out 3rd parties.

Here’s what the Center for Governmental Studies found in their report…

The Center for Government Studies has issued this 102-page report on California’s Proposition 14, the “top-two” ballot measure on the June 8, 2010 ballot. The study, by Molly Milligan, studies whether Proposition 14 would create more moderate California politicians. The study suggests that the measure would tend to create more moderates in the State Senate.

The study also finds that campaign spending would increase, because many candidates who now have a completely safe primary process would need to spend enough money to win twice before the entire electorate. The study also says, on page 17, in footnote 11, that in the Massachusetts special U.S. Senate election of January 2010, if Massachusetts had used top-two, Scott Brown would not have qualified for the second round. In the real world, Brown won the election.

Finally, the study concludes that there would be a good share of legislative races, and some U.S. House races, in which the November election would be between two Democrats. However, the study does not believe there would be November elections between two Republicans.

So what do you think? A good idea?

The vote is in June.

Finally, bipartisan cooperation!

From CNN:

Washington (CNN) – With midterm elections on the horizon and the nation’s unemployment rate at 9.7 percent, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to block pay raises for members of Congress for the next fiscal year. The vote was 402-15.

Rules approved by Congress in 1989 provide for an automatic yearly cost of living adjustment, also known as a “COLA,” in order to avoid the awkward situation of lawmakers voting to approve their own raises each year.

The current base salary for rank and file House members is $174,000 a year, with leaders earning more. Lawmakers were scheduled to receive a 0.9 percent raise in fiscal year 2011, adding $1600 to the current base salary, according to the Congressional Research Service.

But some want to go even further…and I can’t think of a better piece of legislation to present (when Congressional approval ratings are in the cellar) than additional pay cuts.

From Wash Post:

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.), joined by a bipartisan group of members who face tough reelection races this fall, has called for a 5 percent cut in congressional pay, reducing salaries by $8,700. She cites the example of 1933, when senators and representatives reduced their pay from $9,000 to $8,500 in the midst of the Great Depression. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who championed the pay freeze in the Senate, wants to dump the current system of automatic raises. And Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has called for barring members of Congress from ever getting a raise until the budget is balanced.

Again, all good ideas. I can’t think of many Americans who would object to any of them.

So let’s get them going!

Looks like some Republicans are beginning to line up behind the Dodd legislation. So, lo and behold, compromises can be reached!

From Wash Post:

Key Senate Republicans on Tuesday began to back away from their sharp criticism of proposed new financial regulations and expressed optimism that a bipartisan deal on a bill that would drastically change the way Wall Street operates could emerge in the coming days.

After a week of attacking the proposals as paving the way for new taxpayer “bailouts,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor that he was “heartened to hear that bipartisan talks have resumed in earnest.” Later, after a meeting with fellow Republicans, he told reporters that while he believes that there are still serious flaws in the legislation, “I’m convinced now there is a new element of seriousness attached to this, rather than just trying to score political points. . . . I think that’s a good sign.”

The change in tone came as the Security and Exchange Commission’s lawsuit against Goldman Sachs for allegedly defrauding investors continued to dominate headlines, underscoring public anger at Wall Street and reminding lawmakers of the potential consequences of inaction. In the corridors of the Capitol, members of both parties, as well as a sea of lobbyists from across the financial spectrum, jockeyed to shape key provisions of the wide-ranging legislation before it hits the Senate floor.

Note that last paragraph…Republicans started hearing that being obstructionists on this legislation wouldn’t be a good idea…and so the tone changed. Which is understandable. This is politics after all.

But it’s interesting…Gallup found that when Wall Street is used in polls…support goes up for reform. When it’s not, it drops. So the Goldman Sachs story came at just the right time.

Hmm…

Also, let’s not forget the debate about those pesky derivatives…the financial vehicles that ran us into the ditch in the first place…

Derivatives are contracts that allow financial traders to bet on the direction of the prices of stocks, commodities and other assets. They can also be used by companies to lock in prices for goods, such as oil, cotton and aluminum, that often fluctuate in value. Derivatives account for hundreds of trillions of dollars in deals and were a significant contributor to the financial panic that swept the world in 2008, in part because of a lack of transparency in the market.

The bill advocated by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), chairman of the agriculture panel, calls for banning big Wall Street firms from acting as brokers for commercial companies and financial speculators who want to trade derivatives. Nearly all derivative contracts would be traded in public on exchanges and approved by a separate clearinghouse. Those dealing in derivatives would have to raise money to cover unexpected losses, in case one party to the contract defaults. Lincoln provides some exceptions for agricultural and other commercial companies but still requires them to raise money for trades.

Again, hard to argue with bringing transparency to what was a completely opaque market before. Trillions of dollars can’t be changing hands inside a black box without oversight anymore. The market had its chance to self regulate and it failed…miserably.

More as it develops…

He’s saying it will pass in the next 60 days…

“I’ve had many conversations this week with the president, his chief of staff, and Speaker Pelosi,” Reid said during an appearance Friday evening on “Face to Face with Jon Ralston” in Nevada. “And we’re really trying to move forward on this.”

The majority leader said that while Democrats have a number of options, they would likely use the budget reconciliation process to pass a series of fixes to the first healthcare bill passed by the Senate in November. These changes are needed to secure votes for passage of that original Senate bill in the House.

“We’ll do a relatively small bill to take care of what we’ve already done,” Reid said, affirming that Democrats would use the reconciliation process.

Will it happen?

Well, I have my doubts, but at a certain point the Dems have to put up or shut up and get something done. Maybe something different will happen because of Obama’s health care summit, but I’m thinking that’s likely a tactic by the White House to say, “So all of those ideas that you’re talking about…those are in the bill. Don’t force us to use reconciliation on this…because we will.”

And to that point, I think we all need to take a step back and remember that the bill they have now represents a pretty significant bipartisan compromise. Republicans can talk all they want about not being part of the actual drafting of the legislation, but they were part of the debate from day one. And this reform bill doesn’t include a single, federally controlled public option, but it still cuts the budget deficit significantly over the next decade and it has numerous insurance reforms in it that will help all Americans in some way. And with insurance companies raising their rates like crazy due to people dropping coverage because they’re unemployed, we all know that this needs to happen sooner rather than later.

But I want to talk about reconciliation for a moment…some politicos are calling it unconstitutional, hyperpartisan, etc. Obviously that’s nonsense. Bush used it 6 times during his presidency and somehow Republicans were perfectly fine with it then. And as I’ve done more research into reconciliation and filibusters, a very solid argument can be made that the filibuster is the result of a legislative mistake by the founders…which necessitates reconciliation as the only solution.

From wikipedia…

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate “to move the previous question,” ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated. In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being. Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

So, as you can see, the intention of the founders was not to create a procedural mechanism for eternal debate. No, they screwed up. It happens. They weren’t flawless, even though many on the right deify them as the arbiters of everything that is righteous and good and if they wouldn’t approve, well, it’s just not good for America.

And so, we need the reconciliation process to move things forward so the minority can’t hold up progress with their procedural tricks…especially after a rule was made that filibusters can be carried out without somebody actually having to speak.

More importantly, even though many have argued that reconciliation will be misused on a health care bill…those are the same people who will tout the filibuster as necessary and just. Well, sorry, you can’t have it both ways. It makes no sense that we got to the point where we always needs 60 votes in the Senate to pass something. A majority is all that has been needed in the past and that’s the way it should be now. End of story.

More as it develops…

I don’t want money. I don’t want clothes. I’ll even give up that iPhone I had my eye on. All if this ridiculous crowing from the far left is ignored.

And it’s not just me.

The latest broadside to the “kill the bill/single payer/public option” noise parade comes from Jonathan Chait. Basically, his article reads as such, “Progressives, don’t you realize what just happened? You don’t? Well, wise up dummies.”

From TNR:

The opponents of the bill are full of passionate intensity. The right, of course, is subsumed in rage and paranoia. Conservatives have been joined by fiery liberals like Howard Dean and a slew of left-wing blogs, denouncing the bill as a corporate giveaway and urging its defeat. The attitude closer to the center is more resignation and disappointment. (Frank Rich again: “Though the American left and right don’t agree on much, they are both now coalescing around the suspicion that Obama’s brilliant presidential campaign was as hollow as Tiger [Woods]’s public image.”) The endorsements invariably have a defensive tone—the bill “has some imperfections but is worthy of support,” concludes a New York Times editorial.

At some level, it is possible to understand the roots of liberal frustration. The machinery of Congress has ground away at the health care bill, as it does to almost any bill. But at a broader level, the liberal mood is insane. What has emerged from that machinery is not merely “better than nothing” or “a good start.” It is the most significant American legislative triumph in at least four decades. Why can so few people see that?

Why?

Because it’s easier to dream about the public option being passed through reconciliation, even though it’s likely that was never even procedurally possible. It’s satisfying to think about Dems forcing Republicans to filibuster, even though some moderate Dems and Lieberman were likely to have joined them.

Yes, single payer and the public option may seem better since so many other countries have variations on those themes, but these plans also have problems. Progressives ignore these realities or try to explain them away at every turn.

But don’t listen to me. If you want a reason to support what’s about to pass…look no further than the architect of the public option, who endorses the current legislation.

Chait sums it up…

The New Left rejection of “corporate liberalism” came at what we now regard as the historical apex of American liberalism. At the moment of another historical triumph, liberals are retreating from politics into languor, rage, and other incarnations of anti-politics. One day they may look back upon this time with longing.

Progressives™ – Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory so you don’t have to.

Time and time again during this grand debate, I’ve said that compromise was not only appropriate, but also absolutely necessary if we wanted anything passed. Yes, this legislation is flawed. But all important legislation is. Eventually, we’ll build on this and create something that works for every single American, but for now we’ve got a good start.

Still, what did we hear from the left throughout this process? “You’re not doing enough! This isn’t reform! Give us a public option or give us nothing! Obama is breaking promises!” Perhaps they forgot this during the Bush years, but politics is the art of the possible and a public option wasn’t possible with this Senate. Neither was not having a mandate. Sorry folks. Thems the breaks. And it’s not like the Dems will have a better chance to pass this because it’s likely that Dems will lose their 60 votes next year.

Thankfully, liberals like Ezra Klein get it…

Passing legislation, it turns out, is a long and ugly process. God, is it ugly. The compromises, both with powerful special interests and decisive senators. The trimming of ambitions and the budget gimmicks and the worship of Congressional Budget Office scores. By the end, you’re passing a compromise of a deal of a negotiation of a concession.

But bad a system as it might be, it’s the only one we’ve got. At least for now, this is what victory looks like. The slow, grinding, ineluctable advance of legislation that is quite similar, albeit not identical, to what you began with. It’s not pretty, and it doesn’t necessarily feel like winning is supposed to feel. But this bill will do most of the things supporters hoped it would do: cover about 95 percent of all legal residents, regulate insurers, set up competitive exchanges, pretty much end risk selection, institute a universal structure that we can improve and enhance as the years go on, and vastly reduce both medical and financial risk for families.

It’s been a long time since the legislative system did anything this big, and people have forgotten how awful the victories are. But these are the victories, and if they feel bad to many, they will do good for more. As that comes clearer and clearer, this bill will come to feel more and more like the historic advance it actually is.

And from the right, well, there was basically a consensus early on that defeating the health care bill was more important than being involved in the process. I thought that was foolish, and still do. Sure, they’ll pick up some seats next year, but they weren’t involved in the most important legislation they’ll ever vote on. And all because they wanted to pick up some seats? Not smart.

Let’s see what they voted against:

• Removing lifetime caps on how much care you can get.
• No more denying people insurance based on pre-existing conditions, which has the net effect of making health care a right, not a privilege.
• Insurance companies can’t charge higher premiums based on gender or medical history.
• Subsidization of private health insurance for Americans who make up to 400% of the poverty level.
• Medicaid will be extended to those who make 133% of the poverty level.
• Health insurance exchanges (co-ops) will be established in all 50 states that give people and businesses the opportunity to pool together and force down premiums.
• Antitrust exemptions for health insurance companies are now gone. That means the monopolies that exist all across the country will eventually go away.

That’s a hell of list to oppose. Think that won’t hurt Republicans down the road? I can’t help but think it’ll seriously hamstring them, especially after 2014 when a lot of the reforms kick in.

So, those are some of the realities and the risks. And, at least to me, Americans got one hell of a gift this holiday season with this legislation. Tell me what you think.