Category Archives: Congress

Rahm Goes to the Capitol to Get Pelosi’s Mind Right

27 Saturday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, health care, Obama, Politics, Progressives

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Don’t do it, Nancy. Don’t do it:

“Rahm Emanuel ventured to the Capitol Friday evening to hash out health care strategy with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a White House aide confirmed.

Senior Hill aides speculated to HuffPost that Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, would bring the message that the House must move first, with a pledge from Senate Democrats that they would follow.”

The meeting comes as Democrats are searching for a way to get to the health care finish line, though neither chamber wants to move first. Senate leaders want the House to pass the Senate bill first, after which the Senate would use reconciliation to fix the legislation to the liking of the Senate. House leaders contend that the votes aren’t there for the Senate bill if the upper chamber doesn’t move. The House, after two centuries of watching the Senate lag behind, doesn’t trust that it’ll act.

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

You’re being conned. The Senate wants the Senate bill without the modifications. President Obama wants the Senate bill without the modifications. He only proposed them as bait, next come the switch. And trust me, President Obama is the master of the bait and switch. Just ask those who voted for him in November of ‘08. Ask me, I fell for it. If you go first and pass the Senate bill the promised reconciliation fixes will NEVER happen. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Sincerely,
A victim of OBSS (Obama Bait and Switch Syndrome)

Senate Again Looks for Cover on Patriot Act Extension

24 Wednesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, Politics, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

First they tried to hide it in the so-called “jobs bill.” Now the gutless wonders in the Senate are going to try and pass an extension of the Patriot Act by unanimous consent, meaning they don’t have to go on the record with a vote:

“Senate Democrats are pushing for a short-term extension of key provisions in the Patriot Act as part of a package of must-pass measures…Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is planning to ask for unanimous consent to pass an extension for a host of measures set to expire February 28, according to Senate sources.

The third provision allows the government to apply to a court for surveillance orders involving suspected “lone wolf” terrorists who do not necessarily have ties to a larger organization.”

The large package of bills includes a year-long extension of three provisions of the anti-terrorism law known a the Patriot Act, as well as extensions for expiring tax provisions, including unemployment insurance, COBRA, flood insurance, the law governing the highway trust fund, the federal flood insurance program and a measure governing satellite television signals.

…The first of the three expiring Patriot Act provisions provides the power to seek court orders for roving wiretaps on terrorism suspects who shift their modes of communication. A second allows the government to seek orders from a federal court for “any tangible thing” that is says is related to a terrorism investigation.

More on those expiring provisions:

The first…would allow a secret court to continue to permit “roving wiretaps” without the government identifying who is being targeted, or which specific phone lines or communication devices are to be monitored. What officials must do is assert that the target is an agent of a foreign power or a suspected terrorist.

Under the “lone wolf” statute, the U.S. may target for surveillance non-U.S. persons it believes are engaging in terrorism or are preparing to undertake terrorist activities, whether or not that person can be linked to a foreign power or organization.

Oh, by the way:

“In a September letter to [Senate Judiciary Committee chairman] Pat Leahy assistant attorney general Ronald Weich recommended reauthorization of all three provisions on behalf of the Obama administration.”

“Villain Rotation” in the Senate

24 Wednesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, health care, Obama, Politics, special interests

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I hesitate to even comment on the health care reform charade any more because that’s exactly what it is and has been from the get-go, a charade. But Glenn Greenwald had a piece in Salon yesterday which nailed the situation perfectly. The bottom line is this–there will be no real reform for one reason–those in power don’t want it. Sure they, meaning the president and Democrats in the Senate, want to give the appearance of being for substantial reform, but the fact is they all benefit too much from the status quo. They aren’t about to kill the corporate goose that lays the golden campaign contribution eggs, and especially now that the Supreme Court has allowed corporations, like the insurance industry, to spend unlimited amounts on advertising for and against candidates.

Greenwald cites Sen. Jay Rockefeller as the latest example of what he calls “Villain Rotation.”

“They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.”

From Politics Daily on October 4, 2009:

“Jay Rockefeller has waited a long time for this moment. . . . He’s a longtime advocate of health care for children and the poor — and, as Congress moves toward its moment of truth on health care, perhaps the most earnest, dogged Senate champion of a nationwide public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.

“I will not relent on that. That’s the only way to go,” Rockefeller told me in an interview. “There’s got to be a safe harbor.”

Jay Rockefeller Monday:

“Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. . .

“I don’t think the timing of it is very good,” the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. “I’m probably not going to vote for that.”

Greenwald:

“In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can’t do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor it doesn’t have 60) But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.”  What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing…[B]ack in August the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it).  Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary–finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include?  The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted:  Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?.”

The problem was, and is, that the president and the Democrats in Congress are getting exactly what they wanted to start with. The backroom deal with PhRMA is intact. The individual mandate remains, forcing people to buy from private insurance companies. The president’s plan also raises the subsidies, which shovels taxpayers dollars to the same private companies, which in turn keeps the corporate contributions flowing and away from the Republicans.

If this plan passes, I would suggest buying stock in Aetna, WellPoint, United Health Care, et al. Maybe the dividends will help cover the cost of the premiums.

Bi-Partisan Commissions: A Hiding Place for Gutless Politicians

18 Thursday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, economy, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Generally speaking, bi-partisan commissions are a bad idea, with just a few exceptions. Those being when something is being investigated–such as the 9/11 Commission or the current Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. The debt reduction commission, set to be unveiled today by President Obama, falls into the bad idea category, and for the usual reason.

Bi-partisan commissions are nothing more than a refuge for gutless politicians who are more concerned with the next election than the next generation, and who don’t want to go on the record with votes on controversial issues which might hurt their re-election chances. And there are no issues more controversial than what must be done if we hope to make any serious attempt at reducing the national debt. And I don’t mean re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic with so-called “spending freezes” on areas of the budget which amount to less than 20% of all spending.

Serious debt reduction has to take on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which together make up about 40% of the budget. And for the two biggest expenditures–Social Security and Medicare– there are only 3 options–raise taxes, reduce benefits, or raise the eligibility age.

Serious debt reduction has to cut spending across the board, no exceptions and no exclusions, including the Pentagon. The 2009 budget for the Department of Defense was north of $700 billion, which is roughly equivalent to the rest of the world’s military spending combined.

Serious debt reduction has to include tax increases. We, as a country, have been living on a credit card for the last 30 years–it’s time to start paying the bill.

Tough decisions all, and decisions we pay members of Congress to make, not shove off on “bi-partisan commissions” with no authority to do anything other than make recommendations.

Hypocrite of the Day: Chuck Schumer

18 Thursday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, lobbyists, Politics, special interests, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-Wall Street), responding to a Washington Post—ABC News poll in which 8 out of 10 of those questioned said they disapprove of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign advertising:

“If there’s one thing that Americans from the left, right and center can all agree on, it’s that they don’t want more special interests in our politics.”

This from a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, and the Subcommittee on Securities and Investment, and whose top contributor list reads like this:

Goldman Sachs $481,040
Citigroup Inc $415,616
Morgan Stanley $305,946
JPMorgan Chase & Co $297,600
Credit Suisse Group $258,744
   
UBS AG $236,950
Bear Stearns $231,350
Merrill Lynch $226,150
Lehman Brothers $181,450

 And who has received over $7 million in campaign contributions from the Securities and Investment Industries since 1989. No, we certainly don’t need more special interests in our politics, do we Chuck?

The Washington–K Street Revolving Door

17 Wednesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, lobbyists, Politics, Republicans, special interests, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No need to pass the hat for retiring members of Congress, they’re unlikely to join the ranks of the unemployed:

“Lawmakers retiring this year have little reason to fret the job market: Some of K Street’s biggest players have top openings with seven-figure salaries…At least four major trade associations are looking to hire for their high-profile jobs, each of which could command a salary in excess of $1 million a year.

The growing list of members who have decided not to seek reelection, combined with top-notch job opportunities, will only further the trend of ex-lawmakers lobbying for interests they once oversaw.”

Ah yes, the old D.C. revolving door:

“Public Citizen, a watchdog group, reported that 43 percent of members who left Congress between 1998 and 2004 became registered lobbyists, a figure that does not include political consultants who don’t register” [like former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.]

A few other examples:

“Retiring Democrats like Sens. Christopher Dodd (Conn.) and Byron Dorgan (N.D.), and Reps. John Tanner and Bart Gordon, both of Tennessee, are names mentioned as possible hot prospects downtown.”

“Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) announced his retirement from Congress last fall and instead of finishing his term, he immediately took a job with law and lobbying firm DLA Piper (though he did not register as a lobbyist).

Then there’s the soon-to-be retired senator from Indiana, Evan Bayh, who, “a day after he announced his retirement..declined to rule out a career as a lobbyist.” A good fit for Senator Bayh might be the job recently vacated by another former member of Congress who moved on to the greener pastures of lobbying, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) which was held by Billy Tauzin, and pays fairly well:

“Tauzin, a collegial dealmaker who entered Congress as a Democrat and left as a Republican, is resigning from a job that paid him a total compensation package in excess of $2 million a year, according to the association’s 2007 tax records.”

Since Senator Bayh’s wife sits on the board at insurance giant WellPoint, I suspect there might be a place for him there as a lobbyist if he so chooses. There is one small matter Bayh needs to clear up, what to do with the $13 million campaign war chest he has on hand. There are a few options:

a) keep the cash in his own account for a possible future run for office
b) transfer it to a newly-created PAC
c) return it to the donors
d) give it to charity
e) give it to the Indiana Democratic Party
f) give it to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), or the Democratic National Committee (DNC)

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess (a). Just a hunch.

The Constitutional Scholar Considers Indefinite Detention Law

16 Tuesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Congress, Obama, Politics, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Constitutional Scholar-In-Chief is ready to deal away Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections in exchange for Lindsey Graham’s vote to close Gitmo. Well, not actually close it, just re-locate it to Illinois (emphasis mine):

“The White House is considering endorsing a law that would allow the indefinite detention of some alleged terrorists without trial as part of efforts to break a logjam with Congress over President Barack Obama’s plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday.

“I’m sure that that’s what Sen. Graham thinks [but] I don’t have any reason to think the administration has changed its view on this…said Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First. “In both private conversations and in public, the attorney general and other people in the administration said they’re committed to driving the people detained without charge to zero. I think that would be inconsistent with a pledge to do that.”

…speaking at a news conference in Greenville, S.C. Monday, Graham said the White House now seems open to a new law to lay out the standards for open-ended imprisonment of those alleged to be members of or fighters for Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

…While Graham has long favored closing Guantanamo, he said Monday that his support for doing so is contingent on a new law to govern the detention of those the government wants to keep in custody outside the criminal justice system. He also said that, with such a statute in place, he could support Obama’s plan to convert a state prison in Illinois to a federal facility for former Guantanamo inmates.

…Some human rights advocates said Monday that they didn’t doubt Graham had discussed a detention statute with the White House, but were skeptical that officials there are actively considering it.

Right. It would be the height of inconsistency for this administration to backtrack on a pledge or a campaign promise. There’s nothing in the past year to make anyone think they might “change” their views or principles, as if they had any, in the face of the slightest amount of pressure, or in pursuit of another sellout compromise. Perish the thought.

Washington’s Got a Secret—And They Intend to Keep It

14 Sunday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, economy, Financial Crisis, George W. Bush, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Gretchen Morgenson in yesterday’s New York Times on the lack of action on financial reform from our alleged representatives in the District of Columbia

“As Washington spins its wheels on financial reform, it’s becoming painfully clear that the problem of entities that are too interconnected or “too politically powerful to fail” is also too hard for our policy makers to tackle.”

What Ms. Morgenson calls Washington “spinning its wheels,” is more appropriately named the “appease the peasants” circus. That time-honored D.C. tradition of giving the appearance of doing something while actually, and intentionally, doing nothing. And it’s not that it’s “too hard to tackle,” they have a financial interest in not tackling it.

“As taxpayers, we obviously can’t rely on lawmakers to address the risks we face from the ever-expanding corporate safety net thrown under teetering behemoths. But because we are footing the bills for these rescues — and will do so again if more crises occur — don’t you agree that we should know what these implied federal guarantees will cost us?…If the government won’t reduce the size of the safety net, and it has shown no appetite for doing so, it should at least tell us the price tag.”

To the contrary, “the government”—and not just the Capitol Hill gang but those who give lip service to openness and transparency at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue—is doing everything in its power to keep us from seeing that “price tag” as well as who received what.

“The Federal Reserve asked a U.S. appeals court to block a ruling that for the first time would force the central bank to reveal secret identities of financial firms that might have collapsed without the largest government bailout in U.S. history.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan will decide whether the Fed must release records of the unprecedented $2 trillion U.S. loan program launched after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.”

The Obama Justice Department cites the need for secrecy “confidentiality:”

“Confidentiality is essential to the success of the board’s statutory mission to maintain the health of the nation’s financial system and conduct monetary policy,” Assistant U.S. Attorney General Tony West and Fed lawyer Richard Ashton wrote in a legal brief to the appeals court.”

Never mind this:

“The lawsuit, brought under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, came as President Barack Obama criticized the previous administration’s handling of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed by Congress in October 2008. Obama has said funds were spent by the administration of former President George W. Bush with little accountability or transparency.”

Hypocrisy you can believe in.

Financial Reform? Don’t Count On It

12 Friday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, Financial Crisis, lobbyists, Politics, Republicans, special interests, Wall Street

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

While watching the Senate Banking Committee Kabuki theater on reforming and regulating the financial industry, keep in mind the findings of this study from Consumer Watchdog:

* The financial sector is the largest source of campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties. Members of the Senate Banking committee aretop recipients of that largesse. Senate Banking committee members have received $41.9 million in campaign contributions from PACs and individuals in the financial sector since 2005.

* 24 former Senate Banking committee members or committee staff currently lobby on behalf of the financial sector. The total includes 4 former Senators and 7 former committee staff directors.

* Committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) raised $9 million from the financial sector, 51% of his fundraising over the five year period. Ranking member Richard Shelby (R-AL) raised $2.5 million, 28% of his total money raised, from the financial sector.

* Last November, Chairman Dodd tasked himself and seven other Banking committee members with re-drafting the major sections of financial reform legislation. These eight senators – Dodd, Shelby, Corker, Crapo, Gregg, Reed, Schumer, and Warner – have received the lion’s share of financial sector contributions to the committee: a total of $26.1 million.

* The financial sector and its lobbyists hosted at least 43 fundraisers for 11 members of the Senate Banking committee in 2009.

But on the bright side, jobs are being created:

* The financial sector hired 2567 lobbyists in 2009 and, in the first three quarters of the year, spent over $336 million lobbying Congress.

Snowstorm Shuts Down Capitol Hill

10 Wednesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Neither rain, nor snow, nor…..wait a minute, that doesn’t apply to Congress.

“The House suspended votes for the rest of the week because of the impending snowstorm while the Senate may cancel votes on Wednesday.
 
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that after consulting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) it became clear that Tuesday’s approaching snowstorm was preventing too many members from returning to Washington.

… The Senate is scheduled to be in recess next week to observe President’s Day…The House also will keep to its scheduled recess next week, meaning the next House vote will be the following week.”
 

The hardest working Congress money can buy.