The Will Ferrell Video - Actually Not A Parody

The video I linked earlier with Hollywood celebrities coming out to defend those poor insurance companies has gone viral, with hundreds of thousands of views today. What's a little less-known is that prominent Republicans are basically engaging in a note-for-note remake of that video, leaping to the defense of that industry which has turned in record profits, raising premiums even during the Great Recession and saving money by denying Americans care.

Here's the story so far: yesterday the Department of Health and Human Services launched an investigation into Humana for sending its elderly customers a mailer warning that they would lose benefits under the new health insurance reform plan. Interestingly, Max Baucus, yes that Max Baucus, registered the complaint that triggered the investigation. The whole thing concerns Medicare Advantage payments:

Humana is one of the largest private carriers serving seniors under a program called Medicare Advantage. About one-fourth of the elderly and disabled people covered under Medicare participate in the Advantage program, which offers a choice of private plans that usually deliver added benefits.

Humana has about 1.4 million Medicare Advantage enrollees, and the program accounts for about half the company's revenue, Noland said.

Government experts say the private plans are being paid too much — about 14 percent more than it costs to care for seniors in traditional Medicare. The Baucus plan — and other proposals — would reduce payments to the plans, and the health insurance industry is fighting back.

The Humana mailer focused squarely on the Medicare Advantage program.

Actually the Medicare Advantage plans cost the government about 14% more and deliver less than traditional Medicare, according to the Government Accountability Office. We are subsidizing private industry billions of dollars so they can perform the exact same task as Medicare, and with lower quality.

The mailer that Humana sent to beneficiaries, designed to look like official communication with customers and not naked lobbying documents, wasn't all; a website which generated automatic emails to members of Congress, claiming to be from customers (despite the fact that anyone could generate an email), is also being probed. And of course, this is not the only example of insurance companies filling their customers' heads with misinformation and turning them into citizen lobbyists.

Of course, the industry went into full-on whine mode as a response, with Republican leaders right behind them.

A spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's main lobbying group, issued a statement Tuesday criticizing what he described as the government's "gag order."

"Seniors have a right to know how the current reform proposals will affect the coverage they currently like and rely on," AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate's Republican leader, denounced the HHS order as an attempt to squelch free speech.

"We cannot allow government officials to target individuals or companies because they do not like what they have to say," McConnell said.

"Is this what we believe as a Senate -- that this body should debate a trillion-dollar health care bill that affects every American while using the powerful arm of government to shut down speech?" McConnell said.

McConnell noted that Humana, an insurer at the center of the controversy, is based in his home state. The company has been a large contributor to McConnell, donating $112,452 over his career, according to Eric Schultz, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. (emphasis mine)

Shocking that Mitch McConnell would leap to the defense, Will Ferrell-style, of a health insurer based in his state which has feathered his nest to the tune of six figures, no?

There is a difference between free speech issues and what Humana and others are doing, namely violating federal law. Medicare Advantage providers are contracted employees of the federal government, and under the terms of Medicare Advantage, providers have strict limits on what they can communicate to beneficiaries. This lobbying effort would appear to violate those guidelines, and those customers receiving this letter could be excused for believing it to be an official document warning of loss of benefits if they failed to take action.

In short, Medicare Advantage is a wasteful corporate welfare program providing no benefit to individual subscribers and actually worse quality of care to seniors, at a cost of around $150 billion over 10 years to the taxpayer. The government has no imperative to keep such a scheme going, and they certainly shouldn't be paying providers to send misleading letters to their customers so they can keep the gravy train going.

But the real amusement here is watching Republicans like Mitch McConnell read from the Will Ferrell script and crying to "leave health insurance CEOs alone," as if they don't get enough help from the taxpayers to fund their lavish lifestyles.

With Friends Like These

With Friends Like These

by dday

Is there one right-wing hissy fit the Democrats can manage to ignore? I know, simple answers to stupid questions, the answer is no.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) declared in a press conference today, “We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.” In several tense back and forths with reporters, Reid said he opposes imprisoning detainees on U.S. soil, saying flatly, “We don’t want them around the United States”:

REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …

REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.

Later, Reid repeated that he would not support Guantanamo detainees being transferred to U.S prisons:

QUESTION: But Senator, Senator, it’s not that you’re not being clear when you say you don’t want them released. But could you say — would you be all right with them being transferred to an American prison?

REID: Not in the United States.

That floating plastic island in the Pacific is looking better and better every day.

No doubt Reid's sudden lack of confidence in the federal prison system and trickle of piss tumbling down his pants has something to do with the low approval ratings coming out of Nevada. But more than that, he exhibits the exact same knee-jerk response to Republican fearmongering to which we've grown accustomed - a weak-kneed backpedal displayed in the name of looking strong and tough. This statement Reid's office released makes absolutely no sense, proving again Digby's point that, when politicians start speaking Engrish instead of English, you know they're hiding something:

"President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Secretary Colin Powell, President Obama and I all agree – Guantanamo must be closed. President Obama’s approach is a responsible one. [...]

“The amendment Chairman Inouye has offered today recognizes that it would be premature for Congress to act before the Administration proposes its plan. I support his amendment. On two important points, however, we do not need to wait for any instruction – and there should be no misunderstanding. Let me be clear: Democrats will not move to close Guantanamo without a responsible plan in place to ensure Americans’ safety. And we will never allow a terrorist to be released into the United States.

“This amendment is as clear as day. It explicitly bars using the funds in this bill to ‘transfer, release or incarcerate’ any of the Guantanamo detainees in the United States. When the Administration closes Guantanamo, we will ensure it does so the right way.”

So we have to close Guantanamo, but we will never allow terrorists to pump our gas or check us out at Wal-Mart, but we also won't transfer, release or incarcerate any Guantanamo detainees, whether they've been absolved of any terrorism charges or not. But in the end, don't worry, we'll do the "right" thing. Sounds like they need some kind of detention facility outside the United States, maybe on foreign soil, to handle those dangerous sorts. Maybe Cuba has something opening up soon.

Harry Reid needs to get himself down to Guantanamo and personally inform the Uighurs, who have been held in a Kafka-esque legal black hole for seven years, innocent of crimes and cleared for release but without a country to call home, why his misplacing of his vertebrae means that they must stay locked in prison forever. Maybe they'll say to his face what they said to Newt Gingrich through interpreters: "Why does he hate us so much and say those kinds of things? He doesn't know us."

Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell is laughing his ass off:

Senate Democrats won rare praise from Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who hailed their "flexibility" on closing Guantanamo Bay and other national security issues.

"Well, they're certainly coming in the right direction," McConnell told reporters about Democrats' decision to strip money to close the Naval detention center from the war supplemental bill.

McConnell said Americans "ought to be pleased that our friends on the other side of the aisle are showing some flexibility on this issue and heading in our direction," adding that he hoped President Obama would show similar flexibility, as with his reversed decision on releasing photos of detainee abuse.

"The president has shown some flexibility on national security issues," McConnell said. "I hope he will have some flexibility on the detainee facility at Guantanamo, because it really has worked very, very well."

I can't wait for the day Obama reverses hiimself and keeps Guantanamo open. The pundits will praise him endlessly for his wise centrism. And he might as well, considering the restoration of military commissions with the same flaws as before, including continued use of evidence obtained from HEARSAY - think about the implications of allowing evidence in an American-sponsored court based on anonymous whispers. Nobody wanted a change of venue from Guantanamo because they didn't like the name. It was about the sad legacy of the policies practiced there.

The problem with Reid's obnoxious, intelligence-insulting backpedal, aside from how easily anyone can discern the party on offense from the party on defense, is that the entire Democratic Party has flat stopped making any argument about national security from the perspective of civil liberties and human rights, and how respecting both ultimately makes us safer. Even if Democrats believe it - and most of them don't - they either think it's too nuanced for the country to accept (wrong) or too easily demagogued by the hissy fit stirrers on the right (who are completely discredited). And this of course starts right at the top. Obama put himself in this position, where the Senate Majority Leader is now flopping around like a fish trying to look "tough." But Reid is of course collateral damage in this battle to burnish the "sensible center," as defined by what George Bush did to keep us safe. Here's Glenn:

What is, in my view, most noteworthy about all of this is how it gives the lie to the collective national claim that we learned our lesson and are now regretful about the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism. Republicans are right about the fact that while it was Bush officials who led the way in implementing these radical and lawless policies, most of the country's institutions -- particularly the Democratic Party leadership and the media -- acquiesced to it, endorsed it, and enabled it. And they still do [...]

As Maureen Dowd pointed out in the non-plagiarized part of her column on Sunday, the reason Bush was able to do what he did is because "very few watchdogs — in the Democratic Party or the press — were pushing back against the Bush horde in 2002 and 2003, when magazines were gushing about W. and Cheney as conquering heroes." But all of this recent media commentary makes clear that media stars and Democratic leaders now are only pretending to find Bush/Cheney policies repugnant because Bush is now so unpopular and his policies were proven to be failures. As a result, a new face is needed for those policies, but the belief in the rightness of those policies hasn't changed. They still consider Bush/Cheney policies "centrist" and responsible -- only Leftist Purists oppose them -- and thus heap praise on Obama for embracing them. We're still the same country we were in 2003. Our media stars and political leaders from both parties still think the same way. That's why the more Obama embraces the Bush/Cheney approach, the more praise he gets for Centrism.

This is not only a losing argument around the world, as the stars fall from their eyes when they witness the same distasteful policies wrapped up in a prettier package. It's also a lose POLITICALLY to strengthen the arguments of your opponents and alienate your supporters. I'm just a DFH who doesn't know how the world works, but it seems to me that the Democrats never succeeded by trying to take issues "off the table," only by confronting them and offering a better argument. I guess that makes me unserious.

Against Listening: The Key To Political Success

Rush Limbaugh today admits that listening is a scam.

LIMBAUGH What if I decided I needed to go on a listening -- you know what, folks, instead of the Rush to Excellence tour, we're gonna go on a Rush listen tour.

I'm gonna show up in your town, I'm gonna set up a microphone that you use. And I'm gonna sit there and say nothing. And I'm gonna listen to you. And I'm gonna come back and I'm gonna put together a great radio prog --

What do you think would happen? Not very many people would show up, and if I actually did listen, it would be a disaster because you can't take the advice of 20 million people, or 5,000, regardless of whatever the number is. And if you're a politician, you can't take the advice of 58 million people. This whole notion of listening, it's just -- it's a scam.

Of course he holds listening in low esteem. That kind of bold disregard for the opinions of anyone has led the Republican Party onto the brink of irrelevance.

(Bunning) said: “Do you realize that under our dynamic leadership of our leader, we have gone from 55 and probably to 40 (Senate seats) in two election cycles, and if the tea leaves that I read are correct, we will wind up with about 36 after this election cycle.

So if leadership means anything, it means you don’t lose … approximately 19 seats in three election cycles with good leadership.”

Which isn't working out for their party so well, but does do wonders for the institutional power of Rush Limbaugh, as he alienates the rest of the country and captivates only the attention of those who unthinkingly agree with him. He can't very well listen to them because they only parrot him. So this all works out very well for the Rush Limbaughs and Mitch McConnells of the world, but not so much for the GOP. I say they go for it. Listening is overrated.

Party of No Numbers

The GOP's "budget" was roundly mocked throughout Democratic circles and even in the suddenly-caring-about-policy traditional media for not having any numbers, the way that, you know, a budget does. Yesterday, John McCain sought to calm the waters by claiming that the Senate GOP would put together, in fact, an actual budget with hard numbers instead of just a pamphlet with a bunch of circles and positive affirmations.

DAVID GREGORY: Do you think that Republicans should provide a detailed budget alternative?

McCAIN: Yes.

GREGORY: With numbers?

McCAIN: Yes.

GREGORY: Will that happen in the Senate?

McCAIN: We're working on it, working very hard on it.

Rick Klein reports that Sen. McCain is mistaken.

According to a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the Senate GOP's plan remains the same: Republicans are planning to offer individual amendments to the Democratic budget but not a detailed, comprehensive budget of their own.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, has pointed out that if the GOP amendments are accepted en masse (which will not happen), the amended budget would be the Republican alternative. Senate GOP leaders have also pointed out that Senate Democrats didn’t offer a detailed alternative budget in 2005 and 2006, when Republicans last controlled the Senate.

In any event, a full budget alternative may be what McCain wants, but it's not going to be what happens.

This comes after GOP leaders immediately blasted their own superiors in the House after the negative reaction to the non-budget, and after Rep. Paul Ryan conceded that, with actual numbers, the non-budget would in all likelihood increase the deficit.

These guys really have no idea what they're talking about or even who their leader is, do they?

Principled Conservatism

The long-awaited health care summit is today, and dozens of members of Congress and stakeholders are at the White House in the first step to reforming a broken system. Here is an excerpt of the President's prepared remarks:

In the last eight years, premiums have grown four times faster than wages, and an additional nine million Americans have joined the ranks of the uninsured. The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. And even for folks who are weathering this economic storm, and have health care now, all it takes is one stroke of bad luck – an accident or illness; a divorce or lost job – to become one of the nearly 46 million uninsured or the millions who have health care, but can’t afford it.

Well, let’s be clear: the same soaring costs that are straining our families’ budgets are sinking our businesses and eating up our government’s budget too. Too many small businesses can’t insure their employees. Major American corporations are struggling to compete with their foreign counterparts. And companies of all sizes are shipping their jobs overseas or shutting their doors for good.

That is why we cannot delay this discussion any longer. And that is why today’s forum is so important. Because health care reform is no longer just a moral imperative, it is a fiscal imperative. If we want to create jobs and rebuild our economy, then we must address the crushing cost of health care this year, in this Administration. Making investments in reform now, investments that will dramatically lower costs, won’t add to our budget deficits in the long-term – rather, it is one of the best ways to reduce them.

That's the basic mainstream Democratic argument at this point - that health care costs are strangling our businesses, our budget, and most importantly our families, and that we have to fundamentally address this before it spirals completely out of control.

I now give you the conservative counter-argument.

REP. ZACH WAMP: Listen, health care is a privilege. […]

MSNBC: Well, it’s a privilege? Health care? I mean if you have cancer right now, do you see it as a privilege to get treatment?

WAMP: I was just about to say, for some people it’s a right. But for everyone, frankly, it’s not necessarily a right.

Wamp went on to claim that many Americans are uninsured by choice because they “rejected” the insurance plan offered by their employers. Asked to respond to Wamp, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) remarked “Well my reaction is that it was said by somebody who has a really good health [insurance] plan as a member of the House of Representatives.” “More importantly than that [health care] is a right in this country,” Brown concluded. Watch a compilation:

This should be on a billboard in every city in the nation by Friday. It's a concise and sharp expression of the conservative worldview. They think health care is a privilege. And if you get shot at work trying to ward off an attacker, and your fast-food company's insurer (the name rhymes with Bickdonald's) refuses to pay your medical bills, tough, you don't have the privilege. If you aren't privileged enough to have health insurance, hospitals can use your lack of leverage or purchasing power to charge you ten times as much for the same treatment - sorry, you don't have the privilege. If you have insurance, and your insurer decides they don't want to pay your claims, sending you into a choice between treatment and bankruptcy or illness and solvency, well - you don't have the privilege.

(Interesting that Villager Karen Tumulty wrote that last link, drawing on the experience of her brother's travails through the health care system. It's the typical story of personal experience trumping the expected groupthink.)

In the upside-down value system of Republicans, they think that health care is a privilege, but the ability for health insurers to profit off of it is an inalienable right.

McConnell suggested there were areas in which Republicans won't compromise, particularly the creation of a new public insurance program to compete with private insurers.

"Forcing free market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition," the letter stated.

As David Sirota notes, these are the same people who claim that the free market is a universal good and nothing can be run more efficiently or excellently than private enterprise. Somehow, though, if a public option was offered to compete with the free market, it would cause the insurance industry to crumble. Those titans of industry, the masters of the universe, just can't compete with those government bureaucrats everyone is supposed to hate. This could be a mite bit of a flaw in their logic.

The GOP sees polls showing the public supports the concept of government-sponsored health care (and loves government programs like Medicare) - that is, the party knows that if given the choice, many Americans would choose a government-run program over private health insurance. But because the party is so owned and operated by the private health insurance industry, it is willing to effectively undermine its entire macro-argument about the supremacy of the free market so as to shill for its moneyed benefactors.

The health care industry as a whole is generally supportive of the initial Democratic plans because they think they can deep-six the public option and negotiate a "reform" favorable to their interests, that maintains the for-profit insurance middleman and maybe even gives them a forced market. To the Administration's credit, there are also single-payer advocates at the summit, and their argument for a side-by-side Congressional Budget Office comparison of HR 676 against any other proposal is completely reasonable and worthy of consideration. If the numbers are presented, it will become clear that the most "radical" system also happens to produce the best savings for the taxpayer as well as providing the most care to the greatest number.

So let's be clear. The GOP thinks health care is a privilege and that insurance industry gouging is a right. More people besides blog readers should know this.

60 for Employee Free Choice?

At CPAC yesterday, Newt Gingrich predictably demonized the Employee Free Choice Act, calling it "a mortal threat to American freedom." Somebody should arrest it! But the more interesting admission came from Mitch McConnell, who intimated that Arlen Specter is a lost cause when it comes up for a vote.

RedState.com caught up with McConnell at the CPAC conference and asked him about the coming Employee Free Choice battle. McConnell said he was “somewhat optimistic” about keeping his troops together. However, referring to the three GOP Senators who voted for the stimulus package, he added:

“I’ll say I’m hoping for an epiphany for [Specter]. Senators Snowe and Collins will be with us.”

That strongly suggests that McConnell has concluded that this key GOP vote will likely defect to the pro-Employee Free Choice side. Since the Senate vote is expected to be hard-fought and excruciatingly close, that could conceivably prove a big deal.

That's a bit of an understatement. Specter voted for the bill last year when it came up. Assuming Al Franken makes it through the Twelve Labors of Hercules they're running up there in Minnesota, Specter and a solid Democratic caucus gets you to exactly 60 votes.

I don't know how solid the Democratic caucus is, of course. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor hail from Arkansas, home of Wal-Mart, and are probably getting a lot of pressure to vote no. What Harry Reid ought to do is ask the caucus to vote the full Lieberman - yes on cloture, free to vote no on the final vote. There is no reason the Democrats should fear a filibuster from their own party on such an important priority. There are all kind of carrots and sticks to be offered backbenchers - committee assignments, campaign funds from the DSCC, etc. Reid does have leverage over his caucus, doesn't he? Right?

To Filibuster Or Not To Filibuster

While I'm sure there are elements within the Senate GOP caucus that would like to derail the stimulus bill, that isn't the message from the leadership. A day after appearing to threaten a filibuster and doubting passage without major changes, Mitch McConnell today sounding more dulcet tones.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday dismissed the idea that Republicans are trying to block passage of a massive economic stimulus plan.

"Nobody that I know of is trying to keep a package from passing," the Kentucky senator said at a news conference Monday. "We're trying to reform it."

McConnell wouldn't get into any specific amendments he wants, but he said the package his members would support would be "dramatically different" from what passed in the House and from what is being worked on in the Senate Finance Committee and Appropriations Committee.

He said he wants to see the bill focus on helping homeowners and relieving the burden on middle- and low-income taxpayers.

There is some actual pressure against being seen as obstructionist, at least a little more than in the past. That's why Republicans are using Obama's "bipartisanship" talking point to try and persuade the public that they merely want a voice in the final package. In addition, there's some downward pressure from GOP governors, who actually have to deal with this mess, who need that stimulus money to keep their states going.

There are two other factors. First, the Senate bill is far more business-friendly already than the House bill. There are more business tax cuts in it as well as a popular patch to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Second, Democrats are perfectly ready to compromise on major elements of the bill, though probably not the tax cuts.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said that Senate Democrats were interested in considering Republican proposals to do more to help the sputtering housing market, including instituting a $15,000 tax credit for all home buyers.

“One of the Republican proposals is to raise the $7,500 tax credit we give to new home buyers, raise it to up $15,000 and do it for all home buyers,” Senator Schumer said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “That’s something that we look favorably upon.”

Mr. Schumer, who is a member of the Finance Committee, also said he was also interested in passing legislation aimed at getting mortgage rates down to 4.5 percent, although he said he thought that might go in the next part of the bailout measure approved by Congress last year, not the stimulus package.

He added, “I think we will get real agreement on the housing part.”

Senators of both parties also said on Sunday that they expected a significant amount of additional money — about $20 billion to $30 billion — to go toward infrastructure spending on such things as roads and bridges. Senator Schumer also said he supported an additional $5 billion for mass transit spending.

But there was significant disagreement along party lines over whether the additional spending should add to the bottom line dollar figure of the bill. With interest, the $819-billion version of the bill that passed the House last week could actually cost up to $1.2 trillion, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told the House Budget Committee on Tuesday.

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said that he would be willing to “raise the total price tag” of the bill to include get the additional spending sought by the Republicans.

For the record, I don't ever remember interest being factored into any Bush-era spending bill to inflate its cost. Also, I'm pretty down on the business tax cuts and the "reinflate the housing bubble" approach in the Senate bill. But clearly, they're going to attempt an even more bipartisan effort than the pre-compromised House bill. The real question, as said in the article, is whether that increases the overall cost, or if other spending programs are taken out to make room.

But for many of these reasons, I don't think the Republicans can actually pull off a filibuster. While there's a core of probably 35 Republicans who won't support practically anything of this nature, I'm not sure they can get the rest. Both Nate Silver and Chris Bowers break down the numbers, with Bowers adding a convenient list:

Overall Stimulus Whip Count

* Likely Supporters (58): 56 Democrats plus Collins and Snowe
* Undecided (5): Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), Mel Martinez (R-Florida), Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) and Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania).
* Special Case (1): Judd Gregg (New Hampshire). It has been suggested that Gregg's vote might be swayed through an appointment as Commerce Secretary. That's a pretty high price for a vote, but it is worth noting here nonetheless.
* Likely Opponents (35): All Republicans. Take the 34 Republicans with public statements opposing the stimulus, remove Judd Gregg, and add John Barrasso and Mike Johanns. There is simply to way that freshman Republicans from two of the last five remaining Republican states in the country will back President Obama over their party leadership.

Sounds about right. And I would think that within all of that, you can find two votes to give 60 for cloture, even if they don't vote for the final bill. This is why Republicans are basically picking around the edges of this bill, arguing against elements that make up a tiny fraction of overall spending, because they probably know that they can't stop it. As Silver says:

Now, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there is more tangible Democratic opposition to the stimulus in its present form. But if so, I imagine those Senators would let Obama know ahead of time and work with him toward tweaking it rather than having him endure the embarrassment of a failed cloture vote. In other words, I doubt that Harry Reid goes to the floor unless he feels fairly assured about 60. I also wouldn't rule out the possibility that the filibuster fails and then the stimulus passes, but with only 53-55 votes.

But in terms of sustaining a filibuster, I think McConnell is most likely bluffing. Then again, I didn't think the GOP would manage unanimous opposition to the recovery bill in the House.

Anything's possible, but I think McConnell's sitting with a bad hand and he knows it. He's hoping the bipartisan fetishists will force enough changes to the bill to make it less painful (and probably ineffective, which suits Republican needs, perversely).

Here Come The Obstructionists

Mitch McConnell is very concerned about the people's money, and wants hearings.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced skepticism today about the emerging economic stimulus plan, applying a brake to Democratic plans to quickly pass up to $850 billion in spending and tax cuts soon after President-elect Barack Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration.

"As of right now, Americans are left with more questions than answers about this unprecedented government spending, and I believe the taxpayers deserve to know a lot more about where it will be spent before we consider passing it," McConnell said in a statement, which will be publicly issued later today.

Obama's advisers and congressional Democrats have been huddling in the Capitol trying to craft a massive stimulus plan that could cost anywhere from $675 billion to $850 billion, while some economists are pushing for a total package worth more than $1 trillion.

McConnell -- the most powerful Republican in Washington, based on the filibuster-proof level of 41 GOP Senate seats -- called for many congressional hearings on the stimulus plan and some undetermined safeguards to assure the money is being spent wisely [...]

McConnell specifically called for a weeklong cooling off period between when the bill is drafted and when it is voted on, allowing time to dissect it for signs of "fraud and waste."

I have no problem with a 72-hour rule between drafting a bill and voting on it, but I am touched by the newfound concern of Congressional Republicans about fraud and waste. They took an eight-year break from caring about this, and allowed giant bricks of money to be given away in Iraq, and a government concerned far more with profit taking than fulfilling its regulatory mission. But they can be forgiven for this temporary lack of attention to the destination of taxpayer money. After all, it's a new year coming up, and change is in the air.

It was obvious that the GOP would work to obstruct a stimulus package early in Obama's term. It's worth asking why. I understand why they would want to stop increased union membership that would come from fair labor laws like the Employee Free Choice Act - more union members vote Democratic. And shutting down universal health care would deny Democrats the ability to provide a tangible improvement to the lives of millions of Americans. That's part of why they would want to obstruct public works spending, but there may also be a political consideration, as explained nicely by Nate Silver:

So let's think through the other couple of choices. First thing first: if the economy improves substantially by the midterm elections, you're screwed. It won't matter whether you voted for the stimulus or voted against it, and it won't matter whether you achieved some kind of compromise or you didn't. If, by the summer of 2010, GDP growth has miraculously recovered to 4% per year, that's all the public is going to think about. Obama Save Economy!! Me Vote Democrat!! They aren't going to care about whether you snuck some sort of capital gains tax cut in there.

But let's say that the economy still sucks in 2010 -- which, frankly, is a pretty good bet. That's going to work much, much better for you if you've voted against the stimulus. Not only can you pin the blame on the donkeys, but you can campaign on tax cutting and fiscal responsibility -- the stimulus will "prove", once and for all, the wisdom of conservative economic principles. And then think about this: the Democrats are going to be trying to spend $800 billion in taxpayer dollars as quickly as they can possibly get away with it. Somewhere along the way, they're going to wind up funding a Woodstock Museum or a Bridge to Nowhere. Somewhere along the way, an enterprising contractor is going to embezzle a bunch of stimulus money, or cook up some kind of pay-to-play scheme. Maybe if you're really lucky, this will happen in your Distrct. Better to keep the whole thing at arm's-length and make sure that Democrats get the blame for that.

That's maybe part of it. But the simplest and therefore most likely explanation is that they oppose it because Democrats favor it. This is, in general terms, how modern Republicans practice politics - by being the biggest pains in the ass possible. "Because they can" is probably the most obvious answer. This is especially true when you have a rump conservative faction committed to fighting the pointy-headed elites to preserve Southern honor:

All the signs are that the stimulus spending will be opposed by congressional Republicans, whose shrunken ranks are increasingly dominated by right-wing Southerners who care not what their stance does to harm the party's national image.

The spectacle of LaHood facing off in congressional testimony against those naysayers will dramatize a split that is crippling the GOP.

The danger became apparent as far back as 2007. With Bush weakened by the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina and the midterm election losses of 2006, a Southern-led revolt killed his immigration reform bill. Junior senators such as Jim DeMint of South Carolina directed the rebellion, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, unable to stem the insurgency, joined it.

The price was paid in the 2008 presidential campaign. Despite his personal credentials as a sponsor of comprehensive immigration reform, John McCain was caught in the backlash of anti-GOP voting by Hispanics. It contributed to his loss of Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida and other states.

The same thing happened this year when Bush supported a bailout for the Big Three auto companies. Led by Republican senators from Southern states where there are many foreign-owned auto plants, the Senate refused to cut off a filibuster against the bill to provide bridge loans to General Motors and Chrysler. This time, the opposition was led by Bob Corker of Tennessee and Richard Shelby of Alabama. When the Senate failed by eight votes to cut off debate, Southern and border-state Republicans voted 16 to 2 against the measure. On a similar vote on the 2007 immigration bill, the Southerners split 17 to 3 against.

Obstructing on the basis of principle or holding out for a particular point of compromise is a very different animal than obstructing for obstruction's sake, obstructing because, if a bunch of egghead economists say we need a massive public spending program, then real Murcans have to stand astride history saying "stop". As we hear a lot about bipartisanship and Republicans and Democrats having to come together to solve the nation's problems, as we hear from a President whose focus is "what works" instead of ideology, someone's going to have to stand up and mention that the modern Republican Party defines ideology through negation. Someone might want to mention that there's no compromise with those who reflexively oppose for no reason other than denying your opponent a victory is seen as a higher good than helping someone get a job or health care or a higher wage to support their family. Someone might want to suggest that accommodation is impossible.

My Foreign Investor, Right Or Wrong

As Digby noted yesterday, the auto industry recovery package looked to be on life support. Looks like Mitch McConnell pulled the plug:

The Kentucky Republican, with a large auto presence in his state, had been seen as a potential ally for the industry, and he provided crucial support for the Treasury Department's financial markets rescue fund this fall. But he has since endured a punishing reelection fight. And faced with strong resistance in his caucus, he said that the bill "isn't nearly tough enough" and that he could not ask taxpayers to "subsidize failure." [...]

While not entirely surprising, the Republican opposition stands in contrast to what have been significant concessions by Democrats to try to move the bill forward.

"Much of this bill is dictated by the president. It is a stunning vote of no confidence," [Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)] said of the Republican opposition.

I think the first mistake was making a "deal" with the loathed President Bush and expecting that to hold.

But let's be clear what's going on here. A bunch of Southern-state Republicans (including, amazingly, Diaper Dandy David Vitter), from right-to-work states, want to push GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy to bolster the foreign auto presence in their home states. Kentucky has a Ford factory but they also have a Toyota plant in Georgetown, so McConnell's on board.

Last week, Jane Hamsher explained the conflict of interest for Bob Corker in Tennessee:

He hasn't mentioned the subsidies his own state of Tennessee has given to foreign automakers, making it harder for the Big 2 1/2 to compete:

Tennessee offered its richest incentive package — and perhaps the most government assistance and tax breaks ever for an American automobile plant — to lure Volkswagen to Chattanooga.

But the state’s chief business recruiter said Wednesday that the benefits from VW’s $1 billion assembly plant far will exceed what could top $500 million in government assistance and tax breaks for the project.

“The Volkswagen investment in this community is going to have a tremendous economic gain for the entire region,” said Matt Kisber, Tennessee’s commissioner for economic and community development. “I’m confident we’re going to have a very reasonable incentive package when you look at the initial costs of what is being offered compared with a much bigger long-term return.”

Yes, that's the logic -- these incentives will bring more money to the region than they cost. But it doesn't always work out that way. As David Cay Johnston noted in Free Lunch, these kinds of subsidies frequently wind up costing communities much more than they ever make back:

Johnson writes: "The tribute Cabela's demanded from Hamburg [Pennsylvania] amounted to roughly $8,000 for each man, woman, and child in town." Johnson points out that between 2004 and 2006, Cabela's earned $223.4 million. During those years, it collected at least $293.7 million in subsidies, more than its reported profits. Meanwhile a family business selling fishing and hunting gear was driven out of business in Hamburg.

Funny nobody is mentioning this.

The GOP does a lot of chest-thumping about "Country First" and patriotism. It's fun to watch them destroy American manufacturing so they can keep Japanese and German corporate executives happy. OK, maybe not so fun.

A New Era Of Comity And Bipartisanship

Somebody forgot to tell Mitch McConnell.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Friday sent a message to Democrats that Republicans are not prepared to bend to a stronger majority.

In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), McConnell urged Reid to adopt a more conciliatory tone and warned him that Republicans will unite against Democrats if he does not. The letter was signed by all 40 GOP senators and two Republican incumbents who are awaiting the results of elections in Georgia and Minnesota.

This is the Senate GOP that obstructed practically every major bill that Democrats tried to bring up for the last two years. That's not going to stop, regardless of how many Republicans are planted in the Cabinet or throughout the federal bureaucracy. At this point, Republicans aren't interested in winning the next election, they're interested in stopping any popular policy and beating this country into the ground.

"Recently, I stumbled across this analysis of how nationalized healthcare in Great Britain affected the political environment there. As Norman Markowitz in Political Affairs, a journal of "Marxist thought," puts it: "After the Labor Party established the National Health Service after World War II, supposedly conservative workers and low-income people under religious and other influences who tended to support the Conservatives were much more likely to vote for the Labor Party when health care, social welfare, education and pro-working class policies were enacted by labor-supported governments."

Passing Obamacare would be like performing exactly the opposite function of turning people into investors. Whereas the Investor Class is more conservative than the rest of America, creating the Obamacare Class would pull America to the left. Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute, who first found that wonderful Markowitz quote, puts it succinctly in a recent blog post: "Blocking Obama's health plan is key to the GOP's survival.""

They have to block health care reform because people will like it. And if government produces, the entire GOP worldview is lost. Bill Kristol said this a long time ago.

The sad thing is that these threats might just work. Reid has an election coming up in 2010 and he'll be thinking about his own political future. And let's just say the Lieberman fiasco didn't exactly inspire confidence about how Senate Democrats deal with the opposition. Now McConnell is trying to set the Congressional agenda:

The minority leader also held an unusually long news conference Friday to reiterate points made in his letter. He said Republicans are not sorry to see President Bush leave office, given his unpopularity, and praised Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for running a “fabulous” campaign “under very, very difficult circumstances.”

McConnell pressed Democrats to address the future of Social Security and urged Republicans to defeat ‘card-check’ legislation that would allow workers to bypass secret-ballot elections when organizing unions.

“What I’m saying to the new president and the new administration: ‘Do big things, and do them in the center, and you’ll be surprised at how much support you might have,’ " he said at the news conference.

Otherwise, McConnell warned, his party would stand together and block a far-left agenda.

“You're likely to have very significant unity among Republicans," he said.

(under the Employee Free Choice Act, if 30% of the workforce wants an secret ballot election they get one. Thought I'd put some facts into the mix)

This is what Barack Obama is stepping into. He's going to offer a hand of friendship and Senate Republicans are going to bite it off. They are thoroughly disinterested in compromise. They view it as a threat.

Negotiating With Himself

It's funny, Joe Lieberman thinks he's some kind of bonus baby who can get a luxury car and a sweet penthouse apartment overlooking the National Mall out of either caucus in the Senate. At this rate he won't be satisfied until he's Majority Leader. The only problem is that nobody wants to offer him anything.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has reached out to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) about the prospect of joining the Republican Conference, but Lieberman is still bargaining with Democratic leaders to keep his chairmanship, according to Senate aides in both parties.

“Sen. Lieberman’s preference is to stay in the caucus, but he’s going to keep all his options open,” a Lieberman aide said. “McConnell has reached out to him, and at this stage, his position is he wants to remain in the caucus but losing the chairmanship is unacceptable.”

A Republican Senate aide said Friday morning that there was little McConnell could offer in terms of high-ranking committee slots, which is why Lieberman is resisting overtures from the Republican side [...]

Lieberman’s aide told Politico on Friday morning that “essentially what transpired is that Sen. Reid talked about taking away his position perhaps for another position, and Sen. Lieberman indicated that was unacceptable.”

A person with direct knowledge of the Reid-Lieberman meeting yesterday on Capitol Hill said Reid turned to Lieberman at one point and said, "I prefer to work this out" after Lieberman hinted he would "explore his options" with Republicans if he was stripped of the committee.

Hilarious. Like he has clout. Lieberman would end up being a headache on either side of the aisle - a mole on the Democratic side, a Judas on the increasingly extremist Republican side. What's more, Republicans don't have any committee chairmanships to hand out, either. And nobody's going to put their seniority aside for him.

Of course, his operatives have one goal - to make it look like bolting for the Republicans would make any difference whatsoever, fooling accommodationist Dems into reverting to measures of conciliation and healing. They've already snookered Evan Bayh, who's eminently snooker-able.

BAYH: And I think if Joe came before the caucus and said look, if I said some things that came as offensive, I’m sorry, but they were, you know heartfelt in my support of John McCain. I think we had to just let bygones be bygones. We’re going to need him on healthcare and energy independence and education and a whole lot of other things.

Bayh concluded that Lieberman is “strong on national security.” “And we’re going to prove that there is a place for Democrats who are strong on national security in the Democratic Party,” he said.

I hope I miss when I try to shoot myself shortly after posting this.

If we do nothing, Lieberman will be welcomed back into the party, and they'll probably throw a brunch in his honor. If we call these Senators and let them know that a mole chairing the main oversight committee in the Senate is unacceptable, maybe they won't be so keen to allow it. If after getting stripped on his chairmanship, Lieberman wants to stay in the party, I personally think that's up to him. But making sure he isn't a one-man subpoena machine is the bare minimum of accountability that we should expect.

The number for the Capitol switchboard is (202) 224-3121. Start with your own Senator, but call the more conservative members of the caucus too. Ask whether they support Lieberman remaining as Chair of the Homeland Security committee, given his unfair attacks on President-elect Obama. Be polite, and calm. The young people who answer the phones are entry-level staffers.

Post what you hear in the comments. Let's outflank Lieberman.

Later Ted

Mitch McConnell says bye-bye.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is calling on Ted Stevens to resign from the Senate – and warning that the longest-serving Republican senator in history will face certain expulsion if he doesn’t leave on his own first.

McConnell, locked in a tough reelection fight in Kentucky, did not call for Stevens’ resignation in his initial statement on the Alaskan’s conviction on seven federal felonies Monday.

But Republican Sens. John McCain, Norm Coleman, Jim DeMint, John Sununu and Gordon Smith and Democrat Barack Obama all called on Stevens to resign Tuesday.

And by the time a reporter from the Lexington Herald-Leader put the question to him at a campaign stop Elizabethtown, Ky., Tuesday night, McConnell was ready to say that Stevens must go, too.

"I think he should resign immediately," McConnell said. "If he did not do that ... there is a 100 percent certainty that he would be expelled from the Senate."

I think McConnell's re-election race has a lot to do with this, and after the election quite a few Republicans are sure to go back on their word, but let's say it doesn't look good for Hulk.

At this point, how do you remain on the campaign trail? Isn't that just a total insult to your supporters? I guess it's just garden-variety obstinacy.

Annals Of Republican FAIL

The past few days have seen Republican lawmakers, now endangered in the harsh political environment, just making with the crazy and seriously damaging their re-election chances.

And I'm not just talking about the unholy merger of Katherine Harris and Joe McCarthy, Michelle Bachmann, who's now trying to wiggle out of responsibility for her own words. By the way, her oppponent El Tinklenberg used that bounty of campaign cash to put up a pretty solid bio spot that highlights his support for light rail!



Fantastic stuff.

But there's plenty more out there that that. In NJ-05, Chris Smith is a Republican from New Jersey who has decided he's from Virginia:

Rep. Christopher Smith, a Republican who has represented central New Jersey since 1980, probably didn’t realize he was walking into a political minefield when his family requested a break on his daughter’s huge college bill.

Smith’s daughter, who until recently lived with him in the family’s Herndon, Va., home, obtained in-state tuition privileges at a prestigious Virginia university — saving the Smiths $20,000 per year off the $29,000 tuition charged to out-of-state students.

But what Smith saved in cash could end up costing him politically – Democrats says the claim to Virginia residency shows that Smith is out of touch with the New Jersey constituents he’s supposed to represent.

These residency switches always come back to hurt the candidate (see Rick Santorum in 2006). And Smith's opponent Josh Zeitz is a great progressive.

Then there's Bachmann II (Bachmann Turner Overdrive?), Robin Hayes, another Republican in a tight race who claimed that liberals hate America at a McCain event, and is now denying that he ever said it. That doesn't work in an age of YouTube.



We have another great opponent in NC-08, former textile worker Larry Kissell.

And then we get into some real problems for the GOP. Mitch McConnell is tied in his race with Democrat Bruce Lunsford, according to a Survey USA poll. McConnell is the Republican Minority Leader, and has run rings around Harry Reid with procedural motions and obstructionism in the Senate. The Republicans become MUCH weaker without McConnell. And you know he's nervous when he touts his ability to bring home earmarks for Kentucky. I don't think voters give a crap about seniority when they vote for a representative. I had written this off, but McConnell is in serious trouble. I'm not a Lunsford fan but this would really hurt the GOP.

And then, there's Bill Sali. This guy is a Congressman and not a junior high student?

"Congressman Bill Sali and his campaign staff disrupted a NewsChannel 7 reporter and a representative for his opponent during an interview Tuesday in Downtown Boise.

KTVB reporter Ysabel Bilbao was interviewing Walt Minnick's campaign director John Foster Wednesday afternoon. During the interview, someone loudly yelled and was laughing during the interview at the Grove plaza.

Bilbao and Foster initially ignored the intrusion, but quickly noticed the source of the heckling -- Sali and members of his staff. (...)

Foster said he saw Sali making faces at him and holding up "bunny ears.""

It's statesmanship like that which has seen Sali trailing in the polls to his opponent Walt Minnick. Yes, the Democrat is winning. In Idaho.

It really is falling to crap for Republicans...

Senate Tells House To Move Over

So the Senate, which is more resistant to popular opinion by virtue of its longer terms of office and rotating elections, will vote on the bailout tomorrow. And they'll probably pass it.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky unveiled the plan Tuesday. The Senate plan would also raise federal deposit insurance limits to $250,000 from $100,000, as called for by the two presidential nominees only hours earlier.

The move to add a tax legislation — including a set of popular business tax breaks — risked a backlash from House Democrats insisting they be paid for with tax increases elsewhere.

But by also adding legislation to prevent more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from feeling the bite of the alternative minimum tax, the step could build momentum for the Wall Street bailout from House Republicans. The presidential candidates Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., intend to fly to Washington for the votes, as does Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the Democratic vice presidential candidate.

The tax plan was stalled out in the House last week. Helping relieve the middle class from getting hit with the AMT is fine, and would include the renewable energy tax credits:

The tax plan passed the Senate last week, on a 93-2 vote. It included AMT relief, $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana, and some $78 billion in renewable energy incentives and extensions of expiring tax breaks. In a compromise worked out with Republicans, the bill does not pay for the AMT and disaster provisions but does have revenue offsets for part of the energy and extension measures.

This has now become a ridiculous inter-chamber slap fight. And really, where else could this have gone? They're larding on bills that may be popular to get people to relent and pass this pig. If they concurrently shrunk the plan to only get us through January, that would be one thing. But that's not happening.

As for the "progressive alternative," it doesn't read to me as much of an alternative at all. The good part of it, raising the FDIC insurance limit, is in the Paulson plan now, and the rest of it seems to just be a new way to give away lots of money. The change away from mark to market accounting is a fait accompli thanks to the SEC. David Sirota seems to like it, but I fail to see how it would do anything to stop foreclosures or alleviate the housing crisis. It may, I repeat may, save money on the initial layout. Maybe.

It's clear to me why the Senate is doing this. On the Democratic side, Obama comes off looking like someone who made this happen once he engaged. What's more, this crisis is playing well for them politically, not just for Obama but throughout US Senate races, and forcing Saxby Chambliss or Mitch McConnell, who are suddenly in close re-election races, into tough votes is advisable. For the Republicans, they are really in a spot, having to run against Bush but also being held responsible for the Wall Street meltdown, so they want to show leadership or something. But ultimately, this is about the Senate sticking it to the House and getting out of town. That's what they really want to do.

I'm not knee-jerk opposed to a bill if it only gets us through to January, but a big, bloated bailout doesn't make sense to me. There are smarter ways to intervene, but it doesn't seem like Democrats or even the Progressive Caucus is interested in it.

This is going to be a real tough vote for Bush Dogs. Bail out their Wall Street friends, but allow tax cuts without offsets?

Republicans Vote Against Lowering Gas Prices

Even though I don't think it's the entire story, there's certainly SOME speculation in the oil futures market that is driving up the price. Ian Welsh has a pretty good explanation of this. And so to see the Senate block consideration on a bill that would rein in speculation in the market, a few days after voting 94-0 to move it forward, is just embarrassing, and really shows where the loyalties of the Republicans lie - with the speculators and with the oil companies that benefit from the speculation.

The DSCC puts it all together in a press release:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted against a bill today to lower gas prices by curbing excessive speculation in energy markets. Experts have noted that speculation is driving up the price of a barrel of oil, and a recent House committee report revealed that speculators – institutional investors buying contracts with no intention of taking delivery of oil – now account for 73% of all trading of crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 2000.

"Mitch McConnell had an opportunity to lower the price of gas today, but instead he voted with the speculators who are profiting from Kentuckians' pain at the pump," DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. "Mitch McConnell's constituents deserve better than a politician who sides with Wall Street speculators over Kentucky families."

McConnell voted against legislation to guard against price manipulation just one day after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced its first case against a trading fund in the agency's probe of crude oil market manipulation. The bill will eliminate so-called "dark markets" to increase transparency and accountability in commodities trading, strengthen the CFTC's enforcement capacity, and close the "London Loophole" so all U.S.-based trading of American commodities is subject to American regulation.

And the only action the Republicans want to take to relieve the burden of high gas prices is more drilling and spilling, and they'll lie through their teeth to do so, that the wildlife "wouldn't care" about giant oil rigs going up in their backyard (in that case, let's put one behind John Boehner's house). Of course, that drilling and spilling will only advantage- you guessed it, giant oil companies.

It's all so transparent...

Throwing The Bar On The Ground

Forget lowering it.

CROWLEY: When you look ahead, do you see anything other than losing seats in the Senate?

MCCONNELL; Well, the numbers are daunting. There are 23 Republicans up, and only 12 Democrats. That's because we had a very good year six years ago. So the numbers are against us. But I'm very optimistic, Candy, that we're going to stay roughly where we are. We're not going to back in the majority in the Senate next year, I think the numbers make that impossible. But I'm optimistic we can stay roughly where we are. And of course in the Senate, the only legislative body in the world where the majority is not enough, the minority is not irrelevant, provided it's a robust minority, and I'm convinced we can stay pretty close to where we are.

(Notice the blanket statement about the majority not being enough, just sprinkling that in so nobody questions the historic obstruction tactics.)

In 2006 Democrats had to defend 18 out of 33 seats and needed to pick up 6 out of those 15 in order to secure the majority. They did it. In 2008 Republicans need 2, AT MOST, out of 12, and maybe 1 if it'd swing the Senate to 50-50 with a Republican President. And the Majority Leader is saying in late June that the majority is "impossible."

He's right, but it's significant that Republicans are so pathetic at this point that winning one measly Senate seat is out of reach.

At Least Somebody's Reading The Bills In The Senate

So Mitch McConnell cleanedHarry Reid's clock again yesterday, forcing the Senate clerk to read the entire text of the 500-page Boxer amendment to the Liberman-Warner climate change bill aloud. The ostensible reason was judicial nominees but it was purely a stalling tactic, to hold up the climate bill.

Of course, when Reid was in the minority, he routinely cleaned Bill Frist's clock, whether on the nuclear option or the Rule V session he demanded or whatever else. It's easier to work from the minority leadership position in the Senate. The fact that Reid's caucus is more likely to break away from him is really the only difference.

More and more, I'm thinking it's best to just end any effort on this bill altogether. There is no messaging and no strategy around it. The "We can solve it" campaign is supposed to be the newest big organization on the block with respect to climate change and they're silent in this debate. All the ground has been ceded to the conservative vision, which talks about costs instead of consequences of inaction. This morning on one of the chat shows I saw a long piece about how long it'll take to pay off the higher sticker price of a Prius with the lower gas prices. As if that's the only consideration, and not social responsibility.

They've hijacked the debate because progressive environmentalists can't get behind this bill. It rewards polluters and gives revenues from carbon trading to industry. The carbon market must be tightly regulated or it can be wasteful and useless. This market would absolutely fall into that category. The entire process has been a disaster from a public relations, political, and social standpoint. Barbara Boxer should be ashamed of herself.

Shows How Much Power Bush Has

Mitch McConnell is the de facto President right now.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said he would not allow Democrats a separate vote on each nominee and instead wanted the FEC nominees voted on as a package, which would ensure approval of the most controversial GOP pick, Hans von Spakovsky. Democrats have made it clear that von Spakovsky would not pass the Senate while the other four nominees would be approved.

The FEC consists of six commissioners, and the agency needs a minimum of four commissioners to meet a quorum and issue legal opinions. Since the beginning of this year, the FEC has had only two working commissioners and has been unable to deal with everything from John McCain's public financing to every day legal opinions on campaign ads.

McConnell said no deal has been made and he wants von Spakovsky approved along with the two pending Democrats and two pending Republican nominees.

McConnell said "they'll either let all six [ commissioners] go, or we will not have solved the problem."

Remember, Reid brokered this deal with the White House. But McConnell could care less.

For context, McConnell in the past has been a real problem for John McCain, and they've particularly clashed over campaign finance reform - he was the lawmaker who took McCain-Feingold to court. So considering that the "deal" would get rid of McCain enemy David Mason from the FEC, McConnell isn't exactly falling all over himself to throw the Republican nominee a lifeline. In addition, McConnell, who's up for re-election and is as shady as they come when it comes to fundraising, is maybe the least likely politician in Washington to want a working FEC.

A non-functional FEC during a Presidential election year is a recipe for chaos. But Harry Reid hasn't been able to figure out a way to squeeze McConnell on this (or any of his obstructionism) whatsoever, even though his denial of an "upperdown vote" is the height of hypocrisy from the party of Justice Sunday. So the stalemate continues.

Big-Spendin' McCain Update

So the DNC's complaint to the FEC is clearly getting under John McCain's skin. Leading to this ludicrous framing: that ripping off American taxpayers is a civil rights issue:

...Potter said the Supreme Court concluded that public financing for campaigns is constitutional because it is voluntary. "As a result, candidates have a constitutional right to withdraw from the program."

Of course, the problem is they've already USED the program. They used the money to get ballot access in Ohio and Delaware (Here's the relevant proof from Ohio, and the one from Delaware). They used the money in the public system to get a bank loan. There is no known Constitutional right that I know of for using public money and then pretending you didn't.

So in addition to the "Because I said so" defense, McCain is going to have to get an FEC ruling. Only the FEC only has two commissioners on it, due to a jam caused by Hans von Spakovsky's nomination and the unwillingness by Senate Republicans to decouple his confirmation from the other three broadly acceptable commissioners-in-waiting. Keep in mind that the DNC could actually file suit to force compliance on this. So John McCain may have to rely on Mitch McConnell to save his Presidential campaign. Which puts McConnell, who has been public enemy #1 on campaign finance issues, in a unique position.

This puts the Dems in a strong position--by denying the FEC a quorum, they can deny McCain the ability to get out of matching funds. They don't have to do anything except continue to refuse to consider all four nominated commissioners a hearing together; so long as they continue to insist that von Spakovsky receive his own hearing, things won't move forward.

Unless Mitch McConnell budges on his insistence that all the commissioners receive a hearing together.

But here 's the thing. Mitch McConnell (whom I'd include among those GOP bigwigs whose support Mitt would get before threatening to un-suspend his campaign) hates John McCain. Absolutely hates him.

In fact, I'd say that McConnell is one of the most likely sources for the Iseman story in the first place. After all, the first piece of evidence to counter McCain's denials was McCain's deposition in McConnell's suit against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law (BCRA is one of the reasons McConnell hates McCain so much). The deposition was given to McConnell's attorney in that suit, Floyd Abrams. While the deposition is publicly available, it is likely that someone pointed Isikoff to it. If so, I'm guessing that someone is rather closer to McConnell than he is to McCain.

Meanwhile, the good government reform groups have taken a complete pass on McCain's dirty effort to rip off taxpayers. Public Citizen (the group founded by Ralph Nader) is even offering testimony on McCain's behalf. This is nuts.

I've alluded to this with subtle jabs, but it's time to come out and say it clearly: There are a set of groups in Washington identified with the cause of campaign finance reform that seem to sit up at night staring at a picture of John McCain and waiting for the phone to ring. The four-year affair that ended with passage of the McCain-Feingold legislation banning soft money was the high point of their lives (to their credit, it was quite a political achievement -- still the only piece of legislation enacted over the objections of a majority of Republicans and the misgivings of Bush) but at this point, especially after the (entirely predictable) Supreme Court decision striking down its restrictions on television ads, McCain-Feingold doesn't amount to more than a memory.

This unrequited loyalty not only apparently gives McCain a free pass on abuses such as the loan; it has allowed him to essentially dominate the field, without lifting a finger. McCain's monopoly, as the only Republican interested in reform, gave him incredible power over the agenda (pushing purely restrictive policies, such as the proposed restrictions on political bloggers in 2005, and on non-profits the previous year) and leverage over the organizations, whose support from foundations depends on being bipartisan. This "McCain Wing" of the campaign finance reform movement is led by Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, both generally admirable and adept organizations, with small staffs and significant influence on the Hill and with reporters and editorial writers. The largest campaign finance organization, and the only one with real members, Common Cause, has been gradually moving beyond the cramped, restrictive view of reform represented by the McCain wing toward a more open approach, with great internal angst -- a longer story than can be told in a blog post!

Matt Stoller has more on Common Cause's legacy of failure. These so-called Democratic allies simply have not properly understood the current political climate and have hampered efforts at progressive change over and over. The single-issue groups have to adapt to remain relevant. And part of that is recognizing the big picture rather than keeping loyalty to Republicans who offer little more than lip service to them.

UPDATE: I forgot: McCain's other defense of his actions was to whine "B-But Howard Dean did it too," always my favorite Republican excuse for lawbreaking - "but it was widespread lawbreaking!" And in this case, it's not true, and Dean has the primary evidence. The bottom line is that Dean didn't take out a loan with public money used as collateral, and he didn't use the public system to save millions in ballot access fees.

More Surprises on FISA

This seems to me like a dumb move.

McConnell and Reid are on the Senate floor trading verbal blows over the most recent obstructionist move by the Republicans. They have tied up what was supposed to have been quick consideration of the economic stimulus package by invoking 30 more hours of debate, using the argument that they got it too late to fully consider it. They're actually raising hell about low-income heating assistance being "slipped" into the bill. Heartless bastards.

Reid is as steamed as I've ever seen him, and is actually sounding like us in talking about the important constitutional issues and executive overreach on FISA. He's arguing that McConnell is using this stall tactic to try to run out the clock on the 15 day extension of FISA, thereby trying to get us back to the position we were in last August, forcing through a bad bill under strict time constraints.

This means that we are pretty unlikely to see any votes on FISA before Thursday. Which means that we could get past Super Tuesday and perhaps have a full Dem caucus in DC when the votes happen.

What the heck is wrong with Republicans? They're going to waste the opportunity to ram through a FISA bill with amnesty for the phone companies and without proper minimization procedures under cover of Super Tuesday darkness? It's pretty clear that they set the vote standard high enough for all the amendments to fail. Are they that concerned about ensuring that poor people freeze to death that they'd waste this opportunity?

Maybe they did a whip count and saw that one of those poison pill amendments would pass. But surely Bush can signing statement those away. I think that even a wet noodle like Harry Reid isn't going to have his back pushed up against the wall forever. At this point the Republicans are putting the strategy of letting the Protect America Act expire back in play. Why would they do that?

UPDATE: OK, so there will be some votes tomorrow. And one of them is DiFi's exclusivity amendment that needs 60 votes, and without Clinton, Obama, and probably Kennedy, that's not going to happen. Other amendments need a majority vote, so it's not as crucial for the Presidentials to be there.

Even Russ Feingold seems resigned:

What's the status of your amendments? It's been suggested that in the consent agreement to allow debate, Republicans are allowing straight majority votes only on amendments they know will fail—including yours.

We're trying to make a record here, and to show who voted for what. My prediction is this thing will go through; it will be challenged and go through the courts. And eventually a Supreme Court with something like seven Republican-appointed judges will strike down the worst parts of it. This is a long-term battle to protect the rights of the American people.

Sigh.