Support NeoGAF

[Diablos]

and dont forget, his nude photo shoot wont go over well with the social conservative base and their "family values"

They'll look the other way.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Obama is the hero USA deserves, but not the one it needs right now?

You are right, instead we should have gotten the one who would have:

1. More Tax Cuts
2. Bomb Iran
3. More Tax Cuts
4. Bomb Yemen
5. Deregulate Health Care

Should have been fun.

and dont forget, his nude photo shoot wont go over well with the social conservative base and their "family values"

That only matters if a Democrat does it. For example, Vitter.

 

[empty vessel]

I don't disagree with any of that, and I don't think it contradcitst what I'm saying at all. If I were saying that corporations were altruistic, and that their political lobbying took place for the benefit of society as a whole, I would be wrong, but I haven't said anything along those lines. I've simply said that unions also are self-interested *also* and seek benefits for themselves as opposed to society as a whole *also*.

You asked why people were on the side of unions over corporations. I explained why: we are employees (for whom unions work), not investors (for whom corporations work). You, too, are a worker, or will be soon.

Adam Smith describes the rise of real wages for what he refers to as the first and second orders as being beneficial for society; I agree. This doesn't mean that a certain group of those working for a living receiving extra benefits over other people in the same working for a living category benefits society as a whole. Unions, as they existed either in the Industrial Age or in more modern times, clearly weren't as prevalent then; Adam Smith, who you quoted, stressed that people in the second order weren't really politically involved or informed, so he wouldn't have seen any workers' groups as effective. The unions that developed during the industrial era, and later evolved into what we have today, are certainly much different and more prevalent.

I don't disagree. Smith wasn't referring to unions at all. He was just describing what we call the working class--people who work for a living instead of earning money from rent and profit. The point was to show that distinguishing between workers and investors is not some novel concept I came up with for purposes of this discussion, but has been observed and discussed by every economist and thinker over the last several decades. It's a fundamental division of a capitalist economic arrangement.

Part of the danger of listening to corporate lobbyists is that they will generally push for legislation that reduces the amount of competition they face, allowing them to receive profit margins that are as close to those of a monopoly as possible. That's why regulation preventing monopolies is swell and agreeable.

For similar reasons, having legitimate competition in the labor force allows goods and services to be sold at a lower price because it brings down the cost of manufacturing when a company can hire a worker that will do the same amount of work as someone else for less money. If companies don't pass the benefits on to their consumers and decide to sit on the profit, other firms will eventually move in and compete away their margins... unless they've lobbied for unfair benefits and protections. Again, I'm not supporting corporate lobbying by saying that unions create economic inefficiency; I'm simply discussing unions more because we seem to already agree that corporations lobby for their self interest over society's net gain.

Ultimately, in order for unions and their lobbying to be beneficial for society, individual unions would have to be able to legitimately represent much, much wider swathes of the labor force, and only advocate for additional benefits for their industries without harming other industries or in any way increasing the prices of goods for consumers. Unfortunately, many of the things unions do demand (more comprehensive health plans from employers, greater restrictions on hiring practices to reduce labor competition, more vacation time) do, in fact, make it more expensive to produce goods. If goods cost more to make, they cost more for consumers to buy, and the real wages of consumers throughout the nation decrease. Which, according to Adam Smith, would certainly not be in the interest of society.

Consumers are workers. That's what makes capitalism, in the end, a kind of pyramid scheme in which a tiny class of investors sit at the top, doling out money to the rest of society (in their role as employees) on the front end, taking it back from the rest of society (in their role as consumers) on the back end, and then taking a portion off the top for themselves. Ironically, the investor doesn't work. The products are created by employees, and then they are purchased and consumed by them (given right back to the investor).

In the capitalist arrangement, the social wealth is divided between workers and investors, who, as I've shown, take off the top of the social wealth that workers create as a privilege of their legal status as "owners." When employees fight for better pay, they are merely asking for a greater share of the pie vis-a-vis investors. This is called the class struggle, and it is descriptive, not normative. It is what we in fact empirically observe as a result of a capitalist economic arrangement.

But this arrangement does not make bargaining for higher wages socially undesirable. To the contrary, as an employee (and a socialist), I believe people who work--as opposed to people who enjoy the legal status as "owner"--should be able to maximize the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor to the fullest extent. If we are to have a capitalist economic arrangement, investors' return should be low (as, again, Adam Smith says is important for a healthy economy). Making money through one's legal status as owner, as opposed to working for it, is a privilege in a capitalist society and it ought to be treated as such.

Finally, your post has reinforced my point that corporations (the representative of investors) and employees have diametrically opposed interests.

So, again, do you not understand why those of us who work for a living and get a paycheck twice a month would support unions over corporations?

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

Seeing as how Ted Kennedy and Michael Jackson both died in 2009 this is not true.

Spoiler

yet

I was actually referring to politically-related events. MJ's death is not related.

 

[BotoxAgent]

I hope recent events has lit a fire under Obama's ass, because he's got his work cut out for him :-( This is his opportunity now.

 

[mckmas8808]

I hope recent events has lit a fire under Obama's ass, because he's got his work cut out for him :-( This is his opportunity now.

Yeah I see he's taking some of this anger out on the banks right now. I'm all for that. But I'm nervous, because I just keep asking myself how it's going to get screwed up and not happen.

 

[Diablos]

"41" will keep it from happening. Every single time.

 

[GhaleonEB]

File this one under, you gotta be fuckin' kidding me:

A lot of the onus for health care's sudden derailing has been placed on the House, which is bafflingly opposed to passing the Senate bill. But the Senate isn't making life any easier, refusing to do the one thing that would make the House comfortable with the Senate bill. Politico reports:

Part of the negotiations center on whether Reid can provide an ironclad guarantee that the Senate will not leave the House in the lurch, aides said. If the House agrees to pass the Senate bill with a companion measure — or a “cleanup” bill — to make fixes, they want to know that the Senate will indeed pass it, too.

There was some talk among Senate leadership on Thursday of putting together a letter signed by 51 Democratic senators pledging to pass a cleanup bill if the House would pass the Senate bill. But that effort fizzled when support for it didn’t materialize, insiders said.

“The Senate moderates’ viewpoint is, ‘We passed our bill. We’re not going to spend three weeks on some other bill,’” said a Democratic lobbyist who represents clients pushing for reform.

"We're not going to spend three weeks on some other bill." Oy. And keep in mind that, like the Senate, the House has passed its bill as well. What was supposed to be happening right now is a package of compromise amendments that both the House and the Senate would pass.

No. Words.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/dont_forget_to_blame_the_senat.html

 

[Tamanon]

File this one under, you gotta be fuckin' kidding me:


No. Words.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/dont_forget_to_blame_the_senat.html

To be fair, that's a quote from a lobbyist, and the House really isn't cooperating either.

 

[SimpleDesign]

Geithner: Obama Proposal To Limit Banks Doesn't Mean Breaking Them Up

President Obama's proposals to rein in banks do not include breaking them up, according to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

During an interview Thursday with Newshour's Judy Woodruff, Geithner told Woodruff that it's not about breaking up banks, but about reducing their risk-taking.

According to the LA Times's Tom Petruno, Geithner's rejection of the word "break-up" seems to put him at odds with Obama's description of the proposal:

The administration's statement on the plan says that "no bank or financial institution that contains a bank will own, invest in or sponsor a hedge fund or a private equity fund, or proprietary trading operations unrelated to serving customers for its own profit."

That sure sounds like it would force a breakup of the megabanks...

I'm loving the fact that they're already sending out mixed signals.

Edit: Geithner has reservations on US bank limits-sources

President Barack Obama's newest Wall Street crackdown was met with hesitation from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who is concerned that politics could be sacrificing good economic policy, according to financial industry sources.

 

[ALeperMessiah]

Yeah I see he's taking some of this anger out on the banks right now. I'm all for that. But I'm nervous, because I just keep asking myself how it's going to get screwed up and not happen.

So, the way to fix the economy is to take money from the banks? Seems like more misguided populist rage from the DEMs.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

I'm loving the fact that they're already sending out mixed signals.

What do you mean? This administration is fully committed to making the most sweeping changes possible without doing anything to upset the established order. They've been very clear about this.

 

[Diablos]

File this one under, you gotta be fuckin' kidding me:


No. Words.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/dont_forget_to_blame_the_senat.html

Runnin' for the hills, they are.

 

[The Librarian]

To be fair, that's a quote from a lobbyist, and the House really isn't cooperating either.

I really hope they can get their act together.

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

Lol Guantanamo, LOL.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/22gitmo.html?hp

Detainees Will Still Be Held, but Not Tried, Official Says

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees at the Guantánamo Bay military prison in Cuba because a high-level task force has concluded that they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release, an administration official said on Thursday.
However, the administration has decided that nearly 40 other detainees should be prosecuted for terrorism or related war crimes. And the remaining prisoners, about 110 men, should be repatriated or transferred to other countries for possible release, the official said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the numbers.
There are just under 200 detainees left at the detention center.

President Obama established the task force shortly after his inauguration last year as part of his administration’s effort to deal with the detainee issues left behind by the Bush administration. It was facing a deadline of Friday to complete its work.

For the past year, national-security and law-enforcement officials under the direction of Matthew G. Olsen, a Justice Department lawyer, have been pulling together scattered files for each detainee at Guantánamo. They evaluated any evidence against each man, the perceived threat he might pose if released, and the possibility of successfully prosecuting him.

The group made recommendations that were then evaluated by senior administration officials, led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

But the determination about which category to put each detainee in leaves other questions unanswered. For example, of the roughly 110 detainees who are set to be transferred to other countries, about 30 are Yemenis, the official said. The administration recently halted transfers to Yemen in the wake of the attempted bombing of an airplane bound for Detroit on Christmas — a plot believed to have been developed by an affiliate of Al Qaeda based in Yemen.

In addition, Mr. Holder is charged with deciding whether the prisoners who are to be prosecuted should face a civilian trial or a military commission. In November, he announced that five detainees would face a military commission and five others — including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — would be prosecuted in federal court.

'


WOOOOO Backsliding

 

[Diablos]

I really hope they can get their act together.

They won't. Democratic incompetence is making a grand comeback, and sometimes it makes me want to switch my affiliation to independent. I'd never vote Republican of course.

I am looking forward to the SOTU. I hope Obama smartens up and maybe starts to play a little dirty. Hope and change be damned, the GOP will never jump on that bandwagon. Obama needs to stop being so nice.

I am still wondering if Obama even realizes the problems he faces. Three years is a while from now, but if Obama just kind of coasts along like this, he's looking at one term being a very real possibility. The amount of commentary I read from people online (people who are mainstream Democrats or very liberal), people at work, facebook, family, you name it... Obama is letting a LOT of people down. I can't recall how many people I've seen comment on recent articles where something to the effect of "I didn't devote time and money I didn't have for a President to get elected and then be unable to deliver on any of his campaign promises" is said. It's pretty alarming. He's letting his base down big time.

I don't want to say I have voters' remorse, but I am very disappointed in his performance thus far... after the summer, he should have either a. passed HCR through reconciliation or b. given up on it for the time being if Harry Reid continued to fart around like the arrogant, incompetent twat he is. That's it. Everything else after that was clearly a waste of time, and the bill went to complete shit while this administration did next to nothing to address the dismal jobs situation.

Looking back, it really is crazy that he allowed all those backroom Senate deals to happen. I know he couldn't have necessarily stopped it, but he could have called some people out. I personally find the whole Senate process of getting the bill passed disgusting myself.

Really, the only reason I want something -- anything -- to pass now, is because it'll keep the GOP from having an even bigger victory than Brown's win, and that is stopping his domestic agenda dead in its tracks. Furthermore, Obama will look like an utter failure as he said himself that he'd consider himself just that if he fails to pass HCR (really dumb move there, Barack).

Outside of that, I really hate the Senate bill. I really, really hate it. It's absolute garbage.

 

[Tamanon]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...cial-comment---keith-olbermann-s-name-calling

Thought PoliGAF might appreciate this.:lol

 

[scorcho]

1. Kennedy's seat goes to a republican
2. Health care bill is stalled
3. Corporations are free to finance political campaigns
4. Air America goes bankrupt

Good times.

2-4 were going to happen regardless. 1 was just icing on an awfully bitter cake. :/

edit: and for those keeping check, has all this been accounted for in THE PLAN? [sigh]

 

[eznark]

2-4 were going to happen regardless. 1 was just icing on an awfully bitter cake. :/

Don't forget the sweet cherry of the Copenhagen accords essentially collapsing.

 

[Diablos]

Copenhagen is more of a global issue, if you ask me.

 

[BotoxAgent]

They won't. Democratic incompetence is making a grand comeback, and sometimes it makes me want to switch my affiliation to independent. I'd never vote Republican of course.

I am looking forward to the SOTU. I hope Obama smartens up and maybe starts to play a little dirty. Hope and change be damned, the GOP will never jump on that bandwagon. Obama needs to stop being so nice.

I am still wondering if Obama even realizes the problems he faces. Three years is a while from now, but if Obama just kind of coasts along like this, he's looking at one term being a very real possibility. The amount of commentary I read from people online (people who are mainstream Democrats or very liberal), people at work, facebook, family, you name it... Obama is letting a LOT of people down. I can't recall how many people I've seen comment on recent articles where something to the effect of "I didn't devote time and money I didn't have for a President to get elected and then be unable to deliver on any of his campaign promises" is said. It's pretty alarming. He's letting his base down big time.

I don't want to say I have voters' remorse, but I am very disappointed in his performance thus far... after the summer, he should have either a. passed HCR through reconciliation or b. given up on it for the time being if Harry Reid continued to fart around like the arrogant, incompetent twat he is. That's it. Everything else after that was clearly a waste of time, and the bill went to complete shit while this administration did next to nothing to address the dismal jobs situation.

Looking back, it really is crazy that he allowed all those backroom Senate deals to happen. I know he couldn't have necessarily stopped it, but he could have called some people out. I personally find the whole Senate process of getting the bill passed disgusting myself.

Really, the only reason I want something -- anything -- to pass now, is because it'll keep the GOP from having an even bigger victory than Brown's win, and that is stopping his domestic agenda dead in its tracks. Furthermore, Obama will look like an utter failure as he said himself that he'd consider himself just that if he fails to pass HCR (really dumb move there, Barack).

Outside of that, I really hate the Senate bill. I really, really hate it. It's absolute garbage.

yeah, it sucks. At least, Obama better fix his messaging and show how vile the Republicans are and get the country on his side again.

 

[mckmas8808]

Geithner: Obama Proposal To Limit Banks Doesn't Mean Breaking Them Up



I'm loving the fact that they're already sending out mixed signals.

Edit: Geithner has reservations on US bank limits-sources

Okay Timothy Geithner is really starting to get on my nerves. WTF is up with this guy?

 

[Diablos]

yeah, it sucks. At least, Obama better fix his messaging and show how vile the Republicans are and get the country on his side again.

It's going to be hard. He spent all his political capital on a busted health bill that ended up being mediocre at best. When your other two accomplishments are bailing out AIG (I realize there was more to the stimulus than this, but GOPers will define it as that to capitalize on the populist blind rage) and adding more troops to Afghanistan, well, you have quite an uphill battle ahead.

The state of the art Obama messaging machine that got him elected and enabled him to sharpen the message early on is all but dead. I don't know what happened, but it's dead. The party he so masterfully commanded is now unable to find a strong message to wrap themselves around and it's blowing up in his face.

Okay Timothy Geithner is really starting to get on my nerves. WTF is up with this guy?

He needs to be silenced and fired ASAP. He's an embarrassment to the White House.

 

[scorcho]

Okay Timothy Geithner is really starting to get on my nerves. WTF is up with this guy?

team of rivals, yada yada. oh those halcyon days!

 

[Beer Monkey]

Too big to fail means too big to live. Big banks must be broken up. If the dems are going to be such pussies about it they might as well be Republicans.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Yeah this State of the Union is gonna have to be magical for it to turn his momentum around at this point.

 

[BotoxAgent]

The state of the art Obama messaging machine that got him elected and enabled him to sharpen the message early on is all but dead. I don't know what happened, but it's dead. The party he so masterfully commanded is now unable to find a strong message to wrap themselves around and it's blowing up in his face.

and the hurdle of misinformation he has to battle through is even worse than during the election :-( But I am just as angry at the poor mismanagement by the spineless ineffectual Democrats as I am by the ruthless Republicans.

 

[Diablos]

What can he really say though? He's basically been unable to do anything but pass the stimulus and add troops. The stimulus is unpopular and bragging about war, well... that's not very optimistic.

I can only hope he can channel what made him so great and somehow figure out a way to redefine his Presidency. He has to. I'm cautiously optimistic.

and the hurdle of misinformation he has to battle through is even worse than during the election :-( But I am just as angry at the poor mismanagement by the spineless ineffectual Democrats as I am by the ruthless Republicans.

GOPers play DIRTY. This is no secret. The more Obama let the health bill get butchered while he focused on nothing else domestically, the more he let the opposition get a hold on the discussion. He HAD the discussion and he walked away from it.

Slimeball "conservative Democrats", Joe Lieberman, and Republican tactics have basically hijacked Obama's first year of office domestically. What a fucking mess. :\

 

[Y2Kev]

team of rivals, yada yada. oh those halcyon days!

Can't wait to see which job at citi he gets when he is forced out.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Empty Vessel - Serious question here.

I gather that you aren't very fond of capitalism.

Is this correct?

 

[PhoenixDark]

File this one under, you gotta be fuckin' kidding me:


No. Words.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/dont_forget_to_blame_the_senat.html

Wow. "We've stuck our necks out enough. If the house doesn't want to help 30mil people get coverage it's not our fault!""

smh. And not a word of direction from the WH, 3+ days later

 

[empty vessel]

Empty Vessel - Serious question here.

I gather that you aren't very fond of capitalism.

Is this correct?

I'm not a capitalist, no. I think there are fairer and more equitable economic arrangements. Ironically--or what would appear ironic to those who don't understand socialism--I do believe in an "ownership society" that George W. Bush talked about, just not his version of it. I believe the people who work in a company should have a stake in that company (this is what a collective is--and what socialism is). I disfavor absentee ownership, ownership without a share of the burden of the labor of wealth production.

America's version of capitalism--in which "markets" are redefined to include things that aren't markets at all under (e.g., health care) and in which corporate interests are permitted to have any say in social governance (they are creatures of law that we should control, not vice versa)--I find particularly abhorrent. Capitalist democracies that do a better job of regulating corporations and governing in the interest of its citizens (e.g., Scandanavian countries) I find to be much more palatable.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Wow. "We've stuck our necks out enough. If the house doesn't want to help 30mil people get coverage it's not our fault!""

smh. And not a word of direction from the WH, 3+ days later

That's what's so galling about the entire thing. Obama is leaving Congress out to dry. Mind you, they did it to themselves, but a little leadership, even behind the scenes, would be nice to see.

FWIW, there's at least some pressure growing on the House to pass the freaking Senate bill and then amend it via reconciliation.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...e-to-pass-senate-health-care-bill.php?ref=fpa

The most distasteful elements of the bill do not take effect until 2014. Plenty of time to amend it (over and over). But not doing anything now would mean we likely end up with jack squat by then.

 

[The Librarian]

That's what's so galling about the entire thing. Obama is leaving Congress out to dry. Mind you, they did it to themselves, but a little leadership, even behind the scenes, would be nice to see.

FWIW, there's at least some pressure growing on the House to pass the freaking Senate bill and then amend it via reconciliation.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...e-to-pass-senate-health-care-bill.php?ref=fpa

The most distasteful elements of the bill do not take effect until 2014. Plenty of time to amend it (over and over). But not doing anything now would mean we likely end up with jack squat by then.

Seriously. Something is better than nothing.

 

[besada]

I love how the House, which passed its bill in a reasonable time without bending over and taking it up the ass have somehow become the villains of this piece.

Not the Senate, who wasted time and twisted the bill out of shape. Not the WH, who got distracted and provided cover for the elements fucking up the bill.

Nope, let's blame the House instead.

 

[mckmas8808]

So, the way to fix the economy is to take money from the banks? Seems like more misguided populist rage from the DEMs.

You know that's not what's happening here.

 

[The Librarian]

I love how the House, which passed its bill in a reasonable time without bending over and taking it up the ass have somehow become the villains of this piece.

Not the Senate, who wasted time and twisted the bill out of shape. Not the WH, who got distracted and provided cover for the elements fucking up the bill.

Nope, let's blame the House instead.

The House, even though it's really really much better than the Senate, isn't looking at this logically. Pass the Senate bill so something can get through, something is better than nothing, then go back and amend whatever is needed.

 

[mckmas8808]

I love how the House, which passed its bill in a reasonable time without bending over and taking it up the ass have somehow become the villains of this piece.

Not the Senate, who wasted time and twisted the bill out of shape. Not the WH, who got distracted and provided cover for the elements fucking up the bill.

Nope, let's blame the House instead.

I understand where you are coming from, but the House, the Senate, and the White House at this point are all to blame.

At some point within the next few days something will have to be agreed upon. Lets see who steps up to the table.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Yeah this State of the Union is gonna have to be magical for it to turn his momentum around at this point.

The only thing that could turn the momentum is action, not speeches.

 

[Manmademan]

The only thing that could turn the momentum is the perception of action, not speeches.

fixed that for you

 

[teruterubozu]

The only thing that could turn the momentum is action, not speeches.

"You Lie!"

 

[Y2Kev]

I don't think the house and pelosi are at all to blame.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I love how the House, which passed its bill in a reasonable time without bending over and taking it up the ass have somehow become the villains of this piece.

Not the Senate, who wasted time and twisted the bill out of shape. Not the WH, who got distracted and provided cover for the elements fucking up the bill.

Nope, let's blame the House instead.

Which probably why the House is so pissed off right now. They did their job, and did it both faster and better than the Senate. And now they're being asked to ditch all of that and swallow what is in many ways an inferior bill.

But the political reality is, they have two (viable) options: pass the Senate bill and amend it, or pass small chunks stand-alone via reconciliation.

Naturally, they're apparently pursing a 3rd way that will fail completely. :\

 

[empty vessel]

I don't think the house and pelosi are at all to blame.

Indeed, the Senate can go forward with reconciliation whenever they are ready. It's the Senate that's not acting, not the House.

 

[Chipopo]

I see people say this all the time but can't figure out why. We are a different nation than many in Europe. We have a different history, so why compare us to those "other" nations?

why would you be opposed to critical thinking in this way? Isn't one of the strongest arguments for health care reform the fact that it has already been so widely implemented throughout the civilized world? Being insular in your thinking helps noone.

 

[GhaleonEB]

So, we have Dodd brillaintly saying let's take a month long break from healthcare to pass a jobs bill.

Then we have someone from the House saying this:

"As Speaker Pelosi has said, the House of Representatives does not have the votes to pass the Senate health care bill alone. It is clear that the great majority of the House Democratic Caucus - right, left and center - is unwilling to pass the Senate bill as it stands. But we must not let this fact, or the election results in Massachusetts, cause us to abandon comprehensive health care reform.

"We must instead negotiate an agreement with the Senate to pass a few key changes to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process so that both Houses can pass a comprehensive bill. We can then take various popular insurance reforms that cannot be passed through the reconciliation process - dealing with such subjects as pre-existing conditions, rescissions and annual and lifetime benefits - put them in a separate bill, and see if the Republicans dare to filibuster them. The alternatives - giving up on comprehensive reform or attempting to only pass small pieces separately - are either unacceptable or impractical.

"Though the process of crafting and passing health care legislation has been frustrating and disappointing for many of us, we still have a rare opportunity to enact true reform, and we must not give up."

These are not actually incompatible - the regulations that need changing take effect years from now.

Pass the Senate bill. Pass a jobs bill. Then do the reconciliation and other amendments to the healthcare bill.

 

[cntr]

TPMDC Morning Roundup

NYT: A New Search For Consensus On Health Care
The New York Times reports on the latest efforts to find a new consensus for a pared-down health care bill: "The consensus measure would be less ambitious than the bills approved last year. It would extend insurance coverage to perhaps 12 million to 15 million people -- and provide political cover to Democrats, who said they could not simply drop the issue after spending so much time and effort on it. The pared-back approach would cover fewer than half of those who, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would gain coverage under the House and Senate bills. But it would not put the government on the hook for what critics say is a new entitlement, a change that would appeal to some Republicans."

Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will depart form the White House at 9:35 a.m. ET and Andrews Air Force Base at 9:50 a.m. ET, arriving at 11 a.m. ET in Cleveland, Ohio. Obama will tour the Wind Turbine Manufacturing and Fab Lab facilities at Lorain County Community College in Elyria, at 1:20 p.m. ET, and hold a town hall meeting at 2:05 p.m. ET. Obama will depart from Cleveland at 4:55 p.m. ET, arriving back at Andrews Air Force Base at 6 p.m. ET, and back at the White House at 6:15 p.m. ET.

Gates: 'The United States Does Not Covet A Single Inch Of Pakistani Soil'
Speaking to officers at Pakistan's National Defense University, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates sought to assuage doubts about the American presence in the region. "I fully understand why some of you may be skeptical about the U.S. commitment to Pakistan," said Gates, also adding: "The United States does not covet a single inch of Pakistani soil."

Baucus: 'We're Going To Pass Health Care Reform"
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) predicted that health care reform will still pass. "We're going to pass health care reform. There are lots of options, and we're just talking about the pros and cons," said Baucus, who also added that "it might take a day or two" to figure out how to do it.

Obama Bank Plan Wins Backing From Europe
President Obama's plan to put new restrictions on banks' sizes and trading activities has picked up support from Europe, including the region's conservatives. "They see that regulation, which was a taboo word that was difficult to use in financial circles in the United States, is vital to contain ... banking excesses," said French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde.

Harkin To Push Filibuster Reform -- Faces Uphill Battle
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), a long time opponent of the filibuster is set to introduce a proposal soon to eliminate the power of the Senate minority to block legislation, noting that the frequency of filibusters has risen from once per Congress in the 1950's to 139 in the last one. However, Baucus will have a lot of problems trying to remove the 60-vote threshold -- it takes 67 votes to change the Senate rules.

Leno To Headline White House Correspondents Dinner
Jay Leno will headline the upcoming White House Correspondents Dinner. The decision was made before the recent controversies involving Leno getting The Tonight Show back, and Conan O'Brien leaving NBC, according to the White House Correspondents Association.
​

 

[cntr]

Poll: Majority Of Americans Wants Dems To Suspend Work On Health Care

A new USA Today/Gallup poll out today shows 55% of respondents want President Obama and Congressional Democrats to "suspend work on the current health care bill ... and consider alternative bills that can receive Republican support." And 39% want to see Democrats "continue to try" to pass health care.

Broken down by party, 67% of Democrats want to see lawmakers continue working on health care -- but 87% of Republicans want to see them stop. Among independents, 56% want them to suspend their work on health care.

And only 32% of overall respondents thought health care should be the top priority.

When it comes to Obama's one-year report card, Americans are apparently divided on how he's done. Of all respondents, 39% were "pleased" with his progress, 37% think he's taking the country "in the wrong direction," and 20% wish he would have done more. Independents fall along the same lines, at 35-35-25.

Among Democrats, 70% are pleased and 18% wish he would do more. Among Republicans, 75% think he's taking the U.S. in the wrong direction and 15% wished he would have done more.

 

[cntr]

Majorities

James Fallows notes:

Fifty-nine senators, representing (as explained here) some 63 percent of the American public, accompanied by a large House majority and a president recently elected with 70 million votes, cannot enact changes in the nation's health-care system that have been debated for decades. A 59-41 margin is not enough for a change of this magnitude.

Five Justices of the Supreme Court, outvoting their four colleagues, can work a fundamental change in election law that goes far beyond the issues presented by the parties to the case. (Among many accounts, see these two on Slate, here and here, and National Journal here.) Courts always have the option of deciding cases narrowly or broadly. The breadth of this one, reaching far beyond the merits of the case so as to enact the majority Justices' views, is staggering even to a non-lawyer like me. A one-person margin is enough for a change of this magnitude.

In the least accountable branch of government, the narrowest margin prevails; in our elected legislative branch, substantial majorities are neutered.​

Also worth noting is that Scott Brown got 51 percent of the vote in Massachusetts, not 60 percent. But his bare majority is being sold as a landslide and his 41-member Republican minority is being sold as stronger than the 59-member Democratic majority. If Brown's election had played by Senate rules, he wouldn't have won.

 

[Veritas_]

Poll: Majority Of Americans Wants Dems To Suspend Work On Health Care

67% of Democrats want to see lawmakers continue working on health care -- but 87% of Republicans want to see them stop

Not really surprising. Still unfortunate.