Obama Gets His First Bill-Signing Ceremony

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 has passed the House again. Now conformed with changes made in the Senate, it will move on to the President for signage. Symbolically, this is a good bill to be the initial one signed into law - one that values basic fairness and the principle of equal pay for equal work.

5 "Democrats" voted against this - Allen Boyd (FL), Bobby Bright (AL), Parker Griffith (AL), Travis Childers (MS), and Dan Boren (OK). I say "Democrats" because I can't see how the party affiliation applies to people who vote against legislation like this.

Today In Your Surveillance State

They're going to want your laptop, please. For your security.

Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"The policies . . . are truly alarming," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who is probing the government's border search practices. He said he intends to introduce legislation soon that would require reasonable suspicion for border searches, as well as prohibit profiling on race, religion or national origin.

I think it was Digby who said that the security line at the airport is a massive psychological experiment to get Americans comfortable with having their liberties taken away. These days people take off their shoes without being prompted. The laptop removal will soon become commonplace as well. It's all to keep you safe.

And this principle then extends to wiretapping ("if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about"), and those laws must be determined in secret, in a star chamber, without the prying eyes of civil liberties advocates.

The Department of Justice filed court papers yesterday seeking to block the ACLU -- and any other third party -- from submitting briefs to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the classified forums that will be primarily responsible for translating the federal law signed last month into practice.

The DOJ argues that any briefs the ACLU might file would be ill-informed because its lawyers cannot access the classified information at the heart of many FISA cases, and the proceedings would just clog the flow of cases.

They want to keep everything secret for your protection, you see. Not to subvert the law and create the most expansive surveillance system possible.

But you know, it's the Chinese doing all that spying on reporters at the Olympics that we have to worry about. We're doing it to keep you safe.

When asked about the NSA's own warrantless monitoring of electronic communications in the United States and how that's different from the Chinese government's practices, Brownback responded:

"We don't put the hardware and software on hotels. If there is a targeted individual that seems to be a likely prospect of terrorists, they must go through the FISA court and ask for a court to determine that there is probable cause to be able to listen in on that information.

This is a blanket requirement of a hotel to operate a license in China. It is non-specific to anybody. It can be used on journalists. It can be used on athletes -- or, excuse me, they're at the Olympic village -- but on their families. It can be used on democracy advocates, human rights advocates, none of which is prohibited. It is real time.

I think there is a huge difference between these two that are taking place."

No mention was made, during the grandstanding, of the Bush Administration's monitoring of animal rights, environmental and poverty relief activists, as documented by files released in 2005 as a result of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union. (In those cases, the monitoring was done by the FBI.)

(We don't put hardware and software in hotels because we put it in a giant room in San Francisco that sucks up every communication imaginable.)

This really is a moment to fight back against these unnecessary takings of our privacy rights. The Get FISA Right movement that started on Barack Obama's website now has its own home on the Web, and they're pushing to incorporate FISA reform into the DNC platform, as well as holding those who voted the wrong way accountable and running this ad, using SaysMe TV to get it on television for as little as $6.00, to continue to raise awareness for the issue.



In addition, the Accountability NOW campaign, designed to punish Blue Dogs for their ignorance of the Constitution and the rule of law, is ramping up. August 8 is the date scheduled for a large money bomb to raise money.

Passive acceptance of these assaults on privacy and civil liberties will only yield more of them. We have to fight back.

A Bush Dog Revels In Poverty

Considering all of the rural areas and dirt-poor urban centers in the country, you have to be a little surprised that Jim Costa's Central Valley district is the worst in the country for quality of life.

Poverty, poor health and low graduation rates have put the San Joaquin Valley's 20th Congressional District dead last in a new national scorecard that ranks the well-being of residents.

Even notoriously grim Appalachia fares better than the congressional district that sweeps in Fresno, Kings and Kern counties, the study made public Wednesday shows. The assessment of health, education and income ranks the district 436th out of 436 districts nationwide.

CA-20 has the lowest rate of college graduates in the country, just 6.5%. The median annual salary is just $16,767, and life expectancy is 4.5 years lower than in rich, high well-being areas like the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It's an appalling set of numbers.

We know the challenges in this district. Factory-style farming has lowered the air quality and increased the public health risks. As income inequality stratifies, places like the Central Valley get left behind, even more so in a California with a 6.9% unemployment rate. A lack of development into 21st-century jobs causes a brain drain, and higher energy prices cripple rural America.

And there's a residual benefit. A dirt-poor district is a district that doesn't vote heavily or pay much attention to politics, paradoxically so since they need to the most. And so we get Representatives like Jim Costa, whose district has the lowest participation rates in the entire state. Which means he can vote the wrong way on issues like FISA or war funding and not get much feedback about it from a constituency that's struggling to survive. In this context, his desire to return federal funds to the district or improve quality of life would seem to be low, at best. It's a vicious circle: poverty breeds inattention, inattention breeds bad lawmakers, bad lawmakers have trouble improving poverty.

We need less legislators like Jim Costa who seem more interested in pleasing their corporate contributors than the suffering citizens in their own districts. The problem is how to reach a low-information constituency, and how to make that connection, that sustained political power and engagement is vital if we want to end poverty and build the post-carbon, post-agrarian economy that would lift up whole regions like the Central Valley.

If Ever Anyone Needed Watching

Today marks the launch of Health Care For America Now, a national coalition which plans to organize millions of Americans at the grassroots level to advocate for quality, affordable health care for everyone.

We're bringing together community organizers, nurses, doctors, small business owners, faith-based groups, organizations of people of color, and seniors who believe it's time we had an American solution that provides quality, affordable health care for everyone.

We're offering a bold new solution that gives you real choice and a guarantee of quality coverage you can afford: keep your current private insurance plan, pick a new private insurance plan, or join a public health insurance plan.

We're also calling for regulation on health insurance companies. We need to set and enforce rules that quash health insurance companies' greed once and for all.There is a huge divide between our plan and the insurance companies' plan for healthcare reform. We want to make sure you have the quality coverage you need at the price you can afford. They want to leave you alone to fend for yourself in the unregulated, bureaucratic health insurance market.

Our plan is affordable for people and business. Their plan is profitable for them. With no regulation, health insurance companies can and will charge whatever they want, set high deductibles, and continue to drop coverage when you get sick. Now is the time to pick a side. Which side are you on?

Elizabeth Edwards is one of the high-profile faces of this coalition, but it's fairly broad, including AFSCME, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, MoveOn.org, the NEA, National Women’s Law Center, Planned Parenthood, the SEIU, the UFCW, and USAction. Today they are running live launch events all over the country, including two in California. One is happening at this hour in Los Angeles, featuring Lt. Governor John Garamendi. There's another event in San Francisco on the steps of City Hall at 11:30 featuring Mayor Gavin Newsom. The names shouldn't surprise you - they're both two of the most high-profile advocates for universal health care in the state, and they'll both use the issue as a springboard for their 2010 gubernatorial campaigns.

What I'm more interested in is HCAN's strategy to work inside Bush Dog districts to hold them accountable should they prostrate themselves for the insurance industry.

The work of Health Care For America Now was first made public late last week. But the group, with Elizabeth Edwards as a figurehead, offered expanded insight into the details of its campaign during a meeting on Monday. In addition to spending $40 million -- $1.5 million of which will be put behind an initial ad buy (national TV, print, and online) -- the group will be sending organizers to 52 cities, blasting out emails to 5 million households, airing spots on MSNBC and CNN and submitting op-eds to major papers (officials hinted at the New York Times piece to come).

In addition, the campaign is going to take advantage of Moveon.org's massive data files to reach out to like-minded supporters and officials promised to work in Democratic and Republican districts alike.

"We'll have an organizer in the district of every Blue Dog Democrat," said HCAN campaign manager Richard Kirsch of the conservative Democrats.

"The focus of the campaign," he added, "is on national legislation. "This year, however, it is also a referendum: do you support quality, affordable, health care for all, or an alliance with the private insurance industry?"

Right on. These Bush Dogs need constant pressure and the threat of job loss in order to do right by their constituents. I don't know how successful HCAN will be, but they certainly have the right strategy.

Rep. Hoyer, You're About To Be Money-Bombed

Steny Hoyer's pathetic lie about why he engineered a FISA bill that grants immunity to the telecoms and the Bush Administration is so laughably bad that you wonder how this guy ever got elected Majority Leader in the first place. He certainly wilts in the spotlight.

Asked why Democrats don’t put aside the surveillance legislation until a new president is elected in November, Hoyer said he would prefer to do so, but can’t because so many House Democrats are prepared to vote for the Senate bill that he and other top House Democrats oppose.

“Clearly enough Democrats have indicated in the House they would vote for the Senate bill if it came to the floor. The alternatives are either the Senate bill or a bill significantly better” reached through negotiations with the Senate and the White House, he said.

“Many Democrats have indicated to me they are willing to wait as long as an alternative is in sight. If not, they are prepared to vote for the Senate bill,” Hoyer said.

That's just not factually correct. They all voted with the stronger House bill just a few months ago. They don't have the ability to vote for the Senate bill unless Hoyer and the leadership bring it to the floor. The discharge petition that would force the bill to a vote has been largely dormant for the past two months. It's just completely disingenuous for Hoyer to suggest he's controlled by the rank and file.

Glenn Greenwald reports that his efforts to hold Hoyer accountable for sanctioning lawbreaking are growing.

First, the amount raised in the last 24 hours is now a truly extraordinary $90,000 -- bringing the total for this campaign over $170,000. The more that number goes up, the more potent this campaign will be, the harder it will hit its deserving targets. Contributions can be made here.

The ACLU Press Release announcing this new coalition, which is being called "Strange Bedfellows," is here. We expect to announce numerous other additions to the coalition -- many quite significant -- very shortly [...]

As a result, our campaign will be unveiled in two phases, with Phase I to entail an immediate ad campaign aimed at three key Democratic enablers of this bill -- Hoyer, Chris Carney, and Blue Dog Rep. John Barrow of Georgia. The reasons for targeting Hoyer are self-evident and were set forth yesterday, and the campaign against Carney -- who has long bee one of the Blue Dogs spearheading the effort behind this bill -- is already underway and will continue.

Rep. John Barrow was, like Carney, one of the 21 Blue Dogs who signed the letter to Nancy Pelosi back in March demanding that they be allowed to vote on the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill. In July, Barrow faces a very credible primary challenger -- Georgia State House Rep. Regina Thomas -- who is much more in step with the district's Democratic base.

All good enough. Carney doesn't have a primary opponent, but to be honest, he can have his negatives increased so he's replaced by a Republican. Really doesn't matter a bit to me.

What Hoyer ought to be worried about comes next.

Phase II will involve a massive money bomb, to be planned by the same people who were behind the money bombs that raised millions and millions of dollars for the Ron Paul presidential campaign. The dates and other details for that will be announced shortly.

The plan there is to raise an extraordinary amount of money -- dwarfing the $90,000 raised in the last 24 hours -- by going to all of the various constituents of each member of this coalition in order to fuel a real campaign in defense of civil liberties, constitutional protections and the rule of law. The money raised will be used to oppose and punish those vulnerable members of Congress who continue to support the evisceration of our constitutional framework and core civil liberties, while supporting candidates and office-holders who meaningfully oppose that assault.

Like the ACLU said, it's Strange Bedfellows. But if citizens with different views can come together on supporting civil liberties and the rule of law, I enthusiastically support it. You can become a strange bedfellow here.

A citizen-led to use millions and millions of dollars attacking Steny Hoyer is something I can get behind.

I Can't Wait To End This Era Of Governance

And from the we've got a lot of work to do file:

House Democrats are likely to drop a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance benefits from a major spending package that includes continued funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that would create a new education benefit for military veterans returning from the battlefields.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday that the unemployment insurance provision would "probably not" be part of the final package of war and domestic spending, which has become the most important legislative battle this spring between congressional Democrats and President Bush [...]

The version of the bill approved by the Senate on May 22 would cost more than $250 billion over 10 years, a price tag that the fiscally conservative caucus of "Blue Dog" House Democrats opposes. The bill would provide $165 billion to fund the two wars into the next presidency, along with billions of dollars more for domestic programs.

The total absurdity about Blue Dogs balking at the price tag of domestic spending in a bill that puts $165 BILLION dollars for war funding OFF THE BOOKS is about to send my fist through this computer screen. I mean good Lord.

If Obama wins, Democrats will own this war. And all of these Blue Dogs will have a choice to make, and they'll either understand the meaning of responsibility or we'll have to hold them to account. There's so much rot in the Democratic Party to clear away, it's going to be a rough road.

FISA Update

I'm starting to get worried with what I'm hearing about a FISA "compromise." Republicans in Congress have been supposedly shifting on the rules governing surveillance, and are claiming that this is their final offer. Steny Hoyer and Jello Jay Rockefeller have been working on this bill with Kit Bond, and it doesn't look good. Here's Ryan Singel's report.

As for amnesty, here's a compare and contrast between bill (.pdf) the Senate passed in February and Bond's compromise.

S. 2248: In any case brought against a telecom for allegedly helping the government spy on Americans, the Attorney General could then write a secret letter to the judge in the case. The letter can certify that the company didn't participate or that the companies had gotten a piece of paper from the government at some point, saying that the President thought the program was legal. The letter does not even have to say that the telecom's participation was legal, simply that the government's end was. The judge would be obligated to throw out the case, unless he found an "abuse of discretion" on behalf of the Attorney General.

Bond compromise: Under this proposal, the Attorney General's letter goes to the secret spying court, rather than to a normal federal judge. A FISC judge would actually be able see whatever requests or orders were given to the telecoms, and parties in the case could actually file briefs. The judge would then decide on a "preponderance of the evidence" whether the telecom secretly spied on Americans as part of a program authorized by president and that they got a letter at some point from the government.

In other words, the outcome in the compromise is as foregone as the original amnesty provision. Both essentially work like directives to the court to throw out lawsuits brought by Americans who allege massive violation of federal privacy laws.

This is pretty close to the Feinstein "compromise" on FISA from earlier this year. It allows a secret court to make the determination on allowing lawsuits to go forward - of course, it's a secret court, and the point of the lawsuits is not necessarily to bankrupt telecoms but to discover the extent of the spying on Americans by the White House, which this would short-circuit. In addition, it sets up FISA as the exclusive means for telecom surveillance, which is fine, but that's already the law, and the Bush Administration thinks they have the power to invalidate exclusivity by executive order and secert law, anyway.

There is no constituency for this bill other than the telecom industry, which has spent millions in lobbying fees already this year. There's supposedly a deadline in August after which some wiretaps set right now would have to be stopped, which could be fixed very easily with a patch covering international communications that go through a domestic switcher. There is absolutely no reason to give in on this. John McCain is flopping like a fish on this one because he doesn't even know what the independents want out of this - the truth is they want NOTHING and they care about their civil liberties. The right has already put up the TV ads and called Democratic members of Congress soft on terrorism and it DIDN'T WORK. Somehow the Dems are acting like it did. Of course, this is because they feel just as culpable for spying on Americans and want to eliminate any possibility of the extent of the spying getting out. So we're fighting against two parties on this one.

But fight we must. The ACLU has a petition calling on people to reject the Bond compromise. Progressive organizations like Blue Majority are running our own ads aimed at wayward Dems like the awful Chris Carney, taking them to task for supporting warrantless eavesdropping. They Work For Us is running radio ads in Bush Dog districts as well. Somehow these conservative Dems think they own the caucus but that's just because they aren't being scrutinized for their actions, which are substantially similar to the actions of the Bush Administration which the country has rejected.

The Beginning of the Iraq Withdrawal

I've been cooped up all day, but I did notice that Republicans basically stopped the war funding bill in the House. The ostensible reason is the added domestic spending, but the real reason is that they don't want to have anything to do with funding Iraq - it'll be poison for their electoral chances. So a bunch of them voted present.

Stoller has a good post on this:

Today, about 100 House Republicans refused to vote for more war funding, voting 'present'. They are trying to hand off the war to the Democrats, but even Democrats were able to increase their 'no' vote number on funding from 141 to 149; the bill failed. In a separate bill, Republicans also voted against timelines, for torture, and accountability for military contractors, including various elements of a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. This bill passed with 227 votes; last year, it passed with only 218 votes, for a gain of 9.

Finally the GI bill passed with overwhelming margin of 256 votes in the House, including 32 Republicans. It included a war surtax of one half of one percent on people making over $500k a year to pay for the GI bill, at the behest of Blue Dogs. This might actually be the most remarkable piece of the votes today; conservative Democrats agreeing to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for educational benefits for veterans. Bill Foster and Don Cazayoux both voted well on the new GI Bill and on the Responsible Plan bill with timelines, but were 'yes' votes on war funding. So yes, they are conservative, and I expect Childers to be conservative as well. Still, the MS-01, the IL-14 special election result, and the LA-06 special election result - all red seats picked off by Democrats - are devastating Republican discipline in the House.

Republicans know that they're cooked, and it's every man for himself. Bush has lost his human shield, and Democrats ought to take advantage of this by making him veto every popular program they can think of, making him more and more hated and reflecting badly on McCain and the GOP. While war funding will probably return in the Senate (but doesn't it have to start in the House?), this is a moment of more leverage than I thought possible. The string of special election losses has demoralized House Republicans. There is now a path to ending this war if the leadership chooses to take it.

And those foolish Dems that voted for funding or against education benefits for veterans are going to be hammered over it. Here's Russ Warner already pouncing on David Dreier's vote:

David Dreier voted against a bill to increase educational opportunities for veterans today. The legislation expands the education benefits veterans receive under the GI bill to restore the promise of a full, four-year college education. It passed the House with broad bi-partisan support, 256 to 166.

"I would have voted differently on this bill," said Russ Warner, a successful small businessman and the Democratic candidate for Congress from California's 26th district. "It's important to make the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan part of an American economic recovery, just like the veterans of World War II were. They put their lives on the line for us, and deserve to be able to come home and go to school if they so choose. We need new leaders with new priorities in Washington, and that's why I'm running for Congress."

Warner added "I believe that fully equipping our soldiers, providing them with good medical care and paying them a fair wage should be considered costs of war, but David Dreier seems to believe that we don't owe our veterans anything."

The general election in the House started today, and badly for Republicans.

Bush Dogs Dig War, Can't Stand Veterans

So the House was supposed to vote on war funding today, which I didn't exactly support. What I did support was extending unemployment insurance and veteran's benefits in a new GI Bill, and since the Democrats were so cowardly about giving a blank check to the President on Iraq, they might as well get something in return, and anyway vet benefits ought to be part of military expenditures anyway. But it turns out the Bush Dogs want that blank check for war to be blank.

A small group of fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats is threatening to block the emergency war spending bill over a program for veterans’ benefits not offset with tax hikes or spending cuts.

Because of that problem, and the efforts by House Republicans to stall floor action with procedural motions, the vote on the carefully crafted supplemental measure could be delayed until Friday or next week.

“Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it’s butchers, bakers or candlestick-makers,” said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), a founding member of the Blue Dog Coalition who serves on the House leadership team as a deputy whip.

The so-called GI Bill of Rights, authored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), would give veterans money for college and cost $720 million in its first two years. But critics say that could grow to billions in future years.

Bush Dogs want fiscal responsibility while giving the President $200 billion dollars OFF THE BOOKS for an unnecessary war. Their hard fiscal line softens in the face of American imperialist adventures.

According to CongressDaily the Bush Dogs are also whining because one of their members, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, didn't get HER GI Bill to the floor in favor of Jim Webb's. So this is about turf wars, too.

The Pentagon has said that the new GI Bill would be bad because it would "reward" soldiers who haven't served six years, because apparently 5 years in combat zones isn't enough of a commitment to service. But what the Bush Dogs are saying is worse. They're hiding behind a twisted notion of fiscal responsibility to deny veterans the honors they deserve no matter how long their service. And this is because they're Bush's biggest allies in Congress, desiring only to please him by offering a clean bill funding the Iraq debacle well into the future.

Bargaining For One More Positive Balance Sheet

We have a combination energy/environmental crisis going on. Gas prices are so high that people are working to fill up the fuel tank, paying as much as a quarter of their income on transportation. The Antarctic ice sheets are collapsing and falling into the ocean on what seems like a daily basis. The current energy infrastructure is unsustainable from a financial, military and environmental perspective. And yet we're seeing freshman Democratic members of Congress quite literally being bribed to maintain the status quo.

Moderate House Democrats -- even freshmen with little obvious influence -- have seen a surge of campaign contributions from the energy industry, whose giving patterns have long favored Republicans.

Data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics show the overall industry and individual energy companies giving a larger percentage now to Democrats than they have in a decade. Though powerful committee chairman are seeing a major share of those new industry dollars, a large portion is also flowing to rank-and-file lawmakers who have agreed with the industry on some key issues [...]

[T]here is no denying the importance of moderate Democrats. They have already left their marks on pivotal debates, forcing party leaders to scale back legislative proposals on the renewable electricity standard, fuel economy and oil leasing [...]

Last year, Blue Dog PAC -- which distributes money to group members and other moderate candidates -- received $96,000 from electric utilities, oil-and-gas companies and energy industry groups, according to Federal Election Commission figures.

As long as the energy industry can pick off enough Bush Dogs, they can keep a working conservative majority on these issues and defer the eventual breakdown of their profit margins. Obama and Clinton both have decent enough energy plans but even they have been touting "clean coal" as they hit a series of coal-producing states in the primaries. And even potential incoming members of Congress are being bought off by big energy interests during their stays in state legislatures. Here's a report from someone who's unbought and unbossed, US Senate candidate from North Carolina Jim Neal:

I was surprised and frankly shocked while reading Greensboro’s Yes Weekly article about State Senator Kay Hagan.

Kay points to Senate Bill 3 (SB 3) as an example of how “we do things right in Raleigh.” The legislation adopted by the state senate last year gives away the store to Duke Energy, one of the top contributors to Kay’s state senate campaigns .

You may not know about SB 3. And the problem is I don’t think you’re supposed to. The Raleigh News-Observer says SB 3 was “an insiders' deal from the get-go,” passed with “virtually nonexistent” public debate and no “serious financial analysis of its total impact on consumers.” http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/martinez/story/626147.html

SB 3 shifts the cost of building new power plants from industry to consumers. Duke will be allowed to bill consumers for the costs of building new power plants - before the plants produce even a single watt of electricity. Instead of borrowing money to build power plants, Duke Energy and Progress will charge you more on next month’s bill. This fundamentally changes the law and how the utilities do business in North Carolina.

Only by strengthening and growing the progressive movement and winning primary races such as this one in North Carolina are we going to break this stranglehold that's choking off our ability to move meaningfully on mitigating the impact of climate change. Public mass transit has to be a part of that solution. Here in California it looks like high speed rail will finally get an opportunity on the state ballot. Private investors will be involved, but if they want to be part of the solution rather than the problem I'm OK with it. We're not going to stop industry from bargaining for one more positive balance sheet, but if they're incentivized to work toward solutions that are profitable and sensible for our energy and environmental future, there can be a pleasant compromise that expands the economy as a side benefit.

When Pressure Isn't Pressure

Hilarious, so the Republican Whiny Caucus (i.e. the entire Republican Party) tried to force a vote on the Senate telecom amnesty bill today, but were beaten back by a 212-198 vote. I don't know if this is out of some principled opposition to amnesty in the Democratic caucus (probably not) or a desire to use the recognized rules of order, but once again we see that the Democrats have yet to turn to their normal state of jelly.

There are ongoing negotiations on the future FISA bill:

Instead, Democrats have begun conferencing both House passed and Senate passed versions of the FISA update—although the House version does not contain retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, a key sticking point.

Republicans have boycotted the talks, instead insisting the House vote on the Senate bill, which received 68 votes in the Senate and would likely have the blessing of the White House. House Democratic leaders have insisted they will not be bullied into accepting the Senate bill, despite the heated rhetoric coming from the White House and congressional Republicans on the issue.

The real question is why Republicans should be at any conference committee talks in the first place. They have no minds of their own, they simply follow the White House's directives, so why should they be burdened with showing up at the conference at all? In fact, about 150 or so of them might as well go home and direct the White House political director to vote by proxy for them, since they never deviate from that strategy anyway. Seriously, let's just get life-sized cut-outs and use marionette wires so they can depress the buttons on that little machine that tabulates their votes.

These Republicans have nothing to add to any serious debate. They take their marching orders and that's it. The Democrats ought to learn that a committee negotiation can proceed just fine without them, and in the future decline to invite them.

Meanwhile, the Spine Caucus is growing:

U.S. Rep. John Salazar’s office said he has been under no pressure in Colorado’s 3rd District to a vote on a measure that would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

“Coloradans have been very supportive of Rep. Salazar for standing in favor of stronger civil liberty protections under FISA, and he believes they deserve their privacy rights to be protected by their member of Congress,” said his Washington, D.C., spokesman, Eric Wortman.

Salazar’s district includes most of the Western Slope and southern Colorado.

Salazar is a Bush Dog, one of those Democrats who voted against the party on the Protect America Act and on Iraq. And he's not feeling pressure. I know there are some attack ads out there from a right-wing group, but they don't appear to be having the intended effect. This is a background issue, and try as the Whiny Caucus might to scaremonger, it's not working. Of course it remains to be seen what comes out of the conference committee and whether or not it's something that's passable on the basis of civil liberties. There still exists the potential for a massive sellout. But it really looks like the man behind the curtain has been exposed.

... see too this op-ed from top Democrats denouncing White House scare tactics, signed by even Jello Jay Rockefeller!

The Full-Court Press

After yesteday's unfortunate sellout in the Senate, all the elements of the right wing are out for blood and ready to finally tear out the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution once and for all.

From the propaganda front, the Wall Street Journal editorial board gloats about the Senate FISA victory and actually considers it as a line of attack in November, attacking the "Obama-Dodd" faction for wanting to surrender to our enemies, or something.

From the executive front, the President demanded his telecom amnesty and expanded surveillance powers in an Oval Office press conference today, where he also let slip the truth:

Bush was praising the Senate for approving his long-sought update to a foreign surveillance law. Critics say the bill legalizes his warrantless wiretapping program, which was implemented outside the boundaries of the law, and frees phone and internet companies from any responsibility for violating customers' privacy.

"The senate bill also provides fair and just liability protections for companies that did the right thing and assisted in defending America, after the attacks of Sept. 11," Bush said.

As recently as his State of the Union address, Bush would only call for legal immunity for companies "believed to have assisted" in his so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program.

(There was also the whole "Give me what I want or I will let the vital Protect America Act, which is all that stands between us and Al Qaeda on our shores, to lapse" thing in there.)

And like puppets on a string, the Bush Dogs in the House are imploring to give the Dear Leader his spying powers:

Some House Democrats were prepared to support immunity, regardless. In a Jan. 28 letter, 21 Democrats in the conservative Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., supporting immunity and listing other provisions that they believed were needed in a FISA bill.

They wrote that the Senate bill "contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change."

The list of these "Democrats" is at the link.

Meanwhile, the traditional media is simply reporting the facts, with headlines like Senate Bows To White House On FISA Bill (Yes, I know that's from the Moonie Times, but they're right). You'd think the Democratic legislators would be ashamed of themselves. Anyone who hasn't figured out by now that the popular, and proper, course of action is to do the opposite of anything Mr. 24% says honestly doesn't seem to me equipped to sit as a representative of the American people.

QOTD

Matt Stoller:

Hoyer had signs up outside, and he loves the Maryland flag, though it made him look a bit like the Congressman from Medieval Times.

Get that man a writing job!

The context of this is the Donna Edwards-Al Wynn race in MD-04, which we can win. I know Mark Pera got trounced last night, and it turns out that John Laesch narrowly lost to Bill Foster, although provisional and overseas ballots could change that. But Donna Edwards, who came close last time, is the best opportunity for a progressive to beat an incumbent Bush Dog Democrat.

Taking The Crisis Seriously

The Bush Administration is actually recognizing this major crisis in the housing market, albeit a little late. But this would help some people:

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration and major financial institutions are close to agreeing on a plan that would temporarily freeze interest rates on certain troubled subprime home loans, according to people familiar with the negotiations.

An accord could reassure investors and strapped homeowners, both of whom are anxious as interest rates on more than two million adjustable mortgages are scheduled to jump over the next two years. It could also give a boost to the Bush administration, which is facing criticism for inaction amid the recent housing turmoil.

The plan is being negotiated between regulators including the Treasury Department and a coalition of mortgage-related companies including Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Washington Mutual Inc. and Countrywide Financial Corp. People familiar with the talks say the individual members have agreed to follow any agreement reached by the coalition, which is called the Hope Now Alliance.

The early reaction is generally positive, although it's about a year late. Clearly, as the mortgage mess began to threaten economic growth by tightening credit markets, something had to be done. The big issue here, of course, is that the problem is not limited to "subprime mortgages," which has become code for any mortgage that goes into foreclosure. Actually the problem is irresponsibility in the lending markets, and this deal would force the bankers to bite the bullet.

Now, the next step is getting the Bush Dogs to understand what the Administration understands, that something must be done immediately at the federal level.

In the midst of the housing crisis, a cadre of self-described "conservative" Democrats called the Blue Dog Coalition is demanding congressional leaders delay legislation designed to help people trapped in high-interest loans stay in their homes and avoid foreclosure. The bill, House Resolution 3609, allows judges to ameliorate the terms of abusive "subprime" mortgages. Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., is championing it -- a gutsy move for a lawmaker whose state domiciles major lenders.

The Blue Dogs say they oppose Miller's initiative out of concern for the integrity of the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill -- a telling justification. Under that odious law, millionaires can shield their mansions from creditors, and corporate executives (think: Enron guys) can prevent ripped-off shareholders and employees from seizing their holdings. Harvard's Elizabeth Warren notes that the law also "permits people with vacation homes and investment property to rework their mortgages in bankruptcy."

But regular homeowners? Sorry -- without Miller's legislation, judges are barred from defending you against the vultures.

This is just the fruits of expansive lobbying by the banking industry, and is a textbook example of Bush Dogs prioritizing lobby money over the concerns of their districts, which are some of the hardest hit by the mortgage crisis. The concern for protecting the bankruptcy bill, too, is charming. Fortunately Chris Dodd is stepping up and offering a real reform of that horrible bill, which I hope he will push in the Congress as well as on his campaign platform, especially since he chairs the committee that would have jurisdiction.

In a Dodd Administration, hardworking people who have fallen on hard times will be afforded a new beginning that re-establishes a safety net and helps families get back on their feet. As President, he will:

• Modify the means test to ensure families have sufficient resources to live on

• Protect children, not creditors

• Ensure all medical debts are dischargeable

• Permit bankruptcy courts to restructure mortgages so families can stay in their homes

• Allow private student loans to be dischargeable

I do think there's a commitment to take this seriously. Eventually the banks will probably be bailed out in the most horrific way imaginable, either through fishy means like the Countrywide situation or foreign capital. But for now, there is at least a small commitment on the people who are losing their homes.

The Bush Dogs: Conservative, Corporate, AND Stupid

The core of all the economic anxieties in the country, whether on Wall Street or on Main Street, is the mortgage crisis. You can look at increased foreclosures, difficulties in obtaining credit, the spillover into decreased consumer spending, but it all comes back to the bursting of the housing bubble. (Thanks, Alan Greenspan!) This is really impacting those exurban, aspirational-class areas that voted Republican in 2004.

Democrats are interested in doing something about this before 2 million families are out on the street and deprived of their life savings, but the Bush Dogs in their caucus are resisting.

The reason the subprime mortgage meltdown is so problematic is because homeowners can't renegotiate mortgages for primary residences in bankruptcy court. If you declare bankruptcy, you still can't get out from under your mortgage debt, which essentially enslaves people whose home value has dropped lower than their debt amount.

The good news is that Brad Miller, Linda T. Sánchez, Barney Frank, and Mel Watt have a bill in Congress that empowers bankruptcy courts to restructure mortgages for primary residences. You can find out more here and here. It's a very sane and reasonable approach that lets people declare bankruptcy and get our from under horrific levels of debt.

The interesting news is that 16 fellow Democrats are opposing this bill because it will impact the Bankruptcy Bill provisions they passed in 2005. Who are these lovely people? If you guessed 'Blue Dogs', you'd be right.

Not only is this completely counter to the interests of their constituents, who are suffering from this mortgage crisis, it's counter to the interests of banks, who are suffering from the draconian elements of the Bankruptcy bill.

Washington Mutual Inc. got what it wanted in 2005: A revised bankruptcy code that no longer lets people walk away from credit card bills.

The largest U.S. savings and loan didn't count on a housing recession. The new bankruptcy laws are helping drive foreclosures to a record as homeowners default on mortgages and struggle to pay credit card debts that might have been wiped out under the old code, said Jay Westbrook, a professor of business law at the University of Texas Law School in Austin and a former adviser to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

"Be careful what you wish for,'' Westbrook said. "They wanted to make sure that people kept paying their credit cards, and what they're getting is more foreclosures.''

If you keep offloading more and more risk onto working Americans, before long they're going to crack. I think the Bush Dogs are voting their assumptions that anything that helps consumers will obviously hurt their real constituencies, the corporate interests. But actually, the banks are getting KILLED by all the foreclosures, leading to billions of dollars in writedowns. These guys are such slaves to corporate power that they don't even know what would help their masters.

Ending The Bush Dog Majority

DiFi's paean to the guy who won't say waterboarding is torture is one of the more depressing things I have read as a Democrat. The worst part is clearly this dross:

I believe that Judge Mukasey is the best nominee we are going to get from this administration and that voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the White House to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and to diminish effective oversight by Congress.

How could oversight consisting of rubber-stamping a nominee because he's "not as bad as Alberto Gonzales," which is like saying "he's not as bad an actor as Mr. T," be construed in ANY way as effective? Who cares if there's a confirmation hearing if the revelations that come out of them are dismissed?

Feinstein then says that waterboarding is already banned by the military under the Army Field Manual, and the Congress should quickly pass a bill putting non-military interrogation under the Field Manual too, and then that will be that. First of all, waterboarding already violates international law and at least three domestic laws, no matter what agency is carrying it out. And of course, Feinstein has no understanding of basic Constitutional measures like the veto, nor any hope of internalizing basic political strategy. (The excerpt below refers to a Fred Hiatt editorial that advocates the same thing as DiFi. In fact, I'm not convinced that Fred Hiatt and DiFi aren't the same person.)

That's not to say it would not also be a good thing to enact the Biden bill, which would specifically require all United States personnel, including the CIA, to use only interrogation techniques authorized by the Army Field Manual. That would be yet another step that would help prevent the Bush Administration from violating the current bans on torture by doing things such as implausibly characterizing its torture as "not torture."

HOWEVER . . .

1. Whether or not the Biden bill ever becomes law, it remains the case that the torture is, in fact, unlawful -- and that the Senate and the Congress have voted repeatedly for actual laws and treaties (the supreme Law of the Land) that say so.

and,

2. Just in case the Washington Post has forgotten about yet another legal text, it's worth reminding Fred Hiatt that although the Senate's vote to confirm Judge Mukasey would effectively make him the Attorney General, the Senate does not have the power to "pass" the Biden bill. That would require President Bush's signature, as well (or supermajority votes of both chambers) -- and President Bush won't sign such a bill, precisely because he wants to be able to keep violating the longstanding legal prohibitions on torture and cruel treatment.

What the Post might have written that might have made some sense: "Because Judge Mukasey and the Bush Administration do not seem to understand that the techniques they refuse to disclaim are torture and cruel treatment that are already unlawful several times over, the Senate should tell President Bush that it will confirm Judge Mukasey if and only if -- and after -- the President signs the Biden bill."

It's called leverage, and it doesn't take a wizard to see its possibilities. But far too many Democrats are so consumed by fear that the part of their brain that thinks strategically has shut down. Well, that's partly true. It's either that or they really aren't interested in Democratic Party principles, just in using the voter lists. This has been made clear by Bush Dogs' unwillingness to pay their DCCC dues because one Democrat, who holds no official position within the party leadership, had the temerity to suggest that they maybe should be primaried if they hold no respect for their constituents or the party message. This is what's killing the party right now, although not nearly in the same numbers as it has the Republicans. We need a party willing to fight special interests and understand their role in opposing the President, not one that gets fat off special interest money and overrides Congressional rules to stab progressives in the back.

Former Colorado parks director Lyle Laverty's confirmation to a top post in the U.S. Interior Department was pushed through the Senate on Monday while a member blocking the vote was home tending to his wife and newborn twins.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., for seven months had opposed Laverty's confirmation as assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, demanding that Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne address ethical lapses within the department.

On Friday, Wyden's wife gave birth to twins, and the senator was in Oregon on paternity leave Monday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., scheduled the vote.

"I am fuming," said Scott Silver, co-founder of Wild Wilderness, an Oregon forest advocacy group. "If an effort was made to go around Wyden, knowing that he was with his wife in the hospital just becoming a father of twins, that is truly shameful."

Right now progressives are either shut out or outvoted in the leadership, and are undermined in the rank and file by Bush Dogs and nervous Nellies. We need aggressive challenges to those who refuse to stand up for Democratic values or oppose Bush. We also need respected progressives to step up and join the fray; I'm glad to see Tom Udall reconsidering the Senate race in New Mexico, with the blessing of the DSCC. But those opportunities are rare. What's more common is Bush Dogs in reliably Democratic seats where proud progressives like Donna Edwards should be sitting. Nancy Pelosi actually held a fundraiser for her opponent in MD-04, corrupt incumbent Al Wynn. But the "counter-fundraiser" online raised as much money. And EMILY'S List endorsed Edwards, along with Progressive Maryland, a great state-based grassroots organization. The only way to rescue me from my despair over these sniveling cowards that pass for our Democratic majority is the hope that people like Donna Edwards can start chipping away at them, and in some way restore the party inch by inch. It's going to be a long road.

S-CHIP Is About Denying Pregnant Women Health Care

There's an underreported side to the S-CHIP debate that was summarized brilliantly by Bitch Ph.D. the other day.

SCHIP covers children *and pregnant women*. Moving adults off it means not providing health care to pregnant women. Make sure that anyone you talk to about this knows that.

Culture of life, my mama ass.

The reason for this goes all the way back to the abortion debate and the fight to give unborn children full rights. The Republicans are now trying to have it both ways, calling for "moving adults off S-CHIP" when they specifically pushed for their inclusion before.

In 2002, when Republicans held the majority in the House, there was a big debate in the Congress over adding "unborn children" to the list of possible recipients for S-CHIP.

With momentum building in Congress in recent years in favor of such proposals, the Bush administration announced in February that it would take steps, in the words of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, to "enable states to make immediate use of the extensive funding already available under SCHIP to provide prenatal care for more low-income pregnant women and their babies."

The administration's chosen means to achieve this goal—deeming the fetus an "unborn child" eligible for benefits under the SCHIP law—raised immediate alarm bells within the reproductive health and public health communities about the administration's motivations behind the policy and its impact on the scope of care available to women. By conferring benefits only upon the unborn child, they said, the proposal unnecessarily injects abortion politics into the prenatal care debate in a way that will shortchange pregnant and postpartum women.

This was a divisive attempt to insert abortion politics into this program. The practical result was that the list of services offered to low-income pregnant mothers for reimbursement were only those that directly affected a fetus. There was an immediate outcry, and a bipartisan majority in Congress introduced several bills to extend S-CHIP coverage to pregnant women, with the children becoming eligible for the program after birth. Like Medicaid, the proposals would cover women for 60 days postpartum. By November 2002, the President offered what amounts to a fake loophole:

In November, it issued a guidance to state Medicaid directors indicating that those states that reimburse health care providers for the traditional package of pregnancy-related services (including prenatal care, delivery and postpartum care) through a single "bundled" payment may continue to do so. Only 28 states provide such a bundled payment, however, and such payments typically cover only "routine" care. Thus, even in those states, women will still be left to foot the bill for serious and costly medical complications.

This threading of the needle to include "unborn children" on the program but to exclude "pregnant women" is completely shameful. But states gradually started to work with the Administration to get minimum prenatal care covered under SCHIP. Here's a press release from June 2003 touting Illinois' plan to cover 41,000 pregnant women. Rhode Island and Michigan were the first. In all, 12 states, including California, Texas and Massachusetts, have added the "unborn child rule" into their S-CHIP plans. But they all largely worked around the issue through various maneuvers, reverting to the standards of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics that a pregnant woman and her child should be treated together.

This time around, with a Democratic majority, there was no way that pregnant women wouldn't be added into the eligible class. This is why the religious right opposed expanding S-CHIP immediately.

The new House bill changes the SCHIP program to cover health insurance for a "pregnant woman," rather than cover the child in the womb. This would undermine the "unborn child rule" and could possibly allow funding for abortions in those States that include abortion as part of their Medicaid health coverage for pregnant women.

This is the spectre they raise, but really the mandate here is to allow full medical care for poor pregnant women, including postpartum care, to ensure that their child is delivered healthy and they are kept alive in the process. Pro-life forces in the Senate tried to insert the "unborn children" language back into the bill and they lost.

So now the President's talking point is that he wants to move "adults" off the bill. What he really means is moving pregnant women off the bill, and that fact should be far more well-known than it is. The Administration tried to play this cute and use S-CHIP in 2002 as a vehicle to achieve "fetal personhood," and in the process pregnant women gained some access to services. Now that the fetal personhood aspect of this has been squashed, he wants them to fend for themselves - as well as the babies they carry.

As you may know, BlogPAC and Blue America are starting a program to make robocalls into the districts of five Democrats who voted against S-CHIP when it came up for vote.

Jim Marshall (GA)
Baron Hill (IN)
Gene Taylor (MS)
Bob Etheridge (NC)
Mike McIntyre (NC)

The Democratic House leadership put the hammer down and representatives like Dan Boren and Heath Shuler switched their votes in favor of S-CHIP, but these five Bush Dogs continue to religiously support the Bush administration’s short-sighted, inhumane and regressive policies.

We’ve asked you to reach out and call the offices of these Representatives, and now we’re stepping up our efforts.

These calls were recorded by Michelle James, a full time working mother who can’t afford health care for her son who has bronchitis. You can hear one of the calls here.

While we believe that there should be a big tent within the Democratic party, there are some issues that are not negotiable, and making sure kids have health care is one of them.

When you make these calls, let these members know that you believe pregnant women should be part of a strategy to ensure children's health insurance coverage. And you can support these efforts financially at the Blue America PAC's ActBlue page.

Squander

Yes, Congress has low approval ratings. The lower numbers come entirely from Democrats who are disappointed with the Bush Dogs giving the President whatever he wants, on Iraq and on domestic spying. I hardly think that this will translate into a wholesale abandonment of the Democratic Party, but those Bush Dogs ought to read these numbers with concern. I do think there is a danger of the Democrats squandering this moment by being timid and not offering a real challenge to the President on big issues where everyone's paying attention. The FISA bill killed what could have been decent momentum going into the August recess. What they do on Iraq in September will go a long way to determining their future.

Bush Dog Watch: Jim Costa

Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller have started the Bush Dog Project to identify those Democrats who have voted with the President on the major issues that have the rank and file screaming betrayal; specifically, the Capitulation Bill giving Bush billions more for Iraq, and the FISA bill allowing Alberto Gonzales to wiretap American citizens without a warrant. These are overwhelmingly unpopular positions at odds with most of the American people, to say nothing of Democrats. Yet 38 "Bush Dog" Democrats voted for both of these bills, including one member of Congress from California: Jim Costa.

Costa is a member of the Blue Dogs but not the New Democrat Coalition. He's in one of the most Democratic seats out of the 38, with a Cook PVI of +4.6, so he's wildly out of step with his constituency. CA-20, Costa's district, runs along I-5 through Fresno, Kings and Kern Counties in the Central Valley. It includes the city of Fresno. Democrats have held this seat for a while, but Costa was only elected in 2004, replacing Cal Dooley (who was also something of a Bush Dog, having voted to authorize the war in Iraq, a vote he now regrets). While Costa had a mildly difficult battle winning the open seat against Roy Ashburn in 2004 (he won 54-46%), he faced no Republican opposition in 2006.

So we have a somewhat new legislator in a traditionally New Democrat seat, but it's in a district that gave Al Gore his largest margin of victory outside of the urban metropolises. And it's 63% Latino. So there's no excuse for Costa to be so in line with President Bush on the major issues, and certainly no excuse for him voting to throw the Fourth Amendment overboard and drown it (Incidentally, AT&T has given him a lot of money over the years. Do with that information what you will.). This is also important because the Central Valley needs to return to being a more prominently Democratic area, and Jim Costa needs to be the standard bearer for that because this is the most Democratic district in the region. So he must hear from his constituents about their displeasure with his being a rubber stamp for failed Bush Administration initiatives and the taking away of our civil liberties. This will ultimately make us a stronger party.