Reconciling Themselves

I mentioned earlier the rumblings from Democrats about passing a public option plan through the reconciliation process rather than through something subject to filibuster. Clearly the public option either saves or spends budget money - I don't think one member of Congress would disagree with that - and typically those types of things are available to reconciliation. COBRA, the program allowing people to retain their employer-based insurance if they are laid off, was achieved through reconciliation - in fact, COBRA stands for the "Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act". So the history is there to do this, and of course, Republicans have used this history over and over.

In a memo that was drafted and circulated on background in April, Senate Democrats made the case that using a budget reconciliation bill to pass health care reforms is perfectly within their rights, given the Republicans' promiscuous use of the same tactic when they were in power. Excerpts of the memo were published by various news outlets back in the spring, but the memo doesn't appear to have been previously published in its entirety until now. And now, with Democrats ramping up the threat that they'll invoke the process in the fall, they're rehashing those same arguments.

"[S]hould Republicans choose not to cooperate [on health care reform], the inclusion of reconciliation instructions [in the budget] provides a backup option which could be used to prevent a filibuster and approve legislation by a majority vote," the memo reads. "[T]here is nothing unprecedented or unusual about the use of reconciliation."
The memo goes on note that Congress has invoked the reconciliation 19 times since 1980, including in 2001 and 2003 when ", the Republican Congress used reconciliation to pass enormous tax cuts"

"Republicans not only used reconciliation rules to push tax breaks for the wealthy, they also made no meaningful effort to assist the growing number of uninsured Americans," it reads.

This will be a very important document to use once the Republicans ramp up their whine about how very "unconstitutional" it is to mandate a majority vote on the public option.

The question is whether we can reach 50 votes in the Senate. Chris Bowers has either full commitments or fairly strong leaning in that direction from 49 members.

I will say this - it's going to be a lot easier to get from 49 to 50 in the Senate than it will be to peel back 30 or 40 of the House members who signed a letter saying they would support no bill without a public option. I actually attended this town hall meeting in Maxine Waters' district, and the bottom line is this: she will not be able to win re-election if she, after this performance, votes for a bill without a public option. Maybe on a smaller issue, she could get away with it, but not on an issue where 500 people in her district come to a standing-room-only town hall meeting and she says she will draw a "line in the sand." And I expect that other House members, in very blue districts, have made the same claims.

"President Obama has been trying to reach across the aisle" to win a compromise with Republicans, Waters said. "It is not going to happen."

Then Waters made a public appeal to Obama.

"The people of this country elected you and gave you a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate. . . . Yes, we know that you are a nice man, that you want to work with the opposite side of the aisle. But there comes a time when you need to drop that and move forward," Waters said. "We're saying to you, Mr. President, 'Be tough. Use everything that you've got. Do what you have to do. And we have your back.' "

Maybe I'm wrong, and progressives in the House will find some wiggle room by voting for a public option in the initial bill and accepting whatever comes out of conference. But I simply do not see them being able to get away with that. People are engaged and ready to go to war over this element of the reform, and won't accept a too-clever-by-half series of votes from their representatives.

The Dog Days Of Health Care Reform

Maxine Waters has basically had enough.

WATSON: Is the President and Rahm Emanuel -- former member of the House -- are they treading too lightly here, are they not bringing out the big stick against some of those Blue Dog Democrats and saying "we've got a once in a four-decade opportunity to get this passed, everyone knows how easy it is for momentum to dissipate, you guys have to get on board and we've got to go forward and make sure that everyone has better health care, is covered, and hopefully better quality of outcome?

WATERS: Well that may be difficult for Rahm Emanuel, because don't forget -- he recruited most of them. As when he was over in the Congress, in the leadership, Rahm Emanuel recruited more conservative members and based on some of the information I'm getting, they told them that they could vote the way they wanted to vote, that they would not interfere with what was considered their philosophy about some of these things. So, now the chickens have come home to roost.

I'm sure Emanuel would counter that, without his recruitment, those would be Republican seats right now, and how would that help us. Well, a good number of those Blue Dogs wouldn't be blocking Democratic bills in committee, for one thing.

Waters says she's holding strong on blocking a bill without a public option.

KERY ELEVELD: There are reports out of the Senate Finance Committee today that they may be dropping the public option in their negotiations. Do you think that's going to sell in the House?

WATERS: No. As a matter of fact, that's a kill for sure for the progressives. For the majority, I think, of our members a public option is a compromise -- we wanted single payer as you know, and we backed off because they said that was going to be impossible to do. Again they brought up the more conservative elements, etc. etc., and so we will not support any bill that does not have a public option in it.

We always hear about the tricky politics for the Blue Dogs or Democrats in moderate districts. In this case, the politics are tricky for progressives in safe seats. If they don't hold firm, I have little doubt that THEY will see primary challenges from the left. Whether or not they'll succeed is another matter, but you can see how a primary challenge has turned Arlen Specter into a progressive lefty. Progressives have political interests in getting something good done as well. And as George Miller says, the Baucus bill just doesn't cut it:

Part of the problem, as I suggested earlier, is that the news out of the Senate has widened a rift between House liberals and Blue Dogs. Rep. George MIller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and an author of House health care legislation, isn't at all pleased with the watered down reform bill the Senate Finance Committee is set to propose.

"I don't think that adds up to health care reform. It doesn't add up to insurance reform. It doesn't add up to keeping costs down. I don't know what the hell that adds up to," Miller said.

Basically, this is a massive game of chicken between moderates and liberals. The moderates figure liberals will back down, based on past experience. The liberals think the moderates will do the same. What the liberals have going for them is the fact, plain fact, that a defeat of health care reform will drag down the party, and the most vulnerable seats, frankly, are occupied by those same moderates. If health care reform passes, certain lawmakers could lose seats in very particular circumstances. But if reform fails, only one group is certain to go down with it - the Blue Dogs.

The Slow Winding Down Of The Drug War

When the Administration announced an end to medical marijuana raids by the DEA, they abruptly took back the statement a few hours later. There was a bit of confusion about the new policy. Eric Holder put an end to that.

Attorney General Eric Holder signaled a change on medical marijuana policy Wednesday, saying federal agents will target marijuana distributors only when they violate both federal and state law.

That would be a departure from the policy of the Bush administration, which targeted medical marijuana dispensaries in California even if they complied with that state's law.

"The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law," Holder said in a question-and-answer session with reporters at the Justice Department.

Good. There is little justification to waste Justice Department resources harassing Californians and Americans in 12 other states engaging in perfectly legal activity. Holder must follow the law but he also has discretion in setting priorities, and it's good to see him recognize that arresting local businessmen and their patients makes no sense. There remain questions about outstanding medical marijuana federal court cases with over two dozen dispensaries, and hopefully the solution will be to drop the charges.

In a related story, Maxine Waters wants to end mandatory minimum sentencing for federal drug offenses, and the bill has 15 co-sponsors. The Bureau of Prisons budget has increased 25-fold since mandatory minimums were introduced. Small drug cases belong in state courts, where offenders could be given treatment instead of jail. Furthermore, these kind of drug cases disproportionately impact minority communities.

H.R. 1466, the Major Drug Trafficking Prosecution Act of 2009, seeks to repeal mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders and to give courts the ability to determine sentences based on all the facts, not just drug weight. It would also refocus federal resources on major drug traffickers instead of low-level offenders. There is currently no companion bill in the Senate.

Sen. Boxer, your office phone is ringing.

The Bair Essentials

Somebody help me out on this. Democratic lawmakers are fairly united in thinking that the Treasury Department is doing a terrible job helping homeowners avoid foreclosure, and they are threatening to hold back the second half of the bailout funds until something meaningful is done.

In early October, Congress authorized the Treasury to use $700 billion of taxpayer money to buy soured assets from banks to ease a financial panic. But a week later, the Treasury balked on that plan, saying it would instead try to strengthen the financial system by buying shares in the banks.

"We gave them money for one thing and then they used it for another," said Rep. David Scott, a member of the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee.

"They said we'd have more oversight; no oversight is in place. These are lies. We've been bamboozled. The Treasury secretary owes us an explanation," said the Georgia Democrat [...]

Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat who had supported the $700 billion program, pressed Kashkari for actions that would throw troubled homeowners a lifeline.

"Please don't come here and ask for another penny because if you do, I'm going to work 24 hours a day with the same people I worked with to support you to make sure that they do not support giving you another dime," she said.

(Scott is mistaken in the sense that it's a GOOD thing they didn't go forward with the initially iteration of the TARP, but he's generally right on the bamboozlement.)

But the only official in the government who is offering any kind of a plan to deal with foreclosures is Sheila Bair, the head of the FDIC. I understand why the current White House would have a problem with that:

More than any administration official, Mrs. Bair has called publicly for using billions of taxpayer dollars to finance the modification of loans threatened by default. But her advocacy has contributed to a battle that is pitting White House and Treasury officials against the F.D.I.C. and lawmakers in Congress. The discord has influenced programs that have so far proved insufficient to stem a tide of foreclosures that Moody’s Economy.com expects will affect 10 million homeowners over the next five years. And it is drawing personal conflicts and animosities into the policy-making process.

White House and Treasury officials argue that Mrs. Bair’s high-profile campaigning is meant to promote herself while making them look heartless. As a result, they have begun excluding Mrs. Bair from some discussions, though she remains active in conversations where the F.D.I.C.’s support is needed, like the Citigroup rescue [...]

“I’ve heard the stories of people who are suffering and can stay in their homes if there is just a small adjustment to their loans,” said Mrs. Bair, a Republican who was appointed to her post by President Bush two years ago. “There are some people in the Republican Party who resent the idea of helping others,” she added. “But the market is broken right now, and unless we intervene, these people and the economy won’t be helped.”

But last week we learned that Tim Geithner is trying to push Bair out of her FDIC post in a new Obama Administration.

I mean, it seems to me that Bair is a perfect candidate to head the foreclosure modification program, which Obama says he favors. She's a Republican who is pragmatic and wants to get something done for the average American. Obama wants to focus on "what works" instead of partisan ideology. Well, here you go. If it's a personality problem between Geithner and Bair then that's a really bad sign, because it just blows up the whole idea that personnel doesn't matter and ideas are paramount at this time.

The Times article didn't address the tension between Geithner and Bair. Someone needs to straighten this out.

The Flood

Everyone's trying to jump on the Obama bandwagon before he clinches. Maxine Waters is the latest.

In a further sign that that party is uniting around Barack Obama in order to prevent Hillary Clinton from taking the fight past tonight, Hillary has just lost a high-profile liberal member of Congress who supported her: Maxine Waters of California, who has just re-endorsed for Barack Obama.

"As an outspoken advocate on issues critical to women and children, I have great admiration for Senator Clinton and know first-hand her commitment to our country," Waters said in a statement released by the Obama campaign.

"However, our nation is at crossroads. Now is the time for us to unite so that real change is possible in November."

It was obvious from the moment everybody started whining about how "superdelegates will overturn the will of the people!!1!" that there was no way that would happen. Politicians are pretty nervous, self-interested creatures who flock to power, and it was clear that when a candidate was seen as inevitable all the supers would jump to him or her. It was never going to be any other way. So the whole "Superdelegate Transparency Project" and all of that was nice, but completely unnecessary. If anything the supers decided for Obama.

I do have to say that having the first African-American nominee of a major party is a uniquely strange and terribly gratifying. It feels like a new day. I wish we had a primary process that was worthy of crowning such a nominee instead of letting superdelegates do it, and hopefully that will change.

Antiwar Caucus United; Actual Filibusters To Come?

It's hard to separate the good legislation from the good words when it comes to Iraq, but the news that the Out Of Iraq Caucus is on board with the latest bill helps me make my decision.

Three leading House anti-war Democrats said they now back a $50 billion bill that funds the war but calls for most troops to come home by December 2008. Their support paves the way for the bill's passage Wednesday.

The trio, California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, represent a liberal anti-war caucus that last week expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds it was too soft and did not demand an end to combat.

The bill requires that President Bush initiate troop withdrawals within 30 days of its passage with the goal of bringing home most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008 [...]

A provision added to the bill, to satisfy liberal caucus members, states that the primary purpose of the $50 billion included in the bill "should be to transition the mission" and redeploy troops in Iraq, "not to extend or prolong the war."

The measure is largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who has already begun withdrawing some troops but fiercely rejects the notion of setting a timetable for the war.

"While this bill is not perfect, it is the strongest Iraq bill to date," the Democratic trio wrote in a joint statement. "This is the first time that this Congress has put forth a bill that ties funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops, and it also includes language mandating a start date for the president to begin the redeployment of our brave men and women."

Versions of this legislation have passed over and over again, only to falter in the Senate. Again, Harry Reid is SOUNDING tough, saying that "the president won't get his $50 billion" if he rejects the bill, but the proof is in the action. And forcing a real-deal filibuster would be a good place to start.

Senate Democrats might force Republicans to wage a filibuster if the GOP wants to block the latest Iraq withdrawal bill, aides and senators said Tuesday.

That could set the stage for a dramatic end-of-the-year partisan showdown, which Democrats hope will help them turn voter frustration with Congress and the stalemate over Iraq into anger with the Republican Party.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), the number two Democrat in the chamber, said a forced filibuster is “possible” and would “generate attention.”

“We want to go to the bill, and [Republicans] have to decide initially whether they want us to go to the bill,” Durbin said. “I wouldn’t call it theatrics.”

Everyone needs to know exactly who is holding up the end of this occupation and an overall shift in strategy. Huckleberry Graham can start reading the dictionary and Mitch McConnell can sing a capella, for all I care.

CA-37: Tempers Flare

I know, another post about the open-seat Long Beach-area race that essentially looks at identity politics. But this is pretty interesting. The Congressional Black Caucus will not endorse a candidate in the race, which includes two high-profile black candidates, Assemblywoman Laura Richardson and neophyte politician Valerie McDonald, daughter of the late Juanita Millender-McDonald. Apparently, it got heated within the CBC:

The decision, in part, stems from an internal political feud between two of California's most visible black members of Congress: Rep. Maxine Waters and Rep. Diane Watson, who split over who should get the Caucus' backing in the June 26 special election. In the end, the Caucus declined to endorse either one in the Long Beach-area race. Waters favors Assemblywoman Laura Richardson and Watson supports Valerie McDonald, the daughter of the late congresswoman. The dispute over the endorsement was marked by heated exchanges involving Waters and Watson.

The Congressional Black Caucus' decision was in sharp contrast to the state Legislature's nine-member Black Caucus, which endorsed Richardson.

Diane Watson is one of the few California legislators to back McDonald, and she was enough to get the CBC not to endorse. I still think the California Federation of Labor support for Richardson will ultimately be crucial, but the CBC would have been a nice capper as well.

I'll be covering this race a bit more in my Congressional roundup (look for it next week), but I'd say right now, Richardson has a slight edge over State Sen. Jenny Oropeza because of the labor endorsement and the fact that turnout will be low.

CA Congressional Merry Go-Round

It's behind the firewall, but Republicans in John Doolittle's district are determined to get him out of the 2008 race by threatening to run a primary challenger. I would assume that even the NRCC wouldn't be too keen to mount any resistance to such a challenge. They know well that Charlie Brown is poised to beat Doolittle the second time around, but it would be a more difficult task with a fresh opponent who is less tainted by scandal. My question would be, who could they possibly find up there that has no connection to Doolittle? Even mini-Rush Tom Sullivan, a non-politician, had Doolittle on his show as recently as last week. And the other "vultures" that are circling, to borrow Sullivan's phrase, certainly have some connection to Doolittle as well.

The other report would be a bombshell if true. CMR is reporting that Maxine Waters may retire this weekend to run for a seat on the LA County Board of Supervisors. I would hope this doesn't happen, but retirements like this in favor of elections closer to home are inevitable. Waters' seat is as safe as they come, but any election for it would be a free-for-all.

Speaking of free-for-alls, 19 candidates have filed for the June 26 special election to replace the late Juanita Millender-McDonald. This is pretty much a three-way race between Sen. Jenny Oropeza, Assemblywoman Laura Richardson, and neophyte politician and Rep. Millender-McDonald's daughter, Valerie McDonald.

Why The California Majority Report Should be Sold For Scrap

If you read Calitics you would know that, after much introspection, liberal House members from California - Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters - have relented and voiced their support for the Iraq appropriation which would set an end date for the conflict.

Steve Maviglio reads Calitics but didn't before he clicked send about twenty minutes ago and slathered the egg upon his face, especially considering that the California progressives' shift to support of the bill was only the single biggest political story going on since this afternoon. And the article is a doozy. It shows a knee-jerk hatred of liberalism (and principles, for that matter), a defend-the-leadership-at-all-costs mentality, a thuddingly poor understanding of the fact that you might want to check Google News before you blog, and... wait for it... a hat tip to Ellen Tauscher for her work on helping whip the bill.

We all write things we'd rather take back, but I get the sense that this is the norm and not the exception over there.

I would say that the progressives' move on this bill mirrored mine. I think that too much enforcement has been stripped from this and too much of an argument given to the President to defy the resolution for my comfort. I also can't stand the fact that the House leadership larded it up with pork to buy votes, a disgraceful tactic that threatens to turn Democrats into an inverted fun-house mirror version of Republicans. And yet, this is the first bill which actually attaches an end date to our disastrous occupation in Iraq. The votes aren't there for much more, and yet progressives were decisive in this debate, ensuring that the end date reached the final bill. No war in American history has ended with one vote. This is a way to continue to build public support while really trying to end the war. And while progressives came around to understanding that and unifying the caucus, they showed their muscle to get the best bill that could possibly be done right now.

For some reason, Maviglio decides that any opinion other than that which has been given the imprimatur of the leadership is necessarily invalid. That's a positively Republican argument.

U.S. Reps. Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson and Barbara Lee have announced they will vote against the carefully crafted compromise of the Iraq spending bill being pushed by Pelosi. More embarrassing: Waters and Woolsey are both part of Pelosi's leadership team.

Why are these four Californians throwing Pelosi and the overwhelming majority of their fellow Democrats under the bus?

They're not, but if they were, according to you, they would be doing so to stop 18 year-olds from dying. I know, it's really awful to rhetorically throw someone under a bus than do the equivalent of actually throwing hundreds of kids under a series of buses, causing them to die.

I don't know if this entire post was an attempt to name-check Tauscher and call her a "smart Democrat" or what, but even if it wasn't 100% wrong, it'd be embarrassing.

The Meaningless Nonbinding Self-Satisfactory Bill Lives!

The big story this morning was that Republicans were desperate to stop the Senate's nonbinding resolution on Iraq, and were scrambling to come up with their own resolutions to divide the caucus and ensure nothing too divisive would pass. Sure, there were the usual quotes of Senators acting "concerned" and "worried" and "troubled," but really that's what the story was about. For some reason the Bush Administration really doesn't want a nonbinding resolution to pass. Probably because the press, who is as silly as they are, would treat something with no real power as a "stinging rebuke." I understand that sometimes you have to work within the system, but this is ridiculous.

And it gets even more ridiculous, as Sens. Levin and Warner have agreed to compromise on their competing nonbinding resolutions, virtually ensuring that they will get enough votes to break a filibuster and pass it. I agree with putting up a vote both to see where people stand, forcing Republicans to choose between party and country, and as part of a "kitchen sink" strategy with more and more bills coming down the pike. But on its own merits, this nonbinding thing is crap, and that two nonbinding resolutions put together represents some sort of "breakthrough" is baffling. 0 + 0 = 0.

Now the only competing measure will be one pushed by McCain and Graham, calling for specific benchmarks the Iraqis have already shown they can't handle.

The kind of thinking in the Senate that believes a nonbinding resolution will end the Iraq war must be the same kind of thinking that believes Iraq won't be an issue in the 2008 election. I don't know what country these Senators are living in sometimes.

There are actual ways to stop the war; they've been well-documented. There's something almost poetic in the fact that, on the day after Sen. Feingold runs a classroom seminar on the powers of the legislative branch during wartime, the same legislators make a "breakthrough" on what amounts to a strongly worded letter to the most obstinate man in the history of politics.

There are actual ways to stop the war; they've been well-documented. There's something almost poetic in the fact that, on the day after Sen. Feingold runs a classroom seminar on the powers of the legislative branch during wartime, the same legislators make a "breakthrough" on what amounts to a strongly worded letter to the most obstinate man in the history of politics. Sen. Obama figured it out. Reps. like Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters Jack Murtha have figured it out. Netroots heroes like Patrick Murphy and Jerry McNerney, who signed on as co-sponsors to the bills from the aforementioned Representatives, have figured it out. They're either strong-willed people or those who haven't caught DC disease yet.

Levin and Warner are, well, the opposite.

Nonbinding to victory!