Amendment Day

The Senate Finance Committee began marking up the Baucus health care bill this morning, and Part II of that hearing begins in just an hour or so. While the markup session is more a theater show than an actual horse trading session, lots of what has been going on behind the scenes will be revealed publicly over the next few days, in front of the White House and all the industry big hitters.

We know that the Republicans on the committee have given up trying to govern and are solely interested in scoring political points. Among their amendments are measures to reduce the excise tax “for any state with a name that begins with the letter ‘U’”. They have compiled 27 amendments designed to reduce affordability for regular Americans, dozens of amendments to protect industry from fees, one to change every instance of the word "fee" in the bill to "tax", and added the usual amendments around ACORN and czars. They are thoroughly unserious and have marginalized themselves from this debate.

That's proven by the fact that, based on the leaks so far, the movement is toward making the bill better from a liberal perspective than a conservative one. The affordability credits are expanding, new financing schemes are being debated, and Ron Wyden's Free Choice Act is picking up support amidst a decent CBO score:

Relative to the Chairman’s mark, the amendment as modeled would reduce the net impact on federal deficits by about $1 billion over 10 years. There would not be substantial effects on the total number of people with insurance coverage or the sources of that coverage, relative to the Chairman’s mark.

The CBO doesn't think lots of people would use Wyden's alternative, which would allow anyone to go into the exchange even if their employer offered health care. But this gives people an option, and sets the stage for an eventual move away from the employer system without a firewall propping it up. If it can show itself to be able to survive, it can prosper. If not, if the premiums go up and the employer-offered insurance gets worse, people have a safety valve. Max Baucus said this morning to Wyden, "I especially appreciate your comments about choice and competition if you don't want to be stuck with what your employer gives you. We're going to get into some ideas for how to do that."

I would like to see more counter-attacks along the lines of removing the anti-trust exemption for health insurers, to keep them in line with the policy. Dallasdoc has some great ideas. But the cantankerous nature of Republicans has actually moved the ball toward the only ones on the playing field, and Baucus-care is slowly, but surely, improving. Hopefully that will continue down the line.

Sorry, Arnie: Federal Judges Reject Stay On Prison Plan

The message from the panel of judges to Sacramento yesterday was, you broke it, you bought it:

Reporting from Sacramento - A panel of federal judges, accusing California officials of obstruction, on Thursday denied the state's request to delay an order to produce a plan for reducing its prison population by 40,000 inmates.

Aides to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said they would take their request to the U.S. Supreme Court today.

The judges issued their order on Aug. 4 in two long-running lawsuits by inmates. The state asked for a delay pending its appeal of the order to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was filed separately Thursday.

In rejecting the state's motion for the delay only two days after it was filed, the judges said they had been "more than patient with the state and its officials" and harshly criticized them for "conflicting representations" in court that have caused the cases to drag on.

It's getting comical at this point. Thelton Henderson initially found California's prison system to violate individual rights in 2005. Over those four years, state officials have resisted, bargained, shouted, and appealed their way into oblivion, trying all along to do as little as possible about the clear crisis. The judges are asking for a plan that essentially mirrors the Senate's version of prison reform working through the legislative process right now. For all the protests about "wasting taxpayer dollars" to come up with a workable plan, the judges are essentially asking for a copy of what's already being done.

The state doesn't want to give them one, because they now it's insufficient to conform with the clear guidelines on reducing the inmate population. And they'd rather appeal and appeal and be forced to respect Constitutional rights than do it themselves. With the taxpayer money and effort spent to studiously ignore this problem, we could have already solved it.

Delay, Delay, Delay

When Jim DeMint is pleased about anything you've done in Congress, look out country. That's the effect of Harry Reid's statement today, putting off a final vote on a health care bill until after the August recess. In addition to this being potentially bad for the policy, although I'm not convinced of that, the politics are terrible, as Ezra Klein noted in a WaPo chat today.

Point Pleasant, NJ: So what are the odds of getting health care reform out of the House and Senate by the August recess? And will they postpone the recess until it gets done?

Ezra Klein: Out of the House? Quite high. Out of the Senate? That's where things get trickier. And I think that's a real shame. The problem here, incidentally, is not the date but the recess. Right now, all the committees are working, talking, in the groove on this. To take a month off when they're nearing the finish line? It's nuts.

I don't think the odds in the House are particularly high unless the Senate Finance Committee releases its bill soon.

The President has the ability to focus attention on this. Today in Cleveland, he said in reaction to Reid's call for delay, "That's okay. I just want people to keep on working. Just keep working." The crowd cheered. And if that can be translated into a call to stop the recess and continue to work toward a solution, that would be great. An Administration aide told CNN today that "Reid's announcement does not change Obama's timetable, with the president still wanting House and Senate votes before the upcoming recess." The only way to do that is with no recess.

It makes no sense politically to leave town and slow momentum on this bill. It plays right into the hands of the obstructionists.

Selling Reform

The strategizing of how to sell health care reform does kind of fascinate me. The Obama Administration has learned - perhaps too well - the lessons of 1994, and have repeated the mantra of "You can keep what you have, you can keep what you have". But that doesn't offer a stake for that group of people in any reform.

Current bills would expand the number of insured — but 90 percent of voters already have insurance. Congressional leaders say the bills would cut costs. But experts are dubious. Instead, they point out that covering the uninsured would cost billions.

So the typical person watching from afar is left to wonder: What will this project mean for me, besides possibly higher taxes [...]

Our health care system is engineered, deliberately or not, to resist change. The people who pay for it — you and I — often don’t realize that they’re paying for it. Money comes out of our paychecks, in withheld taxes and insurance premiums, before we ever see it. It then flows to doctors, hospitals and drug makers without our realizing that it was our money to begin with.

The doctors, hospitals and drug makers use the money to treat us, and we of course do see those treatments. If anything, we want more of them. They are supposed to make us healthy, and they appear to be free. What’s not to like?

The immediate task facing Mr. Obama — in his news conference on Wednesday night and beyond — is to explain that the health care system doesn’t really work the way it seems to. He won’t be able to put it in such blunt terms. But he will need to explain how a typical household, one that has insurance and thinks it always will, is being harmed.

This is a vexing problem, and buying off stakeholders so that they could protect some of their profits doesn't help. But there is a way to sell this to the public. First of all, we can say that the current system is broken. With no reform, premiums will continue to rise, with lower and lower quality. The second point is one of security. When people lose their jobs, they in many cases lose their health care. COBRA is too expensive to be a fix. You cannot move from one job to another seamlessly and keep your health care. You are at the mercy of employers in an inefficient system for delivering insurance. Providing stability to the system, so that you know you are covered, and you know the costs won't rise so much that they'll break you - 60% of all bankruptcies are from medical bills - is deeply sought. Nancy Pelosi stressed this today.

Do you need more time?

You don't need more time. The time is now. People have been waiting so long for this. I had a friend who was getting married, I said "You're getting married, I didn't know about all this!" She said, "I need health benefits."

And the third way is to show Republicans as simply going about obstruction for political purposes. You hate to go back to the "accountability moment," but that's pretty true. Voters asked for change last November, and they did not want their President to face a "Waterloo" within the first year. Particularly because of the dangers of the status quo. Pelosi, again:

We have to assume that the Republicans share our value that all Americans should have health-care coverage. But the Republicans know that passing real health-care reform that is meaningful to the American people is politically powerful. And they must stop it. It's the most noticeable initiative Congress can take to improve the lives of the American people, and they must stop it [...] I would imagine there were some Republicans who felt some discomfort at [Jim DeMint's comments that this could defeating health-care reform could "break" Obama], because he blew their cover.

I think if the President goes out tonight and adds all that into his formulation of a pitch, we'll have something. And a speck of righteous anger wouldn't hurt.

...and of course, the idea of choice should be foregrounded:

Of course, then you're in a place where you need to explain exactly how the reforms will make health care cheaper. And the answer is that they won't in the next few years. Take-home pay will not increase in 2014 because of health-care reforms. But they're a start. That's the correct answer. But it's not an exciting answer. And it asks people to endure a measurable short-term harm in the hopes of a speculative long-term gain. That doesn't work out so well.

For that reason, I keep coming back to this idea of choice. When even RNC Chairman Michael Steele doesn't have a choice in health-care insurance, you're dealing with a world in which you could really help them out by giving them access to options. That's why I'm so enamored of Ron Wyden's idea. But there are no silver bullets. It's taken a long time to get health care to this place. It'll take at least a bit of time to get it to a better place. But patience is not one of the political system's virtues.

Voinovich Admits GOP Opposes Health Care Reform For Political Reasons

George Voinovich is retiring from Congress next year, and I guess that means he can feel free to let a few things slip out. In this clip from CNBC, he admits what we've known all along - that opposition to the President is driving opposition to health care reform. Republicans know that if a Democratic President expands access to health care more than any time since Medicare, and lowers individual costs for most people, he will reap rewards. So their strategy, as revealed previously by internal memos and Jim "Waterloo" DeMint, is to obstruct reform to deny the President a "win", thusly turning the uninsured and the poor into pawns in a political game.

Most of Voinovich's remarks are of the fiscal scold variety, claiming that we cannot afford the cost of government (something I forget hearing from Voinovich when he voted to authorize a war in Iraq that cost three trillion dollars), but here's the key moment at around 4:25:

QUESTIONER: ...on health care, how much of this disagreement with the Administration is about the policy of health care and how to fix it, and how much of it is Republicans' obvious and understandable desire to declaw the President politically? How much of that does fit into the equation.

VOINOVICH: I think it's about 50/50, but I will tell you this...

He then claims that some Republicans want to work "on a bipartisan basis" on health care, but that's pretty much the death knell right there.

Democrats are right to jump all over this and expose the GOP as obstructionists. We've known this for some time with the record number of filibusters, but haven't gotten it out to the public. On a high-profile issue like health care, it should be radioactive to obstruct for political reasons and deny millions of people the right to have quality, affordable care.

Dems Get Cloture On Harold Koh

About damn time. There was literally no reason not to confirm him. Republicans are threatening to take all 30 hours of floor time to "debate" his confirmation. Obstructionist whiners.

Dawn Johnsen's next.

MN-Sen: State Supremes Hear Oral Arguments

Al Franken and Norm Coleman's lawyers had their oral arguments before the Minnesota Supreme Court today, the last step before resolving this battle at the statewide level. Eric Kleefeld has a recap of the questions to Coleman's lawyers and Franken's lawyers, and Rick Hasen offers these thoughts:

1. It is always dangerous to guess how a court is going to come out based upon oral argument. But there's good reason here to believe that the state Supreme Court Justices went into this with their minds made up: this case has been expedited pursuant to state law, and they've had two weeks (including three weekends) to think about how to decide this case based upon the briefs. They likely had a draft opinion or set of opinions in front of them. So this oral argument may be more of a tip off than most.

2. There's no question that Coleman's side got much tougher question than Franken's side, and based upon oral argument I would not be surprised to see a unanimous decision in favor of Franken in a relatively short time frame (within two weeks--maybe sooner). I counted at least three of the five Justices who were much more willing to accept Franken's arguments than Coleman's arguments, and who asked Coleman's side much more difficult questions.

The real question comes after this, when the Minnesota Supremes offer their expected verdict. Will they ask for the certification of the election (probably yes)? Will Governor Tim Pawlenty sign that certificate (depends on who he thinks is the audience - Minnesotans, or an imagined 2012 Republican primary electorate)? Will Republicans in the Senate allow Franken's seating (not hard to answer that one)? And will Coleman sue in federal court? Hasen has the outline of an answer for that:

Near the end of the argument, (Coleman lawyer Joe) Friedberg suggested that if the state Supreme Court affirmed under a strict compliance standard, it would create (or exacerbate) the federal constitutional problems that Coleman has been pushing. These are arguments Coleman may try to advance, assuming he loses in this court, in a cert. petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, or in a separate federal lawsuit. In pieces at Slate, the ACS Blog, and the LA Times, I have considered both the merits of those constitutional arguments and whether they need to be addressed in a separate federal court action.

Coleman's argument, essentially, is that we cannot know the outcome, it's chaos, and so we cannot seat Al Franken. They've offered little definable proof for this, and were criticized on this point in court today. But that's what they're going with. And it makes sense if you understand that Coleman does not seek another term, but only to play the role of a linebacker keeping Franken out of the end zone. It's obstructionism writ large. The question remains, how much patience will Republicans have for this tactic?

This Week In Health Care

Ezra Klein is moving to the Washington Post. That's great - Ezra is one of my favorite bloggers, and I particularly appreciate his ability to drill down on health care policy. So in his honor, here's a great big health care post!

I would describe the prevailing mood from health care policy experts on the Hill as ebullient. The Senate committee chairs with jurisdiction are planning to mark up a bill by June, while working in close concert so the bills aren't all that different, and a final vote is expected by early fall. This appears to be happening.

The question, of course, is "what is happening?" What form will this legislation take? Some liberals are alarmed by the subtle shifts in the debate, and for good reason.

As Congress returns to begin an intense debate over reshaping the nation's $2.2 trillion health-care system, prominent left-leaning organizations and liberal House members are issuing a warning to their Democratic allies: Don't cave on us.

The early skirmishing -- essentially amounting to friendly fire -- is perhaps the clearest indication yet of the uphill battle President Obama faces in delivering on his promise to make affordable, high-quality care available to every American.

Disputes over whether to create a new government-sponsored insurance program to compete with private companies shine a light on the intraparty fissures that may prove more problematic than any partisan brawl.

More than 70 House Democrats recently warned party leaders that they will not support a broad health reform bill that does not offer consumers a government-sponsored policy, and two unions withdrew from a high-profile health coalition because it would not endorse a public plan.

"It's way too early" to abandon what it considers a central plank in health reform, said Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union. He said the organization pulled out of the bipartisan Health Reform Dialogue because it feared its friends in the coalition were sacrificing core principles too soon. "You don't make compromises with your allies."

Ultimately, I think the Administration supports a public plan, but they're willing to make it more of a public plan in name only (PPINO?), along the lines of Uwe Reinhardt's plan, which would operate like Medicare, but not paying the same bargain rates. That makes little sense to me and doesn't do much more than add a non-profit health care provider to the space. It won't necessarily force the private market to compete on price and quality, and given that a separate set of rules would do away with pre-existing condition and rate communities with a standard price, I don't see the benefit to a neutered public option. Reinhardt's plan isn't all bad, and it's actually better than other "level playing field" options I've heard. But I question its efficacy, and think that progressives still ought to push for a real public option.

The other big fight is over budget reconciliation, allowing Congress to pass the budget, with health care embedded therein, on a party-line vote instead of it being subject to filibuster.

Under the reconciliation process, the House and the Senate first agree on an overall budget blueprint and then pursue legislation — in this case, the health care overhaul — “reconciling” the blueprint with the needed policy changes. If enough Senate Democrats support the legislation, the White House would not need a single Republican vote.

The House adopted its version of the budget with the procedural shortcut. The Senate has been reluctant to authorize it, but may ultimately follow the House’s lead as the two chambers try to work out their differences.

A health care bill written mainly or entirely by Democrats would almost surely create a new public health insurance program, to compete with private insurers. It would require employers to provide insurance to employees or contribute to its cost. Employers who already offer insurance could be required to provide more or different benefits, and Congress could limit the tax breaks now available for such employer-provided insurance.

There's actually a budget vote today that would keep the option of reconciliation alive for health care, which Democrats in the Senate appear to be ready to allow, or at least not kill for now, since the leverage from threatening it can at least get Republicans to the bargaining table. This is an option, it must be said, that is a commonly used technique by both parties over the last three decades, and does not represent anything approaching a power grab. Nevertheless, obstructionist Republicans are vowing all-out war if Democrats go the route of reconciliation.

Although Senate Democrats are far from reaching a consensus on the reconciliation issue, party leaders confirmed Wednesday that they are reserving the right to use it to pass health care reform if Republicans fail to negotiate in good faith. Senate Republicans — saying they have every intention of being a full partner in the upcoming health care negotiations — said holding reconciliation in reserve could poison the discussions, and threatened retribution.

“If they go down that road, I think the fur is going to fly,” Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) said. “I suspect that there is going to be an awful lot of resistance, and we will exercise our prerogatives so that the rules of the Senate are respected.” [...]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who was a member of the 2005 bipartisan “Gang of 14” that negotiated a deal on President George W. Bush’s stalled judicial nominees, said he would be willing to tap into the Senate’s parliamentary arsenal to block the majority from pursuing its agenda.

Similarly, National Republican Senatorial Committee John Cornyn (Texas) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) predicted that the GOP Conference would respond to Democrats’ use of reconciliation on health care with tough action.

What's comical about this is that Republicans are CURRENTLY using everything in their parliamentary arsenal to block the President and the Democratic Congress' agenda. Just today they blocked a vote on Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services Secretary, despite the fact that she has enough votes on the floor to beat a filibuster (two Republicans voted her out of committee, plus 58 Democrats). And the head of the RNC has called on Obama to withdraw Sebelius from the position, all because she supports reproductive choice, as does the President, who was elected by the American people by a wide margin. I don't know how much more Republican obstructionists could possibly slow the chamber, given the circumstances.

Meanwhile, even their leadership is off message on this. Here's Paul Ryan on reconciliation.

“It's their right. They did win the election,” said Ryan, R-Wis. “That’s what I tell all my constituents who are worried about this. They won the election. They did run on these ideas. They did run on nationalizing health care. So, you're right about that. They have the votes with reconciliation. They nailed down the process so that they can make sure they have the votes and that they can get this thing through really fast. It is their right. It is what they can do.”

More proof that the GOP is stumbling around on this health care fight, without an alternative option and without a strategy other than "block that kick." They're giving the Administration and the Democratic Congress little choice but to blow right by them, and in that case, Democrats ought to get everything they can in the absence of Republican participation.

No More Mr. Polite Guy

I like the new feistiness from President Obama, as seen through chief nerd Peter Orszag's recent comments, among others.

At a recent lunch with reporters, Budget Director Peter Orszag was asked if he could name a useful idea submitted by Republicans. He couldn't -- and didn't even pretend he'd considered many. When House Republicans put out a budget last week, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "The party of no has become the party of no ideas."

Gibbs probably wouldn't have said that 40 days ago, when the White House was treating the issue of bipartisanship more carefully. But after party-line votes in the House and Senate and minimum flexibility from GOP leaders, Obama aides say that Republicans are not "acting in good faith." Which leads them to two conclusions: One, their acts of conciliation buy them nothing in negotiations with the GOP; two, and more important, they've decided they'll pay no political price for acting in a more partisan fashion.

As Steve Benen notes, the current tactics from the President have yielded no results from the Republican caucus; if anything they've dug in deeper since the election. The midterms are 19 months off and will probably be measured by the state of the economy at that time, so Republicans probably WON'T pay any price for their obstruction. And that obstruction is historic in nature.

Ah, the U.S. Senate—the world’s greatest deliberative body. The chamber designed to be, as George Washington famously described it to Thomas Jefferson, “the saucer into which we pour legislation to cool” the hot tea from the cup of the House of Representatives. It is a body set up to make it difficult to enact laws, with a tradition of unlimited debate and a deference to the intense feelings of the minority over the more casual will of the majority.

Newt (Gingrich) saw nearly all his initiatives, including much of the Contract with America, disappear in the Senate Bermuda Triangle. Gingrich’s problems with Dole and his Senate were both predictable and par for the course. But the Senate today is showing signs of getting even more difficult to deal with. The Senate has taken the term “deliberative” to a new level, slowing not just contentious legislation but also bills that have overwhelming support.

The Virginia Tech bill is a dramatic example, but it is far from the only one. A bill to require senators to file their campaign finance reports electronically—something done for years by members of the House, presidential candidates, and nearly every legislative body out there—has been the victim of revolving holds for months on end. A widely supported ethics and lobbying reform bill was pushed back several times and nearly derailed by a hold placed by Senator Jim DeMint (RSC). A bill to repeal President Bush’s executive order allowing presidents to shield their papers from public view for decades after they leave office has been held up by Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY)—who stepped in after a months-long hold on the bill by Coburn was finally lifted in September.

The rules have simply modified to the point that the Senate really cannot get its business done almost at all. And the filibuster is now routinely Administered, far more than in the past, as you can see in this chart:



As Ezra Klein says:

If you want to understand why the earth is likely to heat and why comprehensive health reform is unlikely to pass and why the government is increasingly letting the Federal Reserve govern its response to the financial crisis, that graph basically tells the story.

I'd take issue with Ornstein on one point: He argues that "the problems here are less the rules and more the culture. And that is not going to change anytime soon." But that's fatalism. Imagine a classroom in which all the children are polite and they can talk whenever they wish. Now imagine that order breaks down, the children grow rude and combative, and the classroom devolves into cacophony. You wouldn't say that we need to wait for the children to be polite again. You'd say we need to change the rules so they're responsive to the behavior of the participants.

If filibusters are now going to become simply a routine instrument to obstruct the will of the majority on even enormously popular issues, with the entire minority willing to hang together, you have to wonder about its utility. Which is why the battle over budget reconciliation is so important. The President yesterday told Democratic leaders that "If we don’t pass the budget, it will empower those critics who don’t want to see anything getting done." That's true. And major investments in health care, education and energy are intrinsically tied up with that budget. If the only way to get them done is to place them in a process where they cannot be filibustered, then so be it. The people called for change last November and they deserve it, indeed they will be in dire straits without it. The rules of a legislative body cannot be held above the good of the country, not anymore at least.

And Now, Put Your Hands Together...

Ladies and gentlemen, here they are, your Senate moderates who will take a Democratic mandate and water it down to ensure a lack of progress and continued alienation in the electorate! At forward, from Indiana, the captain, Senator Evan Bayh!

“The group’s goal is to work with the Senate leadership and the new administration to craft common-sense solutions to urgent national problems,” Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), a co-founder, said in a press release from the group.

At the swing positions, from the First State and the Deep South...

Along with Bayh, the group also is headed by Sens. Tom Carper (Del.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.).

And rounding out this group of far-shooting low achievers...

Other members of the group are Sens. Mark Udall (Colo.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Joe Lieberman (Conn.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) , Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) and Mark Warner (Va.).

Give it up for your Moderate Dems Working Group!!!!

Now, Evan Bayh has put together umpteen moderate groups over the past several years. They always fall apart due to a lack of cohesion. In short, nobody votes as a bloc. Heck, three or four additional Senators who attended meetings of this group refused to identify with it. But that's probably not the point of this working group. Bayh just wants to be SEEN as leading something, so the fawning DC establishment can glorify him, so press reports back in Indiana can tout him, so he can be viewed as a PLAYER. I mean, these progressive policies aren't going to obstruct themselves.

The problem is that Indianans live outside of Washington, DC, and while Bayh is locally popular, so is the President. And the public face of obstructing his agenda is bound to draw some fire.

Progressive groups have pressured Republican lawmakers to support President Obama's economic agenda since he first announced his stimulus intentions before the new year; now the pressure is on Blue Dog Democrats.

Liberal activist group USAction will air TV ads pressuring four Blue Dog Democrats on the House Budget Committee to support President Obama's budget, the group announced today. It also started robocalls targeting the members last week. The members are Reps. Marion Berry (AK), Allen Boyd (FL), Charlie Melancon (LA), and Chet Edwards (TX).

Evan Bayh, incidentally, runs for re-election in 2010. Just sayin'.

Nobody's Home

One of the more pernicious parts of this economic crisis is that it's unspooling with Timothy Geithner practically working alone at the Treasury Department. Whether it's because of inertia or the vetting process being too stringent or practically everyone who's ever worked in finance being too compromised to take the job, almost all of the top deputy positions at Treasury haven't been filled, and two candidates just dropped out of consideration:

WASHINGTON -- Two candidates for top jobs at the Treasury have withdrawn their names from consideration, complicating efforts by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to staff his department at a time of economic crisis, according to people familiar with the matter.

Annette Nazareth, who was expected to be tapped as deputy Treasury secretary, and Caroline Atkinson, who was being considered to oversee international affairs, have both taken their names out of the running, these people said. Ms. Atkinson's name was withdrawn weeks ago and Ms. Nazareth withdrew several days ago.

The withdrawals come amid growing concern about the lack of staff at Treasury as it tries to grapple with an unrelenting financial crisis. Mr. Geithner is the only official to be nominated, let alone confirmed.

Paul Volcker, an economic adviser to President Barack Obama, recently called the lack of staff "shameful" and said Mr. Geithner "shouldn't be sitting there alone."

Let's add that Geithner is not exactly "sitting alone". There are holdovers from the reign of Emperor Paulson sitting in those seats. Feel better?

Meanwhile, the economic advisory team is being held up out of pure petty politics.

President Barack Obama’s economic advisers are increasingly concerned about the U.S. Senate’s delay in confirming the nominations of Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse to the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

Without Senate confirmation, the two economists are barred from advising the president as the administration tackles the worst financial crisis in 70 years and tries to advance the spending plan Obama submitted to Congress last week.

“It’s frustrating,” said Christina Romer, who heads the three-member CEA. “These are hard economic times and we desperately want to get them through the Senate and definitely on the job.”

“They are both superb economists,” she said. “I can’t imagine what the holdup is.”

Goolsbee and Rouse appeared before the Senate Banking Committee on Jan. 15 and were slated for a full Senate confirmation on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, according to a senior administration official. Instead, they were approved by the panel Feb. 10.

They weren’t placed on the confirmation slate for the full chamber, leading some administration officials to conclude that Senate Republicans were retaliating against the Democrats because President George W. Bush’s nominations for the same slots languished in the Senate for months at the end of his second term.

It's not like Goolsbee, from the University of Chicago, is some socialist radical. This is purely political at a time when the economy is melting down. There's a lot of blame to spread around here.

Strong Investment

This endless trial in Minnesota over their US Senate election is really working out well for the Republicans. Norm Coleman's lawyers get to make any wild charge they want, contradicting themselves over what ballots should count and what shouldn't, and in the meantime, the winner of the election, Al Franken, isn't seated as the 59th Democratic Senator, making it harder to break the obstructionism and making the Senate more reliant on the Axis of Presidents Nelson and Collins. It's a great little racket they've got going. So they decided to keep funding it.

The Republican National Committee has transferred $250,000 to the Minnesota GOP to help pay legal fees in Norm Coleman’s ongoing recount battle against Al Franken for the Minnesota Senate seat.

A spokesman for the RNC, Alex Conant, said the committee had made Coleman’s legal battle “a priority because we think he has a case and because we think he deserves to return to the Senate.” The money was transferred last month.

“We certainly appreciate the RNC’s commitment to Minnesota as we are continuing full speed ahead,” said Minnesota Republican Party spokeswoman Gina Countryman.

While the RNC cannot legally earmark funds for specific purposes, RNC sources said the deposit was made under the presumption that it would benefit Coleman’s campaign.

Later in the article it is noted that Coleman has raised $5 million dollars since the election to fund this gambit.

It's amusing to see the RNC baldly say that they "deserve" the seat up there, but that's not what's going on. It's just easy to keep making motions and keep calling witnesses while key legislation gets blocked in the Senate. And yes, one Senator does make a difference. Greg Sargent writes today:

One wild-card in the whole looming battle over the Employee Free Choice Act that’s gotten too little attention is this: When will Al Franken be seated as a Senator?

Labor officials say they’re reluctant to really kick off the battle over Employee Free Choice — a measure to make it easier to unionize that is labor’s top priority — until Franken is officially a member of the Senate.

Indeed, Minnesota’s other Senator, Amy Klobuchar, confirmed yesterday during an event in the state that the Senate has decided not to move on Employee Free Choice until Franken is seated, the Minnesota Post reports. If the House of Representatives pushes for the Senate to vote first on the measure, as expected, this could hold up the fight that much longer.

$250,000 or $5 million is a small price to pay for the Big Money Boyz to keep workers from forming unions. And in addition to gumming up the works for months upon months, they get to delegitmize the electoral process, as well as Al Franken's claim to the seat. It's a really nice investment for them. Better than anything in the stock market these days.

GOP Obstruction In Conflict With GOP Future

I wouldn't read a whole lot into the Gallup poll showing Congress' approval rating up to 31%. I think they're drafting off of Obama's honeymoon a bit, and since they were able to put a stimulus package on the President's desk (despite the sausage-making), they're getting a little credit for that. More than anything it suggests the power of sustained action. All the ratings increases come from Democrats. As Congress is able to get a few Democratic bills done with their increased numbers (Ledbetter, SCHIP, the stimulus), Democrats are rewarding them. And seeing that the stimulus foretells a new era of social spending in Washington, the preferred action for Democrats is to continue moving on these crucial priorities in areas like health care and energy. As they expand recovery to the greatest possible number of Americans, that number will return the compliment.

What the numbers do say is that Republican intransigence is flopping. It makes for fun backslapping and Aerosmith videos, but I think the public isn't biting at all. And the consequent desperation of Republican attacks - really, Barack Obama is responsible for the stock market from the moment he was ELECTED? - shows that even their lines of attack are thin and meager. Many Republican Governors are backing away from their rump faction and building bridges to the popular President because they actually have to govern, and as such can't fall back on conservative ideology, which has no use in a crisis.

The words of Bill Clinton, still great at giving Republicans hell, are worth noting:

Roberts: What do you think of the job that President Obama did on steering the stimulus plan through Congress, and does he in fact have the experience necessary to be a good president, reach across party lines and craft a bipartisan bill?

Clinton: Well first of all, he has reached across, and it takes two to tango. I find it amazing that the Republicans who doubled the debt of the country in eight years and produced no new jobs doing it, gave us an economic record that was totally bereft of any productive result are now criticizing him for spending money. You know, I'm a fiscal conservative, I balanced the budget, I ran surpluses. If I were in his position today, I would be doing what he's doing. Why? Because the problem with the economy is the housing decline led to the general decline in values. Assets are going down. This stimulus is our bridge over troubled waters till the bank reforms kick in. He did the right thing, he did everything he could to get Republican support. He took some of their tax-cutting ideas.

But if you look at this bill, it is designed do three things. And it does all three. It puts money in the hands of people who need money to survive -- unemployment benefits, food stamp benefits, tax cuts. Second thing it does is to give money to state and local governments so they don't have to lay a million people off or raise taxes. Either one would be bad for the economy. The third thing is it does is create new jobs. Given the Congress he had and the environment and the speed with which they had to move, I think he did a fine job with this.

And that's what Americans are responding too.

Solis Approved In Committee - Goes To The Full Senate

It was a long struggle with a somewhat anti-climactic resolution, but Hilda Solis was approved by the Senate HELP Committee (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) on a voice vote. Today over 20,000 petition signatures were delivered to the leaders of the HELP Committee by SEIU, UFW, UFCW, Change to Win and the Courage Campaign, and those voices were heard.

Now the confirmation moves to the full Senate for a vote, where it will hopefully be approved in short order. Sometimes we win one.

Solis Update

Politico reports that the recent tax issues surrounding Hilda Solis' husband won't derail her nomination for Labor Secretary, but they're still going to obstruct:

Key Republican senators on the committee vetting the California Democrat’s nomination say they won’t blame her for the problems facing her husband, Sam Sayyad, who paid around $6,400 last week to settle tax liens against his auto-repair company.

But they are still exploring the congresswoman’s ties to a pro-union organization, and a vote on her nomination has yet to be scheduled [...]

Solis has angered some Republicans’ on the panel for deflecting questions on her positions over controversial “card-check” legislation, which would make it easier for workers to unionize, and for whether she supports maintaining right-to-work laws that prohibit forcing workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Those issues, however, are not enough to drag down her nomination and Republicans are unlikely to block the nomination, according to aides and senators.

Still, there is one last issue that could influence the HELP committee’s upcoming vote. The committee is waiting for additional information about her role as an unpaid board member and treasurer for the pro-union group American Rights at Work, while she was a member of the House.

Isakson said they are reviewing whether her role in an organization lobbying Congress violated campaign finance rules, “which I think would just come back to hurt her if we didn’t get that out and cleared out one way or another.”

These are just a series of stall tactics to drag this confirmation out. Solis' involvement with American Rights At Work has been gone over plenty of times. It is a red herring. Hilda Solis needs to be confirmed now. Sign the petition.

...Marc Ambinder is now reporting that Solis may get a vote in committee tomorrow. It would be long overdue.

Now Husband's Tax Issues Are Fair Game

Hilda Solis's confirmation in the Senate HELP Committee was abruptly cancelled today after a report surfaced about her husband paying $6,400 to remove a tax lien on his business.

The report, by USA Today, came just before the Senate's Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee was slated to meet to consider Solis's nomination, which had been delayed by questions over her role on the board of the pro-labor organization American Rights at Work. A source said that committee members did not learn about the tax issue until today.

"Today's executive session was postponed to allow members additional time to review the documentation submitted in support of Representative Solis's nomination to serve in the important position of Labor Secretary," read a joint statement issued by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the panel's chairman, and Mike Enzi (Wyoming), the committee's ranking Republican. "There are no holds on her nomination and members on both sides of the aisle remain committed to giving her nomination the fair and thorough consideration that she deserves. We will continue to work together to move this nomination forward as soon as possible."

No new date has been set for the hearing. The disclosure about Solis's husband comes after tax problems caused trouble for three of Obama's top appointees, leading two of them -- HHS-nominee Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer, who was to be chief performance officer -- to withdraw.

Senate Republicans have been slow-walking this nomination for weeks, and this revelation gave them another reason to do so. To be clear, we're talking about her husband's business. Given that she's in Congress and is in Washington most of the time, I doubt very highly that she has anything to do with it. In addition, by paying the taxes, Solis and her entire family are adhering to Obama's ethical standards, not subverting them.

So this is the latest in a months-long obstructionism. The LA Times reported today that some GOP members were trying to put a gag order on Solis:

Underscoring the bitter debate over a proposal to make it easier for workers to form unions, Republican senators are suggesting that President Obama's pick for Labor secretary must recuse herself from lobbying for the bill's passage.

In a written exchange with Solis, Republican senators indicated they are wary of her ties to a tax-exempt group dedicated to helping workers unionize [...]

Solis' Cabinet nomination is in the crossfire. She was a co-sponsor of the bill in 2007 and has served for the last four years on the board of American Rights at Work. Solis receives no salary as a board member or treasurer [...]

In their questionnaire, the senators noted that American Rights at Work has lobbied for passage of the bill. They asked Solis whether she would seek a waiver from the Obama administration or avoid any role in passing the legislation.

Solis replied that she does not need a waiver and has no intention of stepping back. She said she was only a member of Congress exercising her powers.

"I am not a registered lobbyist, nor do I in any way meet the statutory requirements for registration as a lobbyist," she wrote.

The American Rights at Work thing is a complete red herring. She was a representative figure for those who supported Employee Free Choice in Congress. She is not a lobbyist. She supported a bill. And so denying her free-speech rights seems ridiculous to the extreme.

I don't know if a family member's tax issue is enough to sink this nomination (like the last Labor Secretary's spouse, one Mitch McConnell, has no ethical issues to speak of), but I for one think Solis should be confirmed. And as for the Employee Free Choice Act, the battle for a fair workplace goes on. Thousands of people are marching in the streets of Los Angeles today in support of free choice.

Op-Edder-In-Chief

Yesterday, Chris Bowers asked: "Which side is Obama on?" I don't know if he'll think the President's op-ed in the Washington Post will clarify things, but I think it's pretty decent.

What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come.

This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it's a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

Much of this reads like a speech on the stump - a speech HE OUGHT TO GIVE, by the way, and as soon as possible, and every day until the bill passes, not in Washington but on a barnstorming tour around the country. (This is actually kind of starting, by the way - Joe Biden is standing out in front of a train station in Maryland tomorrow.) As Chuck Todd said yesterday, Democrats feel "that basically Matt Drudge has been the managing editor for deciding which part of the stimulus package gets highlighted", and that's basically true except for the "Democrats feel" part. They are gunning for the young President using the familiar "build-him-up-to-tear-him-down" narrative. It's all a game to them, and the only course of action is to go fully around the filter, taking the message directly to the people, and making the argument.

Obama's pretty clear on what he considers a priority in the stimulus.

Now is the time to protect health insurance for the more than 8 million Americans at risk of losing their coverage and to computerize the health-care records of every American within five years, saving billions of dollars and countless lives in the process.

Now is the time to save billions by making 2 million homes and 75 percent of federal buildings more energy-efficient, and to double our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy within three years.

Now is the time to give our children every advantage they need to compete by upgrading 10,000 schools with state-of-the-art classrooms, libraries and labs; by training our teachers in math and science; and by bringing the dream of a college education within reach for millions of Americans.

And now is the time to create the jobs that remake America for the 21st century by rebuilding aging roads, bridges and levees; designing a smart electrical grid; and connecting every corner of the country to the information superhighway.

That makes up the core and well over 80% of the plan, designed to create many jobs across sectors, across demographics and throughout the economy, because the current recession is similarly systemic and broad. It's not perfect and ought to be improved - some of the Senate amendments have been atrocious, there isn't nearly enough for transit (despite the Biden train-stop appearance) and way too much for roads and cars, and the pre-compromised business tax cuts aren't worth being in here. I'm worried that the final bill will be too small, and the axis of Nelson and Collins need to be fought. But if you hone in on these core principles, the whole thing isn't bad. It's certainly a more rational piece of legislation than the flailing Republicans, now decrying legislation they've previously voted for, could ever muster.

Obama's in the arena. More Democrats need to join him. for this reason if nothing else: If they allow this to be hijacked and rendered ineffective, their political futures are bleak.

...also, it appears Obama wants the bill to remain the same size or grow:

Collins, who said she preferred a stimulus package totaling about $650 billion, said Obama made a “very strong pitch to have a bill that is considerably bigger than what I might like and argued that the economy is sufficiently troubled that legislation has to be large enough to have the kind of impact that we all want.” She said she is “committed to trying to get to a yes vote.”

Solis Finally Gets A Committee Vote Tomorrow

Good news: Hilda Solis will get a long-awaited confirmation vote to be the Secretary of Labor tomorrow in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. The hold-up was ridiculous, based on "confusion" on Solis' stand on the Employee Free Choice Act, when it was extremely clear where she stood (in full support), and even more clear that as a legislative issue she would have little to do with the legislation until it was enacted. Earlier in the day, Think Progress noted that the right wing was attempting to Daschle-ize Solis for completely bogus reasons:

In the wake of Daschle’s departure, the right-wing is gunning for another Cabinet victim — Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), the nominee for Labor Secretary. The Heritage Foundation writes, “Hilda Solis: The Next Tom Daschle?”

According to The Hill, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) “has questioned whether Solis had done lobbying work while she was both a House member and an official at a pro-labor group, American Rights at Work” (ARW) [...]

As for the “conflict of interest” that the right wing is highlighting? Solis wasn’t paid for her activities with ARW, and as the Washington Independent pointed out, her role was well-known and ceremonial:

"What would be the charge? Either that she participated in lobbying by being a leader with ARW, or that she erred by originally not mentioning this job in her disclosure documents. Two reasons this might not work: Solis’ role in ARW was well-known and ceremonial (it’s on their Website), and no congressman has hinted that he/she would file a complaint that could make a splash but not be deemed frivolous and politically motivated."

This is typical right-wing obstructionism designed to score political points. Let's hope Solis is confirmed be a wide margin tomorrow. It's beyond ridiculous.

Related: CA-32 candidate Emanuel Pleitez, one of at least three to declare for Solis' seat, has some good thoughts about the culpability of credit rating agencies in the financial meltdown.

Attorney General Holder

So that's done. Great job, Karl Rove, you really nicked Obama on that one!

Howie Klein notes that there's an Obstruction caucus forming in the Senate with the 21 No votes on Holder:

The leader, of course, is Jim DeMint (R-SC) and his followers, the serial obstructionists at the bottom of the GOP barrel are Jim Bunning (R-KY), John Cornyn (R-TX), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Tom Coburn (R-OK), David Diapers Vitter (R-LA), James Risch (R-ID), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Richard Burr (R-NC), Michael Crapo (R-ID), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Miss McConnell (R-KY), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Richard Shelby (R-AL), John Ensign (R-NV), John Thune (R-SD), and John Barrasso (R-WY). The Associated Press naively summarized the vote like this: "A small group of Republicans said they opposed Holder. They argued he was hostile to gun control and doesn't fully support the war on terrorism."

Interestingly enough, they all come from the South and the Interior Western Plains states! How could that be?

Here Come The Obstructionists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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