UI extension fails again in Senate

By Creature

I'm starting to think Ben Nelson wants his party to fail. Life must have been easier for this turncoat when the Dems were not in control. Bush tax cuts, anyone?

Still in economic crisis

By Creature

The amount of extended hurt about to be launched is going to be massive. I don't get why Republicans (and Ben Nelson) can't grasp this. Well, actually I do. They are counting on Americans blaming Democrats. And, with headlines like these, they might be right.

Quote of the Day: Sheldon Whitehouse on the "tax extenders" bill and the "Republican debt orgy"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Last night, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island took to the floor of the Senate to address the ongoing Republican opposition to restoring extended unemployment benefits that, under the stimulus bill, expired on June 1. He pinned the blame exactly where it belongs:

I understand the point about the debt and the deficit and the spending. But to me, that doesn't have an enormous amount of credibility, because when President Clinton left office, he left an annual surplus... At the end of [George W. Bush's] term, we had $9 trillion in debt. We would have none of this if it hadn't been for the Republican debt orgy that they went through.

I understand the need for fiscal sanity, too, but at a time of economic crisis -- and we're not out of it yet -- punishing the unemployed is hardly the right thing to do. And it really is ridiculous to think that many of the unemployed are living happily off government benefits. Whitehouse continued:

The notion that you're going to cut off somebody's unemployment insurance and have them go out and find a job is just plain nuts. There aren't a lot of people lying around enjoying the luxury of unemployment insurance payments. They want to be getting to work.

Welfare is always an "allure," as Republicans have put it, but it's also a necessary safety net precisely for times like this. And it's not just the unemployed who will suffer at the hands of the Republicans. As Arthur Delaney of HuffPo reports:

Democratic leaders in the Senate have apparently failed to win enough support to overcome a Republican filibuster of a bill to help the poor, the old and the jobless, despite making a series of cuts to the measure over the past several weeks to appease deficit hawks.

"It looks like we're going to come up short," said a senior Democratic aide on Wednesday evening. "It looks like Republicans are prepared to kill aid to states, an extension of unemployment benefits, and ironically, the Republicans are prepared to kill efforts to close loopholes that allow companies to export jobs overseas."

The legislation, known as the "tax extenders" bill, would reauthorize extended unemployment benefits for people out of work for six months or longer, would protect doctors from a 21 percent pay cut for seeing Medicare patients, and would provide billions in aid to state Medicaid programs.

Come Friday, 1.2 million people will lose access to the extended unemployment benefits, a number that will grow by several hundred thousand every week after that.

As Steve Benen correctly notes, the votes are actually there for the bill. The problem is the filibuster, and the Republicans won't even let the bill get to the floor for a vote:

Democrats appear to have lined up 58 votes, but in the Senate, 42 is greater than 58, even when our economic health is on the line.

In the real world, this means millions of jobless Americans will lose their already-modest benefits, and hundreds of thousands of workers will be laid off over the next year, including teachers, police officers, and firefighters. All of this will happen because Republicans are more concerned about the deficit -- a deficit they created under Bush/Cheney -- than the economy.

It's unpleasant to think about, and I really hope it's not true, but it may be time for a discussion about whether GOP lawmakers are trying to deliberately sabotage the economy to help their midterm election strategy. After all, these same Republicans have supported deficit-financed tax-extenders before -- there's no credible reason to change course now. On the contrary, with the economy struggling to break through, the need for this package is more obvious, not less, if your goal is to actually improve economic conditions.

I think that's a discussion we need to have. Senate Republicans, including the supposed moderates like Susan Collins and joined by "Democrat" Ben Nelson, seem to be doing everything in their power to block economic recovery and destroy the safety net that so many American need, a net that will allow many of them to get back on their feet again. Pat Garofalo at Think Progress writes that at least 200,000 jobs could be lost from withholding aid to state Medicaid programs. And in addition to cutting benefits to the unemployed, the failure to pass the bill, the Republican failure, would lead to dramatic cuts to services all across the country, according to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report cited by Garofalo:

Arizona would have to cut funding for its state court system, Colorado's likely cuts "include eliminating state aid for full-day kindergarten for 35,000 children, eliminating preschool aid for 21,000 children, and increasing overcrowding in juvenile detention facilities," while New Mexico "could eliminate a wide range of Medicaid services, including emergency hospital services, inpatient psychiatric care, personal care assistance for the disabled, prescribed medications, and hospice care."

And so on, and so on. And yet Republicans don't seem to care, so focused are a few of them on the deficit and many more of them either on playing politics by trying to sabotage the Democrats' agenda or on slashing government altogether, cutting even essential services like health care and policing. And even significant Democratic concessions haven't won over any Republicans.

It's all quite appalling, and so deeply harmful both to the economy broadly and to the American people, so many of whom will continue to suffer through the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. The stupid filibuster rule in the Senate is partly to blame, for even a party with a large majority that actually wants to do something is stuck, but the blame really does need to be on the Republicans, who seem to have zero interest in compromise and zero interest in doing what is right for the country. It is imperative that voters remember this come November.

Screw the unemployed

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Do the unemployed matter? Not so much to a majority of the Senate, it seems, which yesterday voted 52-45 against reauthorizing key expired programs such as extended unemployment benefits. At this time of need, desperation, and hopelessness for so many Americans, what the oligarchs in that august body worry about is the deficit, not the human cost of the economic crisis that has engulfed the country. In that, they are grossly -- and cruelly -- misguided.

As "Democrat" Ben Nelson explained:

I've said all along that we have to be able to pay for what we're spending $77 billion or more of this is not paid for and that translates into deficit spending and adding to the debt, and the American people are right: We've got to stop doing that.

Ezra Klein responds:

No, sir, they're wrong, and we don't. It's hard to say this loudly enough, but it really doesn't make sense to offset stimulus spending, at least in the short term. The point of the money is to get the economy moving faster, to give people cash to spend. This isn't like health-care reform, where you're purchasing something and you should pay for it. When you're trying to expand the economy, you need to use debt to put more money into it than would otherwise be there. If you're just moving a dollar from one purpose to another, you may be using that dollar better, but you're not expanding the total amount of demand in the economy by very much. You're just moving it around. It would be like bailing water from a boat, but throwing it into another part of the boat.

There'll come a time when we need to start reducing the deficit. If we can get the economy back into gear, that time might even be soon. But for now, increasing the size of the deficit isn't some nasty side effect of stimulus spending. It is, quite literally, the point of the enterprise.

I would add that the point is also to help people, and one hopes that the people (that is, those who haven't been lured into the of the Tea Party "movement," even though Republicans and "Democrats" regularly vote against their interests, too) will take it out on those who really have no interest in helping them, those in the Senate, as well as the House, who have the well-heeled luxury of worrying about balancing the books at a time when so many of their own constituents are having trouble paying the bills and putting food on the table. It is fine to be fiscally responsible, of course, but the American people and the American economy demand other, more generous priorities if they are to recover in any meaningful and lasting way.

Ben Nelson votes with GOP on FinReg

By Creature

It's shit like this that pisses me off to no end about Democrats. If you going to put a (D) after your name then there are times when you must vote with your party. This vote was procedural. It was supposed to keep the GOP off balance. Now, not so much. Suddenly blocking FinReg is a bipartisan affair. Way to go.

Ben Nelson, more of a Republican than ever

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sen. Ben Nelson ("D"-Neb.) will not vote for the health-care reconciliation package in the Senate because it will include reform to student lending that, according to The Hill, "would make the federal government the originator of student loans, replacing private lending institutions."

As Chris Bowers notes, perhaps stating the obvious, Nelson "always votes with Republicans, now, apparently. He even voted against the micro-jobs bill, and the extension of unemployment benefits." 

As for the student loan issue, which, to me, is pretty clear-cut, see Jon Chait:

Federal student loans are one of the most clear-cut good versus evil issues you can find. Basically, the program has two ways of handling loans. One is for the government to make loans to college students. The other is for the government to pay private lenders to lend to students. The second method is more expensive and highly prone to corruption.

The Obama administration proposes to cut out the private loans and save over $80 billion over the next decade. Naturally, the lenders have mounted a huge counterassault on Capitol Hill.

Save money. End corruption. Make life easier for students. What's wrong with that? Well, to Republicans, as well as to likes of Nelson, what matters is the ability of lenders to screw people and make as much money as possible (and to feed off government while doing it).

It's a stupid system. Thankfully, Nelson's vote won't be needed to change it.

Worst Democrat of the Day: Ben Nelson, quasi-Republican

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Hill:

Democrats may have to abandon their effort for comprehensive healthcare legislation in favor of a piecemeal approach, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Friday.

Nelson, a centrist Democrat whose vote is critical to the fate of healthcare reform in the Senate, said that while he's inclined to support a majority-vote maneuver to pass a bill, he's unsure Senate Democrats will be able to do so.

"I don't know if we can get a comprehensive bill through," Nelson said during an interview on KLIN radio in Nebraska. "Honestly, I just don't know."

"We may be forced to doing healthcare -- to use my analogy -- by making a pie a piece at a time, which is typically not the preferred way to handle legislation," the senator added.

TNR's Jonathan Cohn says "[t]his seems to be his way of doing business. He'll grumble a lot, particularly when addressing his more conservative constituents, but that doesn't always foretell how he'll vote."

And, of course, Democrats don't necessarily need his vote. (The Hill's post is misleading, if not downright wrong.)

Still, when he's not an outright obstacle, he's a real nuisance, not least when he just seems to be regurgitating Republican talking points.

No joy in healthcare reform land

By Creature

The votes are in, the Senate bill will be passed. I fully support those pushing to make this bill better in conference, but with Nelson and Baucus making threats against changes I don't hold out much hope. A decision has been made to build universality on the backs of private insurance, except they forgot about the regulation part. This is the American way. Profit over good policy. Profit over people. I have no excitement over the passage of this bill, I only hope those like Paul Krugman know what they are talking about when they express their support. He usually does, it's the only comfort left.

Nelson still holds gun

By Creature

The White House has long promised that whatever bill makes it to conference it could be fixed there. Well, with President Nelson now threatening the conference committee (and in the turn the House and White House) what will the White House say now? I assume more crap about half-loaves, enemies of good, and something about a starter house. And, just to be clear, I'm not saying kill the bill, I'm saying politicians suck.

President Nelson's on board

By Creature

The sausage has been made. It's nose holding time.

The transparent insincerity of Krazy Bill Kristol, partisan hack

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've met Krazy Bill Kristol a couple of times. I've even spoken to him about my academic work (long story -- one of my teachers at the Univ. of Toronto was one of his teachers at Harvard). He's not a stupid man. Sure, he's a partisan hack with a whole lot of neocon fervor, and I think he's wrong about just about everything, but I'm not about to ridicule him for lack of intellectual capacity, even if he deserves a whole lot of ridicule for just about everything he says and writes and, well, is.

And I've been deeply critical of him here at The Reaction. In fact, I think we all have.

And sometimes, or a lot of the time, it's just so transparently obvious what he's up to, as he spews arguments that are just plain stupid. Like, for example, this, from earlier today:

There's a really big snowstorm coming to D.C.tonight. It would be unsafe to ask all the staffers and Hill employees who'd be needed at the Capitol if Congress stays open all hours this weekend, as Harry Reid intends, to drive to and from work -- especially since many will have to do so at night, and they won't be well-rested. So from the point of view of public safety and personal well-being, Ben Nelson can do everyone a favor, announce today he won't vote for cloture, and let everyone stay home this weekend.

Furthermore, Harry Reid is maniacally insisting on a Christmas Eve vote on a bill whose final text no one has seen yet. So from a good government point of view, Nelson can say that he feels he has to be against cloture.

And of course there's no need to vote in December rather than January or February -- it's just that Reid fears the already unpopular bill can't stand up to more public examination and debate. So from the point of view of respecting democracy and the American people, Nelson can insist that he needs time -- once we have Reid's text -- to go back to Nebraska and have some town meetings to let his constituents' voices be heard.

Two things:

1) Kristol has nothing positive to add to the health-care reform debate. He's just against it. And, to that end, the end of killing it altogether, he's all for obstructing and delaying as much as possible. So if there's no need to vote in December, there's no need to vote in January or February, or perhaps at all next year, and so on and so on. The "argument" is absurd. At some point a vote needs to be held. Why not this month? Oh, right, because the bill will likely pass and there will be actual reform. That's what Kristol knows and fears. There's still work to be done, not least winning the support of Nelson and Lieberman, but we're almost there. Unlike last time, with Hillarycare, Kristol has lost, and he knows it.

2) Kristol likely doesn't give a shit about the welfare of Hill staffers, or at least not much of one. So his deep concern for their safety at this time of impending snowstorm is obviously insincere. He just wants any excuse to delay the vote, which is why he's pushing Nelson to make a decision now. As Jon Chait notes sarcastically, "Kristol is a man of ideas, not some hack who marshals any available argument that serves his political ends." And as Chait correctly points out, if the roles were reversed, Kristol wouldn't be pushing for everyone to be sent home ahead of a key vote. Kristol's "argument" is so stupid and so insincere, and so obviously so, it isn't possible to take him at all seriously. Yeah, yeah, we know he's against reform, and we know he badly wants Nelson to side with the Republicans. So then just say it and don't bullshit us with "the point of view of public safety and personal well-being."

No, he's not a stupid man. He knows full well what he's doing and what's going on. But he really does write and say some appalling stupid things. In fact, he's made a highly lucrative career of it.

Ben Nelson, reform killer

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So. No Joe Lieberman, or not yet. And no Ben Nelson, so far.

Democrats have caved in to Lieberman, giving up not just the public option but the Medicare buy-in, and that still might not be enough, and now it's Nelson who's contradicting himself and saying he won't support the bill, mainly over federal funding for abortions, which he opposes.

It's infuriating, and I'm infuriated, so let me turn this over to my friend Steve Benen, who calmly examines the record:

Remember, literally one month ago today, CNN reported that Nelson was satisfied with the compromise language from the Senate Finance Committee. Now he's decided the Finance Committee compromise not only isn't good enough, but he's also prepared to kill health care reform over it.

What's more, let's also not forget that while Nelson isn't making any real effort to seek common ground, he's also rejecting compromises of compromises -- Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), another pro-life Dem, offered Nelson a new proposal with additional restrictions on federal financing of abortion. As of today, Nelson said the compromise on a compromise still isn't good enough, and he won't even let the Senate vote on the bill because of it.

And while we're at it, let's also not forget that just a few weeks ago, Nelson said he doesn't like the existing restrictions on abortion funding, but added, "If there's no public option, perhaps some of the [abortion] problem goes away." It suggested this wasn't the issue he was prepared to kill health care reform over. And now it is.

Indeed, as of today, Nelson sounded like he's giving up altogether. He said Democratic offers are "not enough," and suggested it might be time to go "back to the drawing board in some areas."

So now Nelson seems to be even more of a problem than Lieberman, which means that the 60th vote, if indeed Lieberman is aboard, would have to be Republican Olympia Snowe.

And if Nelson does join a Republican filibuster and seek to block the bill even from getting to the floor for a vote? At this historic moment, with historic (if hardly ideal) health-care reform legislation possibly soon to be passed, I can only hope that history will frown upon him, as it will upon the Republicans, who are decidedly on the wrong side of it and who will be remembered for having advocated for a status quo that is unjust and unfair and profoundly dysfunctional.

President Nelson

By Creature

Since it's former insurance company executive Ben Nelson's turn to run the country, does anyone actually think his real objection to the healthcare bill is abortion funding? Let's be serious here. Just like Lieberman, he's bought and paid for. Let's stop the charade.

Holding health-care reform hostage: Lieberman and Nelson

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm with Josh Marshall:

It's starting to seem like it may just be better for Dems to try to make a deal with Olympia Snowe, kick Joe Lieberman out of the party and be done with it. The leadership in the senate thought that Lieberman was on board with the latest compromise. But in an appearance on Face the Nation and later in a sit-down with Sen. Reid, Lieberman said he'd join the Republican filibuster if the Medicare buy-in remained in the bill.

What's most telling about Lieberman isn't his positions, which are not that much different from Sen. Nelson's and perhaps Sen. Lincoln's. It's more that he seems to keep upping the ante just when the rest of the caucus thinks they've got a deal.

If it happened once, a misunderstanding might be a credible explanation. But it's happened too many times. Sen. Nelson has driven Dems to distraction on this bill. But his demands have been fairly consistent over time. Lieberman just doesn't seem to be negotiating in good faith. He keeps pulling his caucus to some new compromise, waiting a few days and then saying he can't agree to that either.

It's coming to a breaking point.

I'd say it's already there. As I wrote on Friday: "There's just no pleasing Lieberman, is there? It doesn't matter how much you give in, he always wants more... and more... and more... At some point, Democrats have to say that enough is enough. Try to get the two Maine Republicans, Nelson, or just two of the three, and let Lieberman rot with the Republicans as historic health-care reform is passed.

That point is now.

Both Lieberman and Ben Nelson came out yesterday against the Medicare buy-in for those aged 55 to 64 that is a key element of the compromise deal the Democrats have worked out in the Senate. "I'm concerned that it's the forerunner of single payer, the ultimate single-payer plan, maybe even more directly than the public option," said Nelson. I'd like to see the U.S. adopt a single-payer system, but come on. We're talking about a compromise here, not the thin end of the wedge. It's like Nelson and Lieberman don't want to give in at all, on any point, and like they don't get the whole idea of compromising.

Should we be surprised? Of course not. Here's Digby on Lieberman:

When Reid said "Joe Lieberman is the least of my problems" he was waving a red flag in his face. It's all about him. And he will not be ignored. And he will not vote for anything that liberals want, period. I don't know why they thought it would be any different. He's a sanctimonious, petty, vindictive egomaniac. But then, he always has been.

Taylor Marsh:

Love him or hate him, Mr. Lieberman is schooling both Pres. Obama and Sen. Reid, making a mockery of the Democratic majority, not worried about anything, as he’s already taken on the activist base and beat them too... Ah yes, Joe Lieberman using his power once again to throttle the Democratic majority while hijacking the agenda. Why not? He has already learned that there will be no consequences for doing so.

And Democrats really have no one to blame but themselves.

Chris Bowers:

Nothing Lieberman is doing would be possible without the ongoing support of the majority of the Democratic caucus. If Democratic Senators wanted to punish Lieberman for his consistent transgressions against the party, they could. If Democrats wanted to use reconciliation, and just circumvent him altogether, they could do that to. But they are not going to do either.

As such, Lieberman is simply taking the power that is being handed to him by the rest of the caucus. Since he knows that Senate Democrats won't ever punish him, and won't ever circumvent him, he now has free reign to dictate whatever legislation he wants, get tons of face time with the White House and Senate leadership, regularly be the top story on news outlets around the country, receive millions in campaign contributions, and appease his Republican base (at this point, most of Lieberman's supporters are Republicans).

Don't Democrats have a significant majority in the Senate? Isn't it about time they pushed back? Isn't it about time they showed some courage and determination? Sure, they risk falling below 60 votes, but they could still work on Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, the two Maine senators. And, of course, they could, and should, consider reconciliation.

But what exactly do they risk?

I've been trying to reconcile myself to a reform package that will likely fall far short of what I'd prefer (which is a bill with a robust public option), trying to come to terms with the compromise deal, trying to be optimistic, but even that watered-down package isn't enough for Lieberman and Nelson.

So what's the point? Giving in and giving in, again and again, isn't really getting the Democrats anywhere. So, again, why not push back? Otherwise, where and when will it stop?

Behold, the public option! -- Senate Democrats may be "leaning" towards it.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Olympia Snowe, that celebrated Republican "moderate" who seems to hold the future of American health care in her hands, is, lest we forget, firmly against the public option. Indeed, she has stated that she would likely filibuster any bill with a public option in it.

There you go, my friends. There's Republican compromise for you. If Democrats want meaningful reform -- and by that I mean a reform package with a public option -- they'll have to go it alone. Which is fine, really, given that they have solid majorities in Congress and a popular president in the White House. Surely Senate Democrats will pull together to block a Republican filibuster... right?

Well, we'll see.

Some Democrats, like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu are, like the Republicans, opposed to a public option. As Steve Benen notes, though, Democrats seem to be "leaning toward some sort of national public option," in Nelson's words. Kent Conrad concurred: "What I'm hearing is this is the direction of the conversation."

Benen: "We've all been wondering if, and to what extent, Reid, Baucus, Dodd, and White House officials would pursue a public option. These comments suggest that's where we're headed."

Let's hope so. For there is good reason to hope.

As ABC News's Jonathan Karl is reporting, the public option is back:

The idea was believed to be dead.  Liberals wanted it, but Senate vote counters insisted it simply could not pass the Senate. The dynamic, however, has changed.  The public option may be back from dead.


I am told that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is leaning toward including the creation of a new government-run insurance program – the so-called public option – in the health care reform bill he will bring to the full Senate in the coming weeks.

Democratic sources tell me that Reid – after a series of meetings with Democratic moderates – has concluded he can pass a bill with a public option.

No, Reid doesn't have 60 votes, but he is "now convinced that Democratic critics of the public option will support him when it counts – on the procedural motion, which requires 60 votes, to defeat a certain GOP-led filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is beaten, it only takes 51 votes to pass the bill.

Essentially, what we need is for Democrats to stick together to block a Republican filibuster -- for how would it look, and how damaging to the party would it be, if a Democrat or two sided with the Republicans not just against a health-care reform bill but against even allowing a reform bill to go to the floor for a vote?

If the Nelsons and Landrieus want to vote against a bill with a public option, well, that's their decision. But they shouldn't hand victory to the Republicans before a vote on the substance of reform is even held.