Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) has adopted the Republican line when it comes to the Bush tax cuts, even though he likes to style himself as a deficit-hawk. Today, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd asked Bayh about the poverty data, and whether there is a disconnect between the real economic pain that people are feeling and lawmakers squabbling over tax rates for the wealthy. Bayh agreed that there is a disconnect, but then concluded that the poverty increase means lawmakers should forget about “fairness and things like that” and cut taxes for the rich:
TODD: Yesterday, the Census came out and said one in seven Americans are living below the poverty line. Do you look at that story today — you know, you open up your USA Today, right, and you see that story — and you see Washington is debating the tax rates for the wealthy, and you sit there and say, isn’t that a disconnect in America right now?
BAYH: It is a disconnect, Chuck. What we need to be focused on is growth, how do we create jobs, how do we expand businesses. That needs to be job one right now. And all these other issues involving, oh, fairness and things like that can wait.
Must. Hit. Head. On. Wall. Boy, they're nothing if not predictable, huh? This is the sort of thing that happens when the Democrats don't have a coherent value system.
Now, I can actually understand the instinct to punt, because allowing the tax cuts for the wealthiest to lapse would bring down the focused wrath of the Republicans before the mid-term elections. And yes, it makes it more difficult for Democrats from wealthier districts. But honestly, are they so incapable of explaining to the public how this adds $700 billion to the deficit that's badly needed elsewhere?
Must Democrats fall into the fetal position every time the GOP makes a feint?
WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress are poised to play a leading role this month in thwarting their party's effort to raise income tax rates on the wealthy.
Tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of this year. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have been eager to extend the breaks for individuals who earn less than $200,000 annually and joint filers who make less than $250,000. Those who earn more would pay higher, pre-2001 rates starting next year.
However, a small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. Many face electorates that recoil at the mention of any tax increase. Some represent areas that are loaded with wealthier taxpayers. Further, some incumbent senators who don't face voters this fall are reluctant to increase taxes on anyone while the economy remains sluggish.
Without their support, the push to raise rates on the rich probably will fail.
I watched Evan Bayh this morning and I was left a little bit speechless. He went on with Andrea Mitchell today and seemed to pull back from whining about the liberal bloggers and focused a little more on what the real problems in the House of Lords (Senate) are. He absolutely wants to change the filibuster because it's not allowing the party that won the election the chance to legislate.
BAYH: I go back to my father’s time, the great civil rights debates. The filibuster was being used to frustrate some basic, fundamental equities in this country. So the threshold was 67 votes in those days. They reduced it to 60. Now it’s being routinely used to frustrate even low-level Presidential appointees. So perhaps the threshold should be lowered once again.
MITCHELL: Would you propose steps, would you lead an effort in the Senate to change the filibuster rule?
BAYH: You know, I would… (crosstalk) Well, that’s right, but Tom Harkin and others have talked about this. I think it’s something we need to do, perhaps looking at changing the threshold once again, down to 55. Perhaps saying that, Administration appointees, other than the very highest ones, should not be subject to the filibuster. Because it’s just brought the process to a halt, and the public is suffering. So the minority needs to have a right. I think that’s important. But the public has a right to see its business done. And not routinely allow a small minority to keep us from addressing the great issues that face this country. I think the filibuster absolutely needs to be changed.
I was actually stunned that he didn't blame the dirty hippies for wanting to expand Medicare or the liberal support for the public option, but he actually blamed Republican obstructionism the whole time. And to think that he would like to lower the filibuster to 55 really was shocking to me. He's like a lot of the royal ones. He wouldn't say any of this while he was in the Senate, but now that he left suddenly it's fine to get somewhat honest. I do applaud him for getting this sentiment out there, since the media is always slow to the dance.
However, this was important for a variety of reasons. Bayh here finally cited the MEANS by which all these abstract concepts of “partisanship” and “gridlock” get their purchase. Before he sounded like a self-important blowhard assuming the superiority of his “centrist” policy ideas, as if partisanship hasn’t been a function of American government since its founding.
Here, he actually identifies the problem – fix the process and suddenly the problems of gridlock start to melt away. And he actually manages to offer a pretty good case for majority rule – the public, who selects its representatives, has a right to see its will expressed after it delivers a mandate.
During the long, still incomplete march to pass a health reform bill, Democratic moderates – in particular Montana's Baucus and Nebraska's Nelson -- routinely took incoming from liberal bloggers for dragging the bill rightward. The left was especiallycritical of Bayh's take last month on Republican Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Bayh told ABC News that voters up there "just don't believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems." He said Democrats would court catastrophe if they ignored the wakeup call. John Amato wrote at CrooksandLiars.com that Bayh was promoting Fox News talking points.
Yes, I am that mean and scary and Bayh just couldn't handle the heat from C&L, baby.
Look, I don't expect all Democratic politicians to vote 100% across the board, but when there is a signature piece of legislation that could help millions of Americans on a vital issue like health care, then I think the few ConservaDems should not help destroy a bill that is so critical to so many lives. Howie Klein has a breakdown of his voting record.
Last week polls showed ConservaDem Evan Bayh with a nearly insurmountable lead over lobbyist Dan Coats for the Indiana Senate seat. And this morning Chris Cillizza broke the news that Bayh had decided not to run for re-election. That must have been kind of sudden since he spent the last 6 years sucking up to every lobbyist on K Street, raised $8,911,690 and has a hefty $13 million in his campaign account. Beloved of Goldman Sachs, Eli Lilly, Allianz and dozens of corporations with anti-working family agendas, Bayh's fundraising looked extremely... Republican. But then, so does his voting record. Since Obama was elected president only Ben Nelson was a less dependable vote for Democrats when they were needed most-- on crucial, substantive roll calls where Democrats either lost or almost lost. The 3 worst scores among Democratic senators for the 111th Congress:
Ben Nelson- 47.76
Evan Bayh- 53.73
Blanche Lincoln- 59.70
Voting almost 48 % of the time against a newly elected Democratic president is beyond being a conservative democrat. it's aiding and abetting the enemy of change. Bayh whined like a teenager whose parents cut off their Internet yesterday when he gave his presser and said he was so tired of the partisanship. He could have done his part and helped President Obama and the Senate put together a good health care bill, but he did not. Politics is a contact sport and he proved he couldn't take it.
It's hard to see how he justifies this to other Democrats. But look it's more broadly what's happening with the Democratic Party. They've gone from 93-94, it took them 15 years to reestablish unified control of the House and the Senate and the White House as they did in 2009. And here they are, one year into it and the party seems to be in many respects losing its nerve. You have the Bayh thing as the latest in a series of --, Beau Biden, Lisa Madigan in Illinois, a variety of Democratic House members in tough districts walking away.
Look, politics is a contact sport and the Democrats have had the best opportunity they've had in 15 years to advance their agenda, and yet as they take all the flack that comes with that it feels like some of the party is crumbling and losing their nerve. Stunning decision.
Run for the hills you coward. And if your hero is Dick Lugar, why then is he still in Congress and you're not?
The good news is that we are separating the men from the boys. The Democrats have everything, but it's all so icky and hard that a whole bunch of them are just walking away. Good riddance. If they don't have the cojones to stick it out when their country needs them, then they shouldn't be in politics.
I'm glad these guys weren't in charge during the Depression and WWII. We'd all be dirt farming for the Greater Axis Empire today.
Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat prominently mentioned in connection with the White House in recent years, is ready to announce he won't seek re-election, saying he's fed up with Congress.
"To put it in the words most Hoosiers can understand: I love working for the people of Indiana, I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives, but I do not love Congress," Bayh said in comments prepared for an announcement later Monday in Indianapolis. His statement was obtained by The Associated Press from a Democratic official who declined to be named publicly.
Bayh's departure continues a recent exodus from Congress among both Democrats and Republicans, including veteran Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Patrick Kennedy of Mass. The announcements have sprung up in rapid-fire fashion amid polls showing a rising anti-incumbent fervor and voter anger over Washington partisanship, high unemployment, federal deficits and lucrative banking industry bonuses.
Sen. Evan Bayh's exit gives Republicans a prime pick-up opportunity. Former Indiana Sen. Dan Coats (R) is running for the seat. Bayh was leading Coats by 20 points (55% to 35%) in a recent Research 2000/DailyKos poll.
Republicans now have Senate pick-up opportunities in at least eight states -- Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, and North Dakota.
To take back control of the Senate, Republicans will need to gain a net of 10 seats.
Democrats have pick-up opportunities in at least three states -- New Hampshire, Ohio, and Missouri.
Democrats have been hammering Coats for his residence, his lobbying and more. And a Democratic official says Bayh was ahead.
"They polled last week and were way ahead of Coats," the official said, adding that petitions were due tomorrow and the Bayh campaign's "were all done."
The decision "must have been a last minute, personal decision."
As for who could run to replace Bayh, look to Reps. Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill. Democrats are working to convince either -- both of whom represent swing districts in the Southern part of the state. Ellsworth, the former Vanderburgh County sherriff, is seen by some observers as, potentially, the strongest Democratic candidate. Hill is a former Indiana high school basketball star.
Also, look to see if Rep. Mike Pence on the Republican side reverses course and decides to jump into the race now.
Gee, what are the odds Dick Cheney will once again accuse the Obama administration of making the nation vulnerable to terrorist attack again this morning when he makes a fresh round on the talk-show circuit with an appearance on ABC's This Week?
Fortunately, Joe Biden will also be out there, making two appearances in one day (on "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation"). Right-wingers love to make fun of Biden, but stacked up against Dick Cheney, just about anyone looks good.
ABC's "This Week" - Former Vice President Richard Cheney sits down with guest anchor ABC News’ Congressional Correspondent Jonathan Karl.
CBS' "Face the Nation" - Vice President Joseph Biden.
NBC's "Meet the Press" - Vice President Joseph Biden, former Rep. Harold Ford, Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., David Brooks, Rachel Maddow.
NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: John Heileman, New York Magazine; Katty Kay, BBC Washington Correspondent; Gloria Borger, CNN Political Analyst; Bob Woodward, Washington Post.
CNN's "State of the Union" - National Security Adviser Jim Jones; Sens. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Paul Volcker, Obama's key economic advisor and former fed chairman, on a crisis even more serious than financial reform. Then, Iran increases its nuclear capabilities - what options are left? Finally, a discussion with South African President Jacob Zuma. 20 years after Nelson Mandela was set free, where does the country stand?
CNN's "Amanpour" - An exclusive interview from Haiti with U.N. Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie. Christiane speaks with Jolie about adoption in Haiti and child trafficking in the midst of the disaster. Iran's Rallying Cry: 31 years after Iran's Islamic revolution there are massive pro- and anti-government rallies. The government vowed opposition protests would be crushed. We look at Iran's Islamic republic at odds with itself.
"Fox News Sunday" - "As Washington recovers from its historic snowfall, a political storm continues to rage over homeland security. Should John Brennan, the president's chief counterterrorism adviser, step down? We'll get reaction from Gen. Jim Jones, White House national security adviser, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C."
What piques your interest this morning? Leave your tips in the comments.
But for all of his high profile--and Dan Coats certainly does have that within the Republican Party--I'm not sure the GOP is really learning the lessons of the tea baggers distrusting the incumbents and politicians when opting to promote Coats for the Senate seat.
To wit, Coats is a member of the C-Street Family, responsible for the failed ushering of Harriet Miers through the Supreme Court confirmation process. I think his quote on Miers, who failed to capture even Republican support shows his contempt for Americans:
She certainly has the capability to be an excellent Supreme Court justice. If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole.
They gave us a republic: A GOP stall on all Health and Human Services nominees has left the department without a surgeon general during a period of a global flu pandemic, prompting the HHS secretary to call for Senate action.
It's nice to hear some people are actually fighting for our interests. I was beginning to wonder if anyone was:
The forces in favor of a public health insurance option roared back Thursday on Capitol Hill after weeks when their cause looked bleak.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) looked closer than ever to including a robust U.S. government-run insurance program in the House bill — saying recent attempts by the health insurance industry to undercut reform prove insurers can’t be trusted.
And in the Senate, a weekly policy lunch turned into a heated debate when liberals went after the Senate Finance Committee bill and made clear they won’t roll over for legislation that doesn’t include a public option.
Reflecting deep divides within the caucus, the Senate luncheon turned tense, with voices elevated and senators venting. “In today’s lunch, it even involved a little performance theater,” Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said, describing it as an “emotional catharsis.”
In a week when the Senate Finance Committee passed a bill without a public option — raising questions about whether that would prove the public option’s last gasp — progressives in both houses showed they won’t go down without a fight.
And Thursday proved that if President Barack Obama hoped the public option question would fade of its own accord, he probably won’t get that lucky — but will be forced to referee a compromise between liberals and moderates.
But in the House, moderates stand to suffer the most if Pelosi goes ahead with plans to include the most ambitious public option — forcing them into a tough vote that will surely be used by Republican opponents in 2010.
In the House, Pelosi told her rank and file Thursday that the time has come to “freeze the design,” meaning she wants unveil a completed House bill as early as next week.
Pelosi favors a public-option plan supported by liberals that reimburses doctors at rates that are 5 percent higher than Medicare — one of the strongest versions of the public option on the table.
Pelosi used the reports put out this week by the insurance lobby — which said reform would add thousands to family insurance premiums — to show the public needs some defense against the industry.
“Anyone who had any doubts about the need for such an option need only look at the behavior of the health insurance industry this week,” Pelosi said. “If you are going to mandate that people must buy insurance, why would you throw them into the lion’s den of the insurance industry without some leverage with a public option?”
