To those of us observing, this comes as no surprise. A year ago I wrote about it here, and expanded on it here, here and here.

And now, Senator Schumer has hammered that home in this speech at EPI.

And we need to start asking ourselves an uncomfortable question – are Republicans slowing down the recovery on purpose for political gain in 2012? It's one thing for them to block programs they have always opposed. But when they start to contradict themselves by opposing programs they have supported—such as pro-business tax cuts—we are left to wonder.

Let's not forget – Senator McConnell made it clear last October that his number one priority, above everything else, is to defeat President Obama.

And now it is becoming clear that insisting on a slash-and-burn approach may be part of this plan – it has a double-benefit for Republicans: it is ideologically tidy and it undermines the economic recovery, which they think only helps them in 2012.

The result is that Republicans aren‘t just opposing the President any more. They are opposing the economic recovery itself – and all that means for America's working and middle class families.

It's about damn time someone called the naked emperor out. I am so tired of hearing the press memes about Obama this, Obama that, and how it's all going to land on the head of Obama. No. These crazy lunatics on the right are colluding with their corporate brothers to bring down this economy with the assistance of the media.

During the Bush administration the debt ceiling had to be raised several times. Note the difference in how it was covered from 2001-2008. The Beltway media was certainly willing to report an increase as a 'painful vote', but not one in question. There was never any question that the debt ceiling would be increased then. The only question then was whether the debt ceiling would be raised while the Bush tax cuts were cemented in at the same time. They were.

If we could possibly get the media to actually report what Republicans are doing -- bankrupting the country, stalling any economic growth for short-term Republican gains, keeping unemployment rates high by decimating the ranks of government employees, and more -- maybe there would be an opportunity to move past the stupid finger-pointing into some thoughtful debate about how wrong it is to keep tax rates low while the entire country suffers as a result.

DOWNLOADS: (1157)

PLAYS: (1499)

Embed

[H/t Heather]

You know, you gotta figure that if every Republican and all the Villagers are in agreement that taking up immigration reform is a bad idea for Democrats, then -- reverse barometers being the valuable tools they are -- there's high likelihood that it's a good idea.

We'll find out soon enough, because Democrats are proceeding apace anyway -- and doing so in the face of the near-certainty of uniform opposition from the GOP:

One Democratic aide close to the issue noted that in the wake of Graham’s abandoning negotiations, Schumer is continuing to meet with a handful of Senate Republican lawmakers — Scott Brown (Mass.), George LeMieux (Fla.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Judd Gregg (N.H.) and Dick Lugar (Ind.) — and that the summary is part of a dual-track alternative for moving forward.

According to this aide, under the new alternative, if Republicans continue to reject bipartisan overtures, Reid, Schumer and Menendez would look to have a handful of other top Democrats co-sponsor the legislation, including Durbin and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the second ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.

Menendez said his preference would be to have Republican support, but that it was more important to have a framework that can be publicly distributed so that Senators “can begin the debate and move the process forward.” Menendez said he was still optimistic that the chamber could pass a bill this year, even though no Republicans have indicated they might support a bill.

“If we put our effort to it, and we have presidential leadership and we have Republicans who truly want to see immigration reform versus just talk about it, I think it’s possible,” Menendez said.

Senate Democrats’ decision to move forward on their own drew applause from Hispanic lawmakers in the House, who have seized on Arizona’s tough new state immigration law to ramp up the pressure for the Senate to act on a comprehensive bill this year.

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) described the proposal Senate Democrats floated Wednesday as a “responsible bill that basically reflects the principles that were discussed with Lindsey Graham.”

“It is the kind of bill that could be supported by any Republican who truly believes that the broken system should be fixed,” Velázquez said. “So it is time to stop playing politics with this issue and do the work the American people sent us to do here.”

We're hearing that a press conference announcing the bill is scheduled for 5:45 p.m. EDT in D.C. today. We'll keep it covered.

The NYT's Helene Cooper reports that President Obama is pointing out that passing a bill is going to be difficult in the current environment. No doubt that's true -- and one hopes he is merely observing a truism rather than backing off his earlier powerful remarks pushing for immigration reform. As we observed then:

The Arizona craziness is a good example of why we can't let comprehensive immigration reform wait.

We know that lots of Democrats, especially the Blue Dogs, want to put immigration reform on the back burner till after the 2010 election. After all, it's the kind of issue that defines them: Blue Dogs always pander to conservatives on key issues, because they think that wins them more votes in the end than standing up for core principles.

In this case, as we saw from the 2008 election results, it's also nonsensical:

It's also apparent, from these results and from polling, that the nativists' "deport them all" immigration policy is wildly unpopular -- and that, moreover, Americans in fact take a pragmatic view of immigration: They're not interested in shipping out illegal immigrants, they're interested in seeing them become legal citizens.

The evidence is that voters get behind progressives who talk straight common sense on immigration -- as opposed to the fearmongering and scapegoating inherent in the Arizona Republican approach, which inevitably leads to the institution of a police state and the destruction of families.

It's also looking like Harry Reid will be pushing immigration reform as well. And there are many more reasons than fearful Blue Dogs why it's a politically smart move, too. Just ask those 200,000 people who gathered in D.C. last month.

Every once in a while, Sen. Jay Rockefeller remembers the people who sent him to represent them and does them proud. Yesterday was one of those days:

Mr. Schumer said the public option would hold down costs because it would not have to generate profits, answer to shareholders or incur marketing expenses. His proposal would have required the public plan to negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals, rather than setting prices based on Medicare reimbursement rates. Under Mr. Rockefeller’s plan, the payment of doctors and hospitals would have been based on Medicare rates for the first two years.

Mr. Rockefeller said the Congressional Budget Office had estimated that a government insurance plan could slice $50 billion from the cost of Mr. Baucus’s bill, originally put at $774 billion over 10 years. The budget office predicted that eight million people would initially enroll in the public plan — about one-third of those who would seek coverage through new markets, or insurance exchanges.

“The public plan will be optional,” Mr. Rockefeller insisted. “It will be voluntary. It will be affordable to people who are now helpless before their insurance companies.”

From the West Virginia MetroNews:

Senator Rockefeller argued for his Consumer Choice Health Plan until the end. "It's a very serious decision," he said as the hours of debate came to a close. "It's a moral decision. It's an ethical decision. It's a human decision. It's a health care decision. It's writ large in our legacies."

The failed proposed public option program, as Rockefeller envisioned it, would have competed directly with private plans in a national health insurance exchange for those who do not have insurance. The CCHP would have been required to meet the same insurance regulations as private plans and be financially self sustaining.

"I think it's a real solution to protect American families and their economic security," Senator Rockefeller said early in the day on Tuesday. "I do not understand why we wouldn't do this."

Senator, campaign contributions aren't as huge a distraction to someone who grew up with money. If you really think about it, the answer's right there.

But thank you for your efforts.

When in doubt, I turn to Chris Bowers. He didn't disappoint me - he had ready a step-by-step explanation of what needs to happen to get the public option in the bill sent to the Senate floor:

The bad news is that we learned today that the Senate Finance Committee will not report a public option in its version of health care reform. The good news is that we also learned today that there are 51 votes in favor of Schumer's public option. Here is how we get to 51:

1. Take the 47 "yes" votes from the Washington Independent public option scorecard.
2. Add Bill Nelson and Tom Carper, who both voted for Schumer's public option today;
3. Add Claire McCaskill (who voted for Kennedy's HELP public option back in May);
4. Add Joe Biden

Arguably, proving that there are 51 votes in favor of Schumer's public option is the bigger news. This is because everyone knew the public option would be defeated in committee, but claims that there were 51 votes in favor of a trigger-less public option were pretty much all based on a post I wrote two weeks ago.

Because Democrats are not going to pursue reconciliation for the public option (see why here), the next step in the process does not actually involve Kent Conrad's Budget Committee, as I had previously reported. Instead, a source on the Hill confirms to me that the Senate HELP and Senate Finance committees will be merged by an informal, behind the scenes process involving the four major players in the Senate: Tom Harkin (Chair of HELP), Max Baucus (Chair of Finance), Harry Reid (Majority Leader), and the White House. Together, these four will meet and decide what sort of bill to send to the Senate floor.

Continue reading »

Kagro at daily kos is sick of the umpire talk in the Sotomayor hearings. In fact, it was always a ridiculous argument, first forwarded by the disingenuous now Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. During his 2005 confirmation hearings, I wrote about how disingenuous Roberts was to use the analogy:

It is an interesting analogy Judge Roberts draws. And it seems to me to be an excellent argument for why Judge Roberts must answer the questions put to him by the Senate. As any baseball fan knows, umpires are not uniform in the delineation of the strike zone. Some are "hitters" umpires. Some are "pitchers" umpires. Some call the high strike. Some call the outside pitch.

And when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States, it is important that we know what Judge Roberts' "strike zone" is. His record, the part that was not concealed by the Bush Administration, gives many of us pause regarding Judge Roberts' "strike zone." His stated antipathy for the right to privacy, for voting rights measures, for discrimination remedies, etc., demands followup. What does your "rulebook" say about these things Judge Roberts?

Senators Feinstein, Whitehouse, Schumer and Durbin all pointed out today that Chief justice Roberts was less than honest about what his judicial strike zone would be. In that sense, the umpire analogy still has its uses.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Chris Wallace had Senators Trent Lott and Chuck Schumer on to discuss the recent SCHIP bill headed for the President's desk for a expected veto.

Is it me, or does Lott contradict himself about 17 times trying to boast about the Republican's role in SCHIP? Why does he keep saying there was no compromise to the bill when there clearly was?

UPDATE: Eight states file suit against Bush Administration over planned changes to SCHIP and the DCCC targets Republicans for voting against SCHIP.

People taking action. Read Pachacutec's whole post:
"Roots Project New York members had been trying for over a week to make an appointment to meet with staff in both (Clinton & Schumer) of their senators’ offices. Here’s their summary of their attempts on April 21st to visit the people who ostensibly work for them...

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

"People are getting together to overturn the politics of vacuity in many ways, but if you’d like to join your own in-state neighbors in the Roots Project, send an email to stateproject at gmail dot com with (only!) your home state in the subject line....read on"

AmericaBlog:"CNN is reporting that White House puppet/GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist blocked a vote this afternoon on an amendment offered by Senator Chuck Schumer that would stop the deal Bush cut with the UAE to run American port security...read on"

The Lou Dobbs graphic says it all.

DP World Says It Will Divest Itself Of American Interests

georgia10 has the story:

"The Senate is debating whether to accept a Democratic amendment to the lobbying reform bill which block the Dubai deal. Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, just read a press release from DP World in which the state-owned company says it had agreed to divest itself of all American interests in the interests of the U.A.E.-American relationship. Senator Schumer says it is a positive development, but "the devil is in the details."...read on"

Talk Left: "Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, along with Senators Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer and Debbie Stabenow, wrote this letter (html) yesterday to President Bush, asking for "an accounting of Mr. Abramoff’s personal contacts with Bush Administration officials and the official acts that may have been undertaken at his request...read on"

Meanwhile, the White House is stonewalling on releasing contacts with Abramoff.