enlarge

Is there anything else you'd like?

Imagine that. The Democratic tactic of giving their lunch, their snacks and their spending money to the school bullies just isn't working. What oh what are they to do?

How about -- oh, I don't know -- growing a spine?

WASHINGTON - Democratic leadership and Appropriations Committee staffers are meeting Thursday afternoon to find ways to cut social spending from the remainder of the fiscal year 2011 budget, a Senate Democratic aide told HuffPost. The object of the gathering is to identify cuts that will satisfy House Republicans' demands for drastic spending reductions despite the flagging economy.

Multiple leadership aides, however, said that the cuts will be made to a long-term budget resolution, rather than a short-term spending bill, as Republicans insist. That the two parties are now arguing merely over how quickly to make cuts indicates that their positions may be drawing close enough to avoid a government shutdown - without the GOP giving much up yet.

Big surprise there, right?

"It sounds like Senate Democrats are making progress towards our goal of cutting government spending to help the private sector create jobs," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). "Hopefully, that means they will support the short-term CR with spending cuts that we will pass next week, rather than shutting down the government."

Boehner is traveling on a fundraising tour.

House Republicans have proposed a measure that would keep the government funded for two more weeks past the March 4th deadline -- when money runs out--asking for $4 billion in cuts. Democrats have not budged in insisting any stopgap be drawn along the lines of current funding levels.

The compromise offered to the GOP on Thursday would not change that. "This is not about a short-term CR," said a leadership aide. "We are planning to make a serious offer to the House Republicans on a long-term CR that contains deeper cuts than were originally proposed. And if the Republicans will meet us in the middle of this offer we might be able to avert the need for a short-term CR."

Senate Democrats are hoping that by offering the first concession, House GOPers will either respond in kind or take the blame for a shutdown. Yet each Democratic negotiating tactic has led to additional cuts. As the talks drag on, Republicans get closer and closer to their full goal. Meanwhile, the wrangling over a stopgap measure to temporarily avert a shutdown has the capacity to confuse the debate.

DOWNLOADS: (241)

PLAYS: (798)

Embed

In news that will surprise no one, Senate Dems voted unanimously to defeat the GOP attempt to repeal the health care bill. This one will be decided in the courts:

Senate Democrats remained united on Wednesday in killing a Republican effort to repeal the health care bill signed into law last March.

As expected, no Democrats voted against a procedural motion that effectively defeated a GOP amendment -- sponsored by Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and tacked on to an unrelated aviation bill -- to repeal the health legislation.

All Republicans voted together in favor of the McConnell-sponsored amendment. The vote was 47-51.
The House passed the repeal measure last month.

But the defeat of the equivalent legislation in the Senate means that the ultimate fate of the health care bill will likely not be settled until the Supreme Court hears an expected constitutional challenge to the law -- particularly its mandate that most Americans buy insurance.

The high court would likely hear the case in its next term, which begins in October of 2011, although some would like to see the matter addressed sooner. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., urged the court today to expedite the ruling.

As John Thune and Orrin Hatch told Greta Van Susteren last night, Republicans aren't giving up or going away on this. Indeed, they intend to try a piecemeal approach of a death by a thousand cuts. They also clearly are pinning most of their hopes on a Supreme Court decision.

Rep. Barny Frank (D-MA) was joined by five senators and 51 Congressional representatives in a letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that calls on the commission to examine the defense budget for potential savings. Frank is the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, and his observations are not new, but it's interesting that he got this company so near to the mid-term elections. The letter notes:

Much of these potential savings can be realized if we are willing to make an honest examination of the cost, benefit, and rationale of the extensive U.S. military commitment overseas, which in part remains a legacy of policy decisions made in the immediate aftermath of World War II and during the Cold War. Years after the Soviet threat has disappeared, we continue to provide European and Asian nations with military protection through our nuclear umbrella and the troops stationed in our overseas military bases. Given the relative wealth of these countries, we should examine the extent of this burden that we continue to shoulder on our own dime.
---------
We repeat that we are not urging reductions that in any way would cut resources and supplies necessary to protect American troops in the field. Similarly, while we are not opposed to an honest look at efforts at reforming the way that the Department of Defense provides health care and other services to personnel, we are opposed to cuts in services and increased fees for our veterans and military retirees.

The Project on Defense Alternatives conducted a study for Rep. Frank back in the summer that outlined a trillion dollars in defense reductions. While I don't agree with all of them, it's a nice start to the necessary reductions that we all know have to be implemented sooner or later. I really fail to see the need for four Army brigades and nine Air Force wings in Europe, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It's just not justifiable, given today's environment and where the future may take us.

To make another point, this is not a call for isolationism. That's a lazy counterpoint to a complex issue. As Andrew Bacevich has pointed out in his new book "Washington Rules," our government's preponderance for global power projection drives the desire for a large military and multiple overseas deployments. We're not arguing against involvement in world affairs, but it doesn't justify such a large footprint. We would be far better off with a mobile, expeditionary capability that was stationed in the United States and a stronger emphasis on "soft power." But that's probably too sophisticated an argument for conservative hawks to understand.

Oh, look! Karl Rove is admitting a mistake. It seems that he regrets not spinning Iraq better, and is spilling his guts to the Wall Street Journal and anyone else who will publish it in an effort to rewrite the Bush Years to a kinder, gentler age.

His WSJ column title: My Biggest Mistake in The White House. Actually, I can think of other mistakes that were much bigger than failing to lie better to the American people. In classic Rovian spin, he writes:

Thus began a shameful episode in our political life whose poisonous fruits are still with us.

The next morning, Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards joined in. Sen. Kerry said, "It is time for a president who will face the truth and tell the truth." Mr. Edwards chimed in, "The administration has a problem with the truth."

The battering would continue, and it was a monument to hypocrisy and cynicism. All these Democrats had said, like Mr. Bush did, that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD. Of the 110 House and Senate Democrats who voted in October 2002 to authorize the use of force against his regime, 67 said in congressional debate that Saddam had these weapons. This didn't keep Democrats from later alleging something they knew was false—that the president had lied America into war.

What someone says and what someone knows are entirely different things. As President, George W. Bush knew in 2002 -- before troops were sent to Iraq -- that Saddam Hussein did NOT possess weapons of mass destruction.

Continue reading »

Of course, the rank hypocrites in the Republican party are lining up to try to force retention of the soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts in exchange for support on extending unemployment benefits. (And the deficit worries suddenly fly out the window, just like that.)

In other words, it will be at least another week before we see a vote:

Senate Democrats will remain one vote short of the 60 needed to reauthorize unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless at least until the end of the week, as West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin says he wants to wait until the state legislature has cleared up the law on how to fill the Senate seat left behind by the late Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

Manchin previously said that he could name a replacement as soon as the beginning of the week, but on Monday his office told HuffPost he'd make his announcement by Sunday at the latest and Friday at the earliest.

"He intends to make the appointment by week's end," a spokesman said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has repeatedly said that Senate Democrats need Byrd's replacement to break the filibuster by Republicans and Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, whose approval -- had he decided to give it -- would have ended the endless debate that has already cut off unemployment checks to some 2.1 million people.

By the time Byrd's replacement is sworn in, more than 2.5 million people who've been out of work for longer than six months will have missed checks they would have received had Congress reauthorized the stimulus programs it allowed to lapse at the end of May. President Obama's 2009 stimulus bill and subsequent legislation gave the unemployed up to 99 weeks of benefits in some states. With the federally-funded extended benefits lapsed, in most states the unemployed are eligible for only 26 weeks of state-funded benefits.

Why are Republicans so consistently morally bereft? (And why do so many Democrats take their cue from them?) Thank heavens for senators like Sheldon Whitehouse, who speak so powerfully about the plight of the unemployed:

A trio of Senate Democrats took the floor Tuesday evening to denounce the Republican party for its unwillingness to add the cost of extended unemployment benefits to the deficit. Extended unemployment benefits put in place by the stimulus bill expired on June 1, interrupting checks for some 903,000 people so far.

"I understand the point about the debt and the deficit and the spending," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "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," Whitehouse said.

There are currently five jobseekers for every available opening, but a major obstacle to reauthorizing currently-expired extended benefits has been deficit concerns supplemented by the suspicion that the benefits discourage people from looking for work. Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.) called the benefits, which average $320 per week, "too much of an allure." Democrats in both the House and Senate, too, have said business owners tell them they're having trouble hiring because of extended benefits.

Whitehouse confronted that argument.

"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," said Whitehouse. "There aren't a lot of people lying around enjoying the luxury of unemployment insurance payments. They want to be getting to work."

In normal times, states provide six months of benefits to people laid off through no fault of their own, but to fight the stimulus bill and subsequent measures to fight the recession provided the unemployed 99 weeks of benefits in some states. The House passed a bill to reauthorize the benefits, along with several other now-expired domestic aid programs, but the bill is stalled in the Senate, as unified Republicans and Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson withhold their support.

You go, girl! When I read this earlier, I thought, "Why are the Dems giving this away without using it as a bargaining chip?" Once again, we see that the Speaker is the only one with real cojones:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi struck a combative tone tonight, rejecting the Medicare "doc fix" passed hastily through the Senate Friday until Senate Republicans allow a vote on jobs measures that have passed through the House.

"I see no reason to pass this inadequate bill until we see jobs legislation coming out of the Senate," said Pelosi in a statement.

"House Democrats are saying to Republicans in the Senate: Show us the jobs! (exclamation mark hers)"Her statement, along with Senate Republicans' unwillingness to pass any legislation that adds to the debt, means that Medicare doctors can expect a 21 percent pay cut when claims that have been held for two weeks start to be processed by Medicare's government administrator on Monday. Senate Democrats could not muster 60 votes twice this week when they considered bills more to Pelosi's liking. They passed the last-minute doc fix bill to avert the 21 percent pay cut to Medicare doctors on Friday afternoon, even as the pay cut was scheduled to take effect.

From Pelosi's office:
Pelosi to Senate Republicans: Show Us the Jobs

Washington, D.C.--Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement in response to Senate Republicans' refusal to pass jobs legislation along with the inadequate six months physician payment extension bill:

"The inadequate legislation on physicians' fees that Senate Republicans allowed to pass today is a great disappointment. The House has approved long-term reform that ensures that Medicare patients will have access to quality physicians' services.

"The bill Senate Republicans allowed to pass is not only inadequate with respect to physician fees, but it ignores urgent sections of the House bill to provide jobs. The House has repeatedly sent jobs-creating bills to the Senate since December -- Build America Bonds, small business hiring incentives, and importantly, summer jobs -- and yet Republicans continue to block approval of jobs legislation.

“What is it that Republicans in the Senate and House don't understand about the need for jobs in America?

"I see no reason to pass this inadequate bill until we see jobs legislation coming out of the Senate. House Democrats are saying to Republicans in the Senate: Show us the jobs!"

From Talking Points Memo

Josh Marshall

So I guess the questions on the

What is Rep. Istook's explanation for inserting the provision in the omnibus spending bill?

Subject to the quality of that explanation, will Rep. Istook face any disciplinary action, either formal or informal?

On the Senate floor, Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said that neither he nor House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young knew that provision had been inserted into the bill. Beside Istook, which members of congress and/or congressional staffers knew about the Istook Amendment prior to the matter being brought up by Senate Democrats?

Who gave the sign off to insert the provision into the bill?

DOWNLOADS: (603)

PLAYS: (535)

Embed

Well, if you were only to listen to Beltway media Villagers like Suzanne Gamboa at the AP, you'd think that President Obama had magically swept immigration reform off the national agenda by simply pointing out that getting it passed would be tough -- one day before Democrats unveiled their "framework" for comprehensive immigration reform.

As Bob Menendez explains to John King in the video above, the proposal includes lots of Republican ideas, mostly as a standing invitation to Republicans to actually participate in the process rather than resorting to the reflexive opposition that's come to characterize their behavior in the past year. Whether they will or not is going to be up to them -- though Democrats will be capable of at least proceeding with the debate without them.

And at this point -- considering that it took over a year to pass health-care reform -- that's probably the best Dems can hope for. But there's no doubt it's past time to begin the national discussion. Immigration reform is far from dead.

Here's a PDF of the Democrats' framework. And as you can see, it has a lot of good ideas in it -- and one amazingly, gobsmackingly bad one.

Adam Luna at America's Voice offers a preview of the pros and cons of the framework provided so far:

The pros:

1. The framework describes a plan to immediately register undocumented immigrants and establishes a temporary immigration status so that they can work legally, pay taxes, travel abroad, and no longer live in fear of deportation. Eligible immigrants and temporary protected status (TPS) holders will be considered for the first step of the legalization program, an interim “Lawful Prospective Immigrant” (LPI) status, as soon as the program is up and running. After eight years, these immigrants can apply for green cards and get on a path to full U.S. citizenship.

2. DREAM Act is included.

3. AgJOBS is included.

4. Permanent partners immigration provisions included.

5. On family-based immigration: family immigration backlog would be cleared in eight years. Spouses and children of Legal Permanent Residents are moved to “immediate relative” immigration category, reducing their waiting period to enter the U.S. now and in the future

6. Increased labor protections and remedies, as well as a commission to determine future employment-based visa numbers based on labor market needs.

On the other hand, the framework also includes some provisions that many advocates for comprehensive immigration reform are not going to like, particularly in the enforcement sections. Senator Menendez said as much at yesterday’s press conference. Some of the “zero tolerance” language governing future deportation rules raises red flags, given our past experience with immigration laws like those passed in 1996. Legal experts are dissecting the outline now, and we look forward to their review of the detention and deportation provisions in the coming days.

But without question the worst idea in the plan is the proposal to create a biometric National ID system in which everyone in the country would be required to carry a card containing their personal histories embedded inside:

Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.

The proposal is one of the biggest differences between the newest immigration reform proposal and legislation crafted by late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The national ID program would be titled the Believe System, an acronym for Biometric Enrollment, Locally stored Information and Electronic Verification of Employment.

It would require all workers across the nation to carry a card with a digital encryption key that would have to match work authorization databases.

Continue reading »

Charlie Brown, will you never learn? You really thought Democrats were actually standing up to the Republicans on financial reform, huh? From Huffington Post:

Threatened with the prospect of having to spend the entire night sleeping on a cot inside the white sepulchre known as the United States Capitol, Senate Republicans have apparently assented to allowing a debate on the financial regulatory reform bill. Victory for Main Street! Unless, of course, Senate Democrats decided to back down on a strong(ish) bill so that the seeds of bipartisanship could be sown. In which case: Victory for David Broder!

No one exactly knows what is happening [C&L note: The Washington Post now confirms the deal], buthere's what the New York Times is reporting:

Republicans insisted that they had won some crucial concessions from Democrats, including the elimination of a proposed $50 billion fund that would be paid for by big financial companies and would be used to help pay for putting failed banks out of business.

The Obama administration also had expressed opposition to the fund, out of concern that it would complicate efforts to deal with more costly failures of financial companies. And the Democrats already had expressed a willingness to remove the fund from the bill.

Oh, well, that's just great! You know, it seems like only a week ago, Republicans were calling that provision the "permanent bailout fund" because that was the precise lie that Frank Luntz coached them to tell, over and over again. Incensed Democrats complained about this falsehood, over and over again, and actually did pretty well in getting the media on their side. But now, it's just one more thing that nobody really liked anyway, whatever -- hope you enjoyed the Kabuki theater.

Of course, we now have the benefit of viewing Senator Christopher Dodd's FinReg bill alongside the one put forth by the GOP, and can appreciate the ways in which they parted company. (TheWashington Independent's Annie Lowrey has a great comparative analysis of which you can avail yourself.)

Significantly, the two proposals aren't exactly worlds apart. But one way in which they part company dramatically is in the area of consumer protection. Per Matt Yglesias:

The ugly part of the bill is what it does to consumer protection. On the one hand, it seemingly weakens the independence of the consumer regulator. On the other hand, it has the consumer regulator preempt any and all state regulations. This is a helpful reminder that nobody on the right actually gives a damn about federalism except as a tool to advance conservative substantive policy--federal preemption of strong state regulation is always welcome.