So the Democrats write a Senate bill giving tax breaks to small businesses for hiring, figuring it's a cinch for Republican support. Ha ha ha ha! Charlie Brown, will you ever learn?

Senior Republicans suggested on Tuesday that they are likely to block the bill later this week on procedural grounds. They are demanding an open amendment process that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, according to staff, will not allow.

The likely failure of the measure, which is on President Obama's "checklist" of jobs bills, will leave Democrats accusing the GOP of blocking the measure to deny Obama a win. Republicans call the bill a naked political ploy and that Democrats have no real interest in passing the legislation. Debate on the bill looks likely to offer a warm-up for a fight over whether to extend the George W. Bush tax cuts that will gain steam with symbolic House and Senate votes on the matter as soon as next week.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said today that Senate Finance Committee ranking member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, will offer an amendment that would extend all the Bush tax cuts for one year.

The Senate bill would give businesses a tax credit worth 10 percent of any amount by which they increase payrolls. By capping the credits at $500,000, the bill aims to primarily help small businesses. The measure would also extend for a year a 100 percent rate under which businesses claim bonus depreciation tax deductions on capital investments--a provision Republicans generally support.

I can't figure out Scott Brown. He's supposed to be against politics as usual, right? And yet he cuts a special deal to cut off debate for some mutual funds in his home state?

WASHINGTON – The Senate voted 59-39 late Thursday to pass a sweeping rewrite of financial-sector regulations.

The 1,500-page bill includes an array of curbs on banking and finance, aimed at creating new consumer protection rules, providing more scrutiny of big bank operations, and insulating taxpayers from future bailouts of financial companies. Opponents argued throughout lengthy debate that the measures will over-regulate the financial industry.

Democrats secured support from a handful of Republicans to win final passage. The measure is a major part of the domestic agenda of the Obama administration.

Lawmakers must now reconcile differences between the Senate bill and a similar measure that passed the House of Representatives in December.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) won the support of Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown Thursday for the vote to end debate, a key step in moving the bill forward.

Mr. Brown voted against shutting off debate Wednesday. But he supported the effort Thursday after winning assurances that major Massachusetts-based mutual-fund companies—including Fidelity Investments and State Street Corp.—would be shielded from trading limits the bill would impose on big banks.

Via Huffington Post, here's the real dirt:

The Senate passed the bill without the Merkley-Levin amendment, an addition that would have imposed stricter language on the "Volcker Rule." Named after Obama economic adviser Paul Volcker, the "Volcker Rule" bars commercial banks from using taxpayer-backed money to trade for their own gainw. Without the Merkley-Levin amendment, sponsored by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Carl Levin (D-MI), regulators who were blamed for their lack of oversight preceding the financial crisis will be empowered to shape the "Volcker Rule" and possibly water it down.

Levin and Merkley's amendment was never debated on the Senate floor. Instead, "last-minute maneuvering" killed it. Levin said that it showed "the power of Wall Street," reports Reuters:

Last-minute maneuvering on the Senate floor killed two controversial amendments: one to tighten proposed restrictions on risky trading by banks, and another exempting car dealers that do not finance their own lending to auto buyers from oversight by a new federal consumer watchdog.

Republicans withdrew the auto-dealer amendment, offered by Senator Sam Brownback, so that the bank trading amendment, offered by Democrats Jeff Merkley and Carl Levin, would not come to a vote. It is firmly opposed by major financial firms.

Since Russ Feingold and Maria Cantwell didn't vote for it, I'm not doing the happy dance just yet.

The White House is offering livestreaming of the signing, scheduled for 11:15 EDT/8:15 PDT this morning.

WaPo:

President Obama will sign landmark health-care legislation into law Tuesday without waiting for the Senate to deal with a package of revisions that was also approved by the House late Sunday, administration officials said.

Officials unveiled the plan to use a signing ceremony to showcase the benefits of the health-care overhaul after a divided House passed the Senate-approved bill and the separate revisions, known as a reconciliation bill, in a marathon Sunday session that culminated more than a year of political discord over Obama's signature domestic initiative. By a 219-212 vote, the House approved the Senate bill, handing Democrats a historic victory in a long-running battle to reform the nation's $2.5 trillion health-care system. The vote for the reconciliation bill was 220-211. No Republican voted for either measure.

[..]The Senate will begin work on the House-passed revisions as soon as Obama signs the broader legislation, said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). The debate will be limited to 20 hours and likely will end early Thursday, Manley said. Then begins a series of votes on amendments, a process with no time limit but that allows for just one minute between votes.

At the moment, Democratic Senate leaders are uncertain how long the voting process will last, although most senators still expect to leave more or less on schedule for a two-week recess scheduled to begin Saturday. Still unclear is whether the GOP will succeed with any of the numerous procedural challenges it is expected to mount against the bill.

Bipartisan discussions with the Senate parliamentarian began late Monday morning, but Manley said Democratic leaders have already vetted the fixes bill for potential hitches and identified no provisions that could be jettisoned and result in derailing the $940 billion package.

White House officials said Obama intends to sign the main bill during an event that will include a diverse group of guests, some of whom the president has used before to promote his health-care plans. He was hoping to do so on the South Lawn of the White House, but a rainy forecast made it more likely that the ceremony would be held indoors at the Interior Department, press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

You can also view a slideshow by the White House documenting this long battle.

Because we're getting so much of this news as it breaks, it's hard to get all the context. But it sure sounds like they're only pursuing another way to pass the bill in response to the Republicans' hypocritical attacks - which only gives credence to said attacks:

House leaders have decided to take a separate vote on the Senate health-care bill, rejecting an earlier, much-criticized strategy that would have permitted them to "deem" the unpopular measure passed without an explicit vote.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Saturday that the House would take three votes Sunday: first, on a resolution that will set the terms of debate; second, on a package of amendments to the Senate bill that have been demanded by House members; and third, on the Senate bill itself.

Van Hollen, who has been working on the issue with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said House leaders concluded that that order -- approving the amendments before approving the Senate bill -- makes clear that the House intends to modify the Senate bill and not approve the Senate bill itself.

"Our objective all along was to make it clear that the House is amending the Senate bill, and we found another way of accomplishing that," Van Hollen said in an interview.

DOWNLOADS: (683)

PLAYS: (898)

Embed

Bart Stupak's trying a new tactic to get the abortion deal that he wants into HCR. He calls it the "enrollment corrections bill." He was on GMA today and shed some light on it.

Stephanopoulos asked about the idea floated by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), another pro-life Democrat, to hold a separate vote on reinstating the Stupak language on abortion insurance, as a whole different bill. Stupak said that this was one possibility -- but he wanted to make sure such a bill would in fact be signed into law.

"Okay, we pass the bill, it has to go to the Senate. This is an enrollment corrections bill. It has to be passed before the president would sign the Senate bill. So there's a long ways to go," said Stupak. "And you know, dealing with the Senate has been unusually difficult these last two years, so I'm not a lot of confident it's gonna go any farther than the House of Representatives."

David Waldman explains what Stupak has in mind.

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy. You're not gonna believe how low down in the weeds we're gonna have to get for this one.

We just learned from mcjoan that Bart Stupak is after a deal that would somehow jam a foot in the health insurance reform door for his now-notorious Stupak amendment on abortion:

This morning, during an appearance on Good Morning America, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) reaffirmed that he might vote for the Senate health care bill if Democrats pass the Stupak abortion amendment as a separate measure. Stupak said that Democrats have shown a "renewed" interest in tying his amendment to the Senate bill:

STUPAK: George, that’s called an enrollment corrections bill. I presented that to leadership about ten days ago. There’s renewed interest in that piece of legislation that I and a number of us are ready to introduce. It’s prepared. Everybody’s looking at it right now. That’s one way, maybe. But we set the deal with the Senate. You give us a vote in the House. We had a vote in the House. It was overwhelmingly 240-194, to keep public law, no public funding for abortion.

It seems to me that if the Senate parliamentarian is indeed insisting that the reconciliation bill address "current law," then that means the Senate bill must be not only enrolled, but signed by the President before reconciliation can be considered, at least in the Senate. I assume the House parliamentarian has no such objection to the House beginning its work (which is curious in itself), since he's apparently allowing the House to consider and pass reconciliation before the Senate bill is enrolled.

He went on MSNBC later with Norah and she first tried to get him to admit that the HCR bill as it stands now does not allow for government funding for abortions, but even with all the facts that she had like the AP and fellow pro-life Dems who are now supporting the bill, he flatly denies it. He calls it a "drastic break from current law for the last thirty three years." Even Allen Boyd is voting yes now.

(h/t Heather for the video)

There are a lot of rumors swirling, but we're hearing that Stupak may very well get his wish since the vote appears to be so close in the House and as a friend emailed: "I knew they would go there because that was the path of least resistance."

Please donate to Connie's campaign so we can take Stupak down.

Via Twitter:

Pro-choice female Dems are shuttling in and out of Pelosi's office and they won't say why.

Even if they calculate accurately and know this latest Stupak bullshit won't pass, it really sucks that pro-choice women have to deal with this issue from the Democratic Party for years to come.

Wow. On Monday, Catholic Bishops released a letter opposing the Senate health care reform bill because it didn't contain the Stupak language. While they acknowledged differences with the Catholic Health Association, their message was clear: they were speaking as the official and authoritative voice of the Catholic Church.

This analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association. They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill. The bishops, however, judge that the flaws are so fundamental that they vitiate the good that the bill intends to promote. Assurances that the moral objections to the legislation can be met only after the bill is passed seem a little like asking us, in Midwestern parlance, to buy a pig in a poke.

In a clear break with the bishops, 60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 nuns have joined with the Catholic Health Association to support the Senate bill as written.

The letter says that "despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions." The letter says the legislation also will help support pregnant women and "this is the real pro-life stance."

Continue reading »

Looks like Howard Fineman was right last night on KO when he said Dennis would switch his vote because Dennis Kucinich held a presser this morning and said even though it's not the bill he wanted, he'll vote for HCR.

Greg Sargent:

In a big get for House Dems, Dennis Kucinich just made it official: He’s voting for the Senate bill, making him the first member to go on record fliping his vote from No to Yes.

“In the past week it’s become clear that the vote on the final bill will be very close,” Kucinich, who voted No last time because of the lack of the public option, said at a presser moments ago. He acknowleged that he’d be voting “not on the bill as I would like to see it, but as it is.”

“However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi” and others, Kucinich said, “I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation.”

Kucinich’s stance was being closely watched by both sides, partly as a test of President Obama’s ability to corral the support of reluctant Dems. Obama wooed him directly with a lift on Air Force One and gave a big health care speech in his district earlier this week.

Kucinich is one of around 10 former No votes who have been aggressively wooed by Dem leaders to flip to Yes. His decision means that Nancy Pelosi’s margin for error is every so slightly bigger: Dem leaders can now afford to lose one Yes vote.

More soon.

Update: Kucinich revealed he’d met four times with President Obama, mostly going over his objections, but said he’d been persuaded in part because at one recent meeting he recognized how difficult Obama’s challenge is.

Nancy Pelosi inches one vote closer to hitting the magic number that the HOUSE needs to pass HCR.

The congressman's office responded by saying he is "not a rubber stamp for special interest politics":

In what seems intended as a shot across the bow of House Dems wavering on health reform, top officials with the labor powerhouse SEIU have bluntly told a Democratic member that they will pull their support for him — and will likely field a challenger against him — if he votes No on the Senate bill.

Dem Rep Mike McMahon of New York met yesterday with a top SEIU official and told him he’s likely to vote No, the official tells me. The official: Mike Fishman, president of SEIU 32bj, the largest property workers union in the country, with 120,000 members in eight states.

Fishman told McMahon that the union would not support him if he voted No — and suggested the hunt for a primary or third-party challenger would follow.

“He let us know he’s not supportive of the health care plan,” Fishman says. “We’ve let him know that we can’t support somebody who doesn’t support it.”

“We are going to begin talking to other unions about finding someone else for that seat,” Fishman continued.

McMahon enjoyed heavy labor backing when he was elected to his conservative Staten Island district in 2008. He voted No on the bill last time but was said to be undecided on the Senate bill, and labor had hoped to win his support for the crucial final vote.

Fishman said SEIU officials were intent on sending a message to other House Dems that they risk losing the union’s support if they don’t vote for the bill — and said the union’s rank and file membership strongly wanted reform to pass.

“We put an enormous amount of effort into electing Democrats,” Fishman said. “This is the most important issue on everyone’s plate. We’re sending a message to Democrats: If you can’t support this, we can’t support you.”

McMahon, who comes from a conservative district, has opposed health care reform in the past, saying it would “discourage entrepreneurial activity and job growth” because its burden would fall too heavily on small businesses.

Greg Sargent reports:

Senator Bernie Sanders, in a brief interview in the Capitol just now, confirmed to me that he’s willing to commit to introducing an amendment that would add the public option to the Senate bill’s reconciliation fix.

This is important, because as far fetched as this seems, if this amendment is introduced, a vote on it would be very hard for the Senate Dem leadership to block. The only thing that could stop it from happening, according to Senate expert Robert Dove, is for the parliamentarian to rule that it’s not germane to the Senate bill somehow — something that seems unlikely...read on

As Adam Green is launching another initiative for the PCCC, we know the House doesn't trust the Senate at all, but the process seems to finally be winding down.

Ryan Grim reports that the public option is still viable, but he says it's a matter of will and not votes.

The public option faces its last stand. With more than 40 senators publicly willing to vote for a health care reform reconciliation package that includes the option, the opportunity to reinsert it into the final bill has never been greater, though the battle is nearly over without having been fought.

--

That balance of power gives House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) extraordinary leverage of a historical nature. Pelosi, however, has yet to concede in negotiations that it is the obligation of the House to go first. And the deal that is being reached is driven largely by the White House. But both the Senate and the White House need Pelosi. And the House, of course, has already passed a health care bill with a public option.

If the House does move first, the Senate would essentially face an up-or-down vote on whatever Pelosi sends over. Durbin was asked by HuffPost if he would whip a reconciliation package from the House that included a public option. An analysis of past statements and positions taken by members of the Democratic caucus indicates that there could plausibly be 53 votes for a public option and perhaps several more.

Durbin, in response to the question, said at first that it was hypothetical, but then answered, "I think there will come a time when we reach agreement on what the reconciliation package includes, with the understanding that any changes in the House or Senate could slow down or stop the process."

So whatever comes from the House, that's what you will whip?

"That's basically it," he said. "I hope that what comes from the House is what we agree on going into this debate."

--

UPDATE: The news that the Senate parliamentarian told Senate Republicans that the bill must become law before any amendments can be made through reconciliation alters the equation if true. The House, however, could still pass the Senate bill into law and then send the Senate a reconciliation fix with a public option. The Senate could torpedo that legislation without concern that no reform package at all would get passed, giving the Senate added leverage. The underlying dynamic, however, remains unchanged: In the next few days, as the White House and congressional leaders meet to hash out the way forward, the votes appear to exist to include a public option. It's only a matter of will.

It appears that Dick Durbin is not going to risk the entire bill because of the public option.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for the bill. “We have to tell people, ‘You just have to swallow hard’ and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen,” Durbin, who supports a public option, told reporters. “We have to move this forward. We know the Republicans are likely to offer a lot of amendments, and some of them may be appealing to Democrats, but we have to urge them to stick with the bill.”

The PCCC is running a campaign against Durbin at this time and asking members of the Senate to not turn their back on it.

This is kind of strange, isn't it? I mean, he says he's resigning over his language? I know lots of people who work on the Hill and believe me, there are a lot of congress members who are verbally abusive to their staff. We have lots of Republicans guilty of far worse (*cough Mitch McConnell cough*), yet all they have to do is clutch Jesus to their bosoms, smile into the TV cameras and deny, deny, deny. It's a puzzle.

I'll give Massa credit for this: at least he admitted he was guilty. (Unlike almost every Republican Congress member accused of, well, anything.) On the other hand, this means the progressive Eric Massa's "no" vote on the healthcare bill (he was holding out for the public option) not only goes away, it means Nancy Pelosi needs one less vote to pass the admittedly half-assed Senate bill:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- New York Democratic Rep. Eric Massa, facing a harassment complaint by a male staffer, said Friday that he is stepping down from his seat with "a profound sense of failure."

"I am guilty," Massa said in an interview with a Corning, N.Y., newspaper columnist.

Later in the day, Massa released a statement saying that after discovering he had a recurrence of cancer, he learned he was the subject of an ethics complaint by a male staffer who felt "uncomfortable" during an exchange with Massa. The exchange reportedly had sexual overtones.

"I will resign my position," Massa said in the statement.

"There is no doubt in my mind that I did in fact, use language in the privacy of my own home and in my inner office that, after 24 years in the Navy, might make a chief petty officer feel uncomfortable," Massa added. "In fact, there is no doubt that this ethics issue is my fault and mine alone."

Earlier Friday, a visibly upset Massa said he didn't want to put his family through an ethics committee investigation.

"It would tear us apart," Massa said, according to Joe Dunning, a columnist for The Leader newspaper. "It's not that I can fight or beat these allegations, I'm guilty."