DOWNLOADS: (86)

PLAYS: (541)

Embed

On Face the Nation today, John McCain expressed frustration with Rand Paul and his gang of libertarian obstructionists who threaten to block any gun measure from coming to the floor for debate.

The Hill:

“I don’t understand it,” said McCain on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand.”

“What are we afraid of? Why would we not want… if this issue is as important as all of us think it is, why not take it to one of the world’s greatest deliberative bodies – that’s one of the greatest exaggerations in history by the way – but you know why not take it up, an amendment and debate. The American people will profit from it,” said the Arizona senator.

“I don’t understand why United States senators want to block debate when the leaders said we could have amendments,” McCain added.

A number of GOP lawmakers, including Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Marco Rubio (Fla.), and Ted Cruz (Texas) wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowing that they would “oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.”

Interesting that it's the young wingnut guns opposing the "elder statesmen" of the Republican party. There is a definite civil war brewing just under the surface there. But I digress.

When 90 percent of Americans support background checks, it should be a slam dunk. As the president noted last week, 90 percent of Americans can't agree on what to have for breakfast, much less gun safety laws. Yet there we are, with a vast majority of the country in support of such a thing. I'll take the question one step beyond McCain and ask why they aren't rushing to get this done if they expect to be re-elected again?

Yes, there should be a debate. But for me, it just makes me furious that we're settling for a debate on background checks and little more. Background checks go without saying. Why can't we have a debate on clip size and assault-style weapons? Why can't we get these wingnuts on the record so they have to own their words after an assault weapon offs a lot of people in one place yet again, simply because they lacked the integrity or the guts to do the right thing? Instead we get this wimpy, simpy "Oh, won't it be grand if we get background checks!" nonsense.

Appearing with McCain, Sen. Charles Schumer expressed optimism that if the bill proceeded to the floor, a measure on background checks could pass.

“If we go to the floor, I’m still hopeful that what I call the ‘sweet spot’ background checks can succeed. We are working hard there. Sen. [Joe] Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. [Mark] Kirk [R-Ill.] have a few ideas that could modify the proposal.”

McCain said he would welcome a debate on background checks on the Senate floor.

“Everybody wants the same goal to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disabled. Background checks are being conducted. Are they sufficient, are there ways to improve those? Then I think that’s something that the American people and certainly Congress could be helped by if we have a vigorous debate and discussion,” said McCain.

Message to Americans: If we are so lucky as to get these young bucks to deign to debate this measure, won't it be grand to get a watered-down toothless background check measure that probably won't even come up in the House? Hey, at least we can say we passed...something.

Doesn't it seem like we're all being asked to simply 'bite the bullet'?

Wow, what a week. Anyone who wants to try and tell a clear, uncomplicated picture of President Obama and his party this week has to end the week a little befuddled. The picture is murkier than ever in terms of the course Obama is trying to chart, his and his party's boldness, and their willingness to stand up to the biggest, wealthiest, and most powerful special interests on behalf of the hard-pressed middle class and poor.

The week started with an inaugural address that was a clarion call for progressive policies, a speech that made progressive hearts sing by laying a strong clear vision of our movement’s historic values. As I argued on Monday, whatever else Obama does or doesn’t do policy-wise, a speech like this matters: it has the weight of history behind it, and it makes the case in an important moment why Americans should move in the forward rather than backward direction.

The speech was not complicated, it was as clear as a bell. Other than the speech, though, the rest of the week was pretty damn messy:

• Harry Reid waved the white flag and surrendered on Senate reformers attempt to make the body less dysfunctional. In what was a massive disappointment, especially after much macho talk about how this time was really going to be different, Reid once again agreed to a package of very modest reforms signed off on by McConnell. This is exactly what he did 2 years ago, and within days things were moving just as slowly as before. In these dysfunctional days of our government’s impairment, I think some Senators have decided they would rather have the power to block things rather than accomplish anything positive. That is a very bad sign for our democracy - and a very bad deal.

• A staffer for another of the Democratic party’s leadership, Chuck Schumer, confidently predicted that Democrats would agree to cuts in Medicare and in the “chained CPI”, DC speak for cutting Social Security benefits. This trial balloon was quickly and vehemently shot down by members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and other progressive forces, and by the end of the day, Schumer’s office had formally recanted, issuing a statement that he didn’t support such cuts. While it was good to see such a quick backtrack on the trial balloon being floated, no one I have talked to is the least bit reassured that Democratic leadership won’t continue to dangle that option to Republicans who want a scalp on Social Security (and who want to unleash their super PACs to attack Democrats for cutting Social Security).

• On the Wall Street accountability agenda, the signals are all over the map. Yesterday, 2 big things happened, both of them good signs but not conclusive. A woman with a reputation as a tough prosecutor, Mary Jo White, was nominated by Obama to chair the SEC, signaling to both Wall Street and progressives who want them held accountable for their dirty deeds that Obama wants to be tougher on Wall Street fraud. The fact that she also been a lawyer for some very bad bankers mitigates my happiness over this, though-- I’m just not certain how good she will end up being. But I’m willing to take it as a good sign that Obama appoints someone with a rep for toughness to the SEC spot.

• And in other very good news, two days after a devastating piece from Frontline which was scathing in its reporting on how DOJ was choosing not to prosecute bankers, Lanny Breuer announced his resignation. According to all of my sources inside the administration who I have talked to about this, Breuer has been the biggest roadblock at DOJ in terms of holding Wall Street bankers accountable, particularly in the last year in terms of slowing down the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Task Force. A former Wall Street lawyer, Breuer’s leaving is an unqualified good thing. What we don’t know, of course, is who will replace him, so we will see who gets put in that key DOJ slot next.

The big question now is what happens next on the task force. Although I know NY AG Eric Schneiderman is pushing hard on the cases he has brought and is exploring other avenues, he is getting little help right now from the rest of the task force. Breuer seems to be doing everything in his power to slow things to a crawl; Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan is completely focused on Hurricane Sandy relief; the White House has no one focused on making sure the task force is working, leaving that to DOJ which seems focused instead in making sure it doesn’t work. Now the DOJ point person for the task force, Breuer, is leaving- which is a good thing overall but it doesn’t exactly make things move faster. In the meantime, the task force’s work keeps being undercut by the terrible settlements that have been announced by other agencies, like the OCC and Federal Reserve’s overwhelmingly pro-bank settlement with a bunch of the biggest banks over wrongful foreclosures.

So we’ve got little progress on the ability of Republicans to block any decent legislation in the Senate; powerful Democrats who keep saying they are open to a deal that cuts Social Security; a complete muddle over being tough on Wall Street, some good news and some bad; and a clear, confident progressive clarion call of an inauguration speech.

There is no narrative to all this. Wealthy special interests, especially the big boys on Wall Street, and the opponents of progress continue to win out over middle and low income folks most of the time, even inside the Democratic party. Yet, the President clearly wants to be seen as a progressive champion. It’s a mix and a muddle. I hope we finally get to the point when this President finally and fully decides which side he wants to be on, and doesn’t hesitate to take on the wealthy and powerful on behalf of the middle class and poor. If his administration stops being a mix and a muddle, and starts consistently in word and deed fighting for us regular folk, he will go down in history as a great President.

I included this clown logic by Schumer earlier, but I wanted to highlight it in a separate post. Sen. Schumer is trying to make us believe that the threat of defense spending cuts will be enough to keep Republicans in line if there's a Super Cat Food Commission.

CNN Transcript:

BORGER: But it's the second part of the deal, I think, that could give Democrats some heartburn here. And that is the question of this enforcement mechanism for cuts in the second part of this, and Senator McConnell was essentially saying that this could affect across-the-board cuts in things like entitlement programs and no revenue. So how do you negotiate that?

SCHUMER: Well, certainly the enforcement mechanism is one of the key issues that is still being debated, and it's one of the issues that has made this process go on for so long.

And here is what you had to say about it. An enforcement mechanism gets -- doesn't require, but importunes, makes it very likely that the people in this bipartisan, bicameral committee come to an agreement, because if they don't, the pain inflicted is so great that they have an incentive to come to an agreement. Now that means there should be a sword of equal sharpness and strength hanging over each party's head, obviously the sword over the head of Democrats are the cuts. We don't like them. We want to help middle class people pay for their kids to get to college help with prescription drugs, things like that.

What is the sword over the Republican? Well, it has to be equal -- the one thing we are certain of, it has to be of equal sharpness and strength. The preference would be some kind of revenues on wealthy people, on tax loopholes that would be in that. But another alternative possible, being discussed, no agreements have been reached, would defense cuts of equal sharpness and magnitude to domestic cuts. And in the past, when the trigger has had significant defense cuts, it has brought the parties to the table, and they've come up with a balanced agreement that had both revenues and cuts.

BORGER: So, what you would like, essentially, is if this committee gets deadlocked, which is a possibility to say, here are all the things everyone hates sitting out there, and they will all be triggered and they will occur?

SCHUMER: Yes. That's right. And that, hopefully, brings the parties to an agreement that each side...

BORGER: What if it doesn't?

SCHUMER: Well, if it doesn't the -- we hope it does, because if the sword is tough enough and sharp enough the likelihood of agreement increases. And in the past that has worked.

He's trying to sell us on an imaginary sword that is so powerful just the threat of it will bring Republicans to their knees. I loved Game of Thrones, but we're not in Westeros, Chuck. We're supposed to trust this sword to protect our seniors and our working class families from draconian cuts to our safety net programs in a Super Congress setting? The Tea Party Caucus will hold up anything that has revenue increases so is he saying that defense cuts will make them suddenly not try to gut Medicare?

UPDATE: Jake Tapper reports that the trigger deal is all but done:

Sources from both parties tell ABC News that the major potential roadblock in deficit negotiations-- the triggers -- are now essentially agreed upon. The plan is for the House to vote on this tomorrow, assuming all goes according to plan.

The agreement looks like this: if the super-committee tasked with entitlement and tax reform fails to come up with $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction that passes Congress, the “neutron bomb” goes off, -- as one Democrat put it -- spending cuts that will hit the Pentagon budget most deeply, as well as Medicare providers (not beneficiaries) and other programs.

If the super-committee comes up with some deficit reduction but not $1.5 trillion, the triggers would make up the difference. So it’s a minimum $2.7 trillion deficit reduction deal.
--
Both sides will declare victory –- last week the biggest difference between the Boehner and Reid proposals was whether, as the GOP demanded, there would be another debt ceiling vote before the election. That wont happen in this deal.

But at the same time, Republicans got almost every single other item that they pushed in this process.

So what's left to discuss on the triggers according to Jake?

1) The exact ratio of Pentagon to non-Pentagon cuts in the trigger – Democrats want 50% from the Pentagon, Republicans want less;

2) Democrats want to exempt programs for the poor from the cuts.

Also Democrats say –- if tax reform doesn’t happen through the super-committee, President Obama will veto any extension of Bush tax cuts when they come up at the end of 2012, further creating an incentive for the super-committee to act.

And you were wondering where the Bush Tax cuts were, weren't you?

DOWNLOADS: (367)

PLAYS: (5352)

Embed

It's rare on the Sunday shows to give a Democrat uninterrupted air time and even rarer still the chance to respond to a Republican's segment on earlier. Watch the shows, most of the time Democrats appear with a Republican at his/her side and almost never given the last word. Which is why Chuck Schumer appearing after Mitch McConnell to refute all the same tired talking points is such a novel experience.

Schumer says EXACTLY what every Democrat should say the minute a camera is pointed in their direction: "Hey GOP, where are the jobs???" In the five months of the Republican majority, we've had nary a single jobs bill, but bills reducing regulations on corporations and increasing them on women seeking reproductive health. But that's not what Americans wanted...the Republicans promised jobs and that's what Americans are looking for.

The New York Democrat said his colleagues in the Senate would be introducing a number of measures aimed at creating jobs - including one that provides tax breaks to companies that hire new workers.

"That is aimed at sort of bringing our Republican colleagues along to do something" about the struggling U.S. economy, which created just 54,000 jobs in May, Schumer said on CBS News' "Face the Nation."

"If they are against a business tax cut to help employment, they have always been for business tax cuts in the past, you gotta wonder, maybe they don't want the economy to grow," said Schumer, the number three Democrat in the Senate.

Listen to Bob Schieffer, still holding onto those Republican talking points that the MOST important issue facing us is the blasted deficit, absolutely incredulous of the Democrats plan of investing in the infrastructure, of a strong jobs program, calling it "grandiose". Um...Bob, how would you have characterized the New Deal that Roosevelt proposed? That's exactly what the country needed to put the economy back on track. The Democrats' plan is not nearly that extensive, and in a hat tip to the whiny, petulant Republicans, includes tax breaks.

This past Sunday, President Obama wrote an op-ed for Gabrielle Giffords' hometown paper, the Arizona Daily Star. Looking back on the tragic shootings in Tucson, he made it clear that we need to fix our nation's broken background check system and keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people:

That's why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.

Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.

This has been a long time coming, and I'd like to see the language bit stronger, but I can't say I am not pleased to see the President stepping up and addressing this important issue.

Continue reading »

In the wake of President Barack Obama’s premature capitulation in the tax wars to the Republicans -- a party who I might remind you controls neither congressional chamber at this moment (they will take over the House in January) -- once-muted criticism of the Commander-in-Chief on the Left has suddenly erupted into a full-scale flurry of condemnation.

There have been calls for other Democrats to primary him in 2012, jeremiads that Progressives should have been treating him as an adversary, and a feeling on the Left, put into words by a Congressman (Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York), that Democrats "can’t trust him."

So you could say it’s been a somewhat bad month for the president - although that might be akin to saying the guys attending South Carolina's "Secession Ball" will only be missing some of their teeth. The president has not only caved on eliminating budget-busting tax cuts for people who have toilet plungers more expensive than your house, but has backed off long-delayed (but promised) environmental regulations to govern smog and toxic emissions from industrial boilers.

He also negotiated a new Korea Free Trade Agreement that isn’t free from deleterious affects on American workers, enacted a freeze in pay for federal employees for reasons nobody can figure out, and was ready to listen to recommendations to cut Social Security from a committee of rich, irrelevant Beltway primates so old they look like they should be starring in Weekend at Bernie’s 3.

This turn of events would probably explain why in a new McClatchy Poll, President Obama’s approval among liberals has fallen from 78% to 69%, while his disapproval among self-described Democrats has nearly doubled, from 11% to 21%.

That Obama doesn’t have much of a stomach for a rumble as president, this much many liberal commentators can agree upon. Yet, perhaps for political reasons, or maybe due to the glorious rose shade the passage of time can deliver to one’s glasses, many have looked admiringly back to a moment that never existed to call on Obama to be someone he never really was.

A Fighter.

Continue reading »

It really is amazing when you think about it: Hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans are virtually ignored -- because their unemployment benefits ran out in March instead of May. Congress needs to add another tier of benefits to help the 99ers:

The 99ers took a stand on Wall Street Thursday.

A throng of desperate job-hunters -- who've been out of work so long their unemployment benefits ran out -- staged a protest rally on the steps of Federal Hall.

"Are you going to tell us, President Obama and Congress, that our lives are not worth saving?" asked 99er Connie Kaplan.

She had to move in with her daughter in Astoria, Queens to survive and gets food from food banks.

The grassroots political group, which sprang up after jobless Americans started commiserating online, is demanding that unemployment benefits be extended to include them. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) co-sponsored a recently introduced bill that would create extensions in states with unemployment rates of 7.5% or higher.

"My family is broken up," 99er and former public relations director Anne Strauss, 58, of Smithtown, L.I., told the Daily News.

Her house is for sale and her husband, also unemployed, has moved in with his son in Albany to take a commission-only job.

Strauss applied for a job at a bakery. One question on the application form asked of the job, "Will it interfere with your after-school activities?"

Amos Lee-Soul Suckers

Did you believe them

When they told you they discovered you

And that everything is free as long as you do what they tell you to

You think it's true

But nothing could be further from the truth, my love

Did you even listen

When they told you to change your name

And that nobody wants honesty when looking at a perfect frame

Play the game

It's a particularly uninspired line up for the Sunday shows. By the sheer number of Judiciary Committee members scheduled (Chairman Pat Leahy, Ranking Minority Member Jeff Sessions, Chuck Schumer, John Kyl and Dianne Feinstein) that Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan will be the topic of choice. Elsewhere, Pennsylvania Senate Democratic rivals Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak face one another on State of the Union. And if you're looking for something a little on the lighter side, former First Lady Laura Bush will be on Fox and Friends to pimp her new book.

ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Andrew Sullivan, Katty Kay, Joan Biskupic and Pete Williams. Topics: The Goldilocks Pick: Why Do Liberals Fear Elena Kagan is Just Alright? Why Politics Favors Arizona's Tough Immigration Law

CNN's "State of the Union" - Sens. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., and Bob Bennett, R-Utah; Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Prime Minister of Greece, the David Cameron and Nick Clegg coalition in Britain and a roundtable discussion on the global economy with Larry Summers.

"Fox News Sunday" - Former first lady Laura Bush and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

Congressional Democrats have just introduced a new package of legislation – the DISCLOSE Act – to blunt the Supreme Court’s disastrous January ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which opened American elections at all levels to unlimited corporate spending. The 5-4 ruling gave companies like Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil the same right as individual Americans to spend money in elections, but unlike you or me these companies have billions in the bank and billions more at stake in Congress and state legislatures.

Now Democrats are racing to pass legislation before a wave of corporate cash sweeps through the mid-term elections. They have overwhelming public opinion on their side, but the US Chamber of Commerce and other corporate lobbyists are working hard to head them off and time is short.

The newly unveiled DISCLOSE Act is all about forcing election spending out into the open, where it belongs. Thanks to the Roberts Court, giant companies can spend unlimited amounts to support or oppose candidates – without disclosing a dime of it. They can simply pass the money through a front group or PR agency. The legislation would close this glaring loophole, as Sen. Chuck Schumer explained on Thursday:

Our bill will follow the money. In cases where corporations try to mask their activities through shadow groups, we drill down so that ultimate funder of the expenditure is disclosed.

Corporations would be required to disclose political spending to their shareholders, and a broad array of corporations and advocacy groups would be required to disclose previously confidential details about their political spending, including funding sources. Foreign corporations, government contractors, and recipients of government bail-outs would be altogether banned from spending money in elections.

The DISCLOSE Act is a huge first step in restoring genuine democracy in the wake of the Roberts Court's irresponsible activism, but it's just a first step. Only a constitutional amendment or new ruling by a more progressive Supreme Court can truly 'fix' Citizens United.

In the meantime, maybe we should require politicians to wear the logos of their "sponsors." Hey, if it works for NASCAR, why not Congress:

Corrente: Confusing "America" with "Goldman Sachs." Make the call...

Balloon Juice: What did you expect?

TalkLeft: Blago requests subpoena for Obama

Jesus' General: Leghorns for Lowden

The Washington Note: Has Chuck Schumer EVER criticized Israel or its leadership in the way he just unloaded on Obama?

Papamoka Straight Talk: Officer Down