The arrogance of Congress passes on to the hired help

I know it's kind of shitty being a Congressional aide. The pay's pretty shitty, at least in terms of Washington professional class dollars. And, the boss can often be a shithead.

But, that's no excuse to be a shithead yourself.

Several days ago, as the clock started ticking ever faster for New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez to face federal corruption charges, a couple of his aides were hauled in front of a grand jury.

Where they refused to testify.

On what grounds? Not the Fifth Amendment, since they (at least right now) aren't facing charges themselves.

No, they called into play the "speech and debate clause" of the body of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Just one SMALLLLLL problem.

The paragraph mentions "Senators and Representatives."

It does NOT mention the hired help. 

A federal district court read that clearly, and they appealed. For some reason, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals doesn't read the Constitution the same way, and has ordered a hearing. It had better see things the same way as the district court, or else, Members of Congress will treat their aides like Hillary Clinton treats private email servers.

The Constitution is pretty clear. Yeah, Congressmen didn't have a bunch of aides 200-plus years ago. But there was a sergeant at arms and other officials from the start. If the Founders had wanted this to extend to Congressional staff, they could have put that in the Constitution.

Unfortunately, a three-judge appellate panel disagreed, and said the district judge must wade through a mass of individual emails. It also notes the court system has generally extended the clause to aides, which is bullshit itself.

Meanwhile, that first link has an interesting side note, and that is that the Menendez investigation could expand to include Minority Leader Harry Reid. Reid was good as Majority Leader and so far as Minority Leader; he's not afraid to play hardball with the GOP.

That said, he's long struck me as no higher than the midpoint in ethical rankings of Senators.

Folks, including any tea partiers who read me, this is why you have to stop voting for Democrats AND Republicans. It's why you have to vote YOUR rascal out of office.

The perils of Obama vs LBJ and Congressional Democrats

I'm going to basically thumbs-up, with brief commentary, two pieces by friend Perry.

The first is from the last part of the header. It's about how Congressional Democrats will run with about anything and anyone with a D after the name or idea — as long as the name isn't Obama.

When you're giving the professorial version of the cold shoulder to as valiant of an ally as Harry Reid, it's both bad and sad. It's even worse when, in this case, he's fighting for confirmation of ambassadors that Obama nominated.

I saw this as part of his MO long ago. So did one chronicler of his first-term White House years, Ron Susskind in "Confidence Men." The man is so anti-political in some ways that, other than his hubris that his mellifluous voice could change how American politics works, or perhaps a bucket list that had "first black president" on it, or some Freudian wish-fulfillment for his mom, I have no damned idea why he even ran for the office.

Hell, for all I know, Obama doesn't have a clear idea himself; that wouldn't surprise me either.

The second is about why isn't Dear Leader like LBJ?

Perry riffs on a good column by Matt Bai, who in turn riffs extensively on LBJ biographer Robert Caro.

I agree that most Dems don't want LBJ's jerkitude, while a lot of Republicans like that. That said beyond (as a political operative, not political stances, where he rightly dings both) unfavorably comparing Dear Leader to Hillary Clinton, we can have somebody tougher than Dear Leader in a lot of ways without being a jerk.

And so, with that, as I told Perry, why isn't Obama at least a bit more like LBJ?

Because, to riff on an old LBJ phrase, Obama put his pecker in someone else's pocket long ago.

Chickenshit Boehner gets House GOP to pass pseudo-impeachment lawsuit

Cry me a river, Mr. Backbone of Chocolate Eclair

Let's be honest, that's what Speaker of the House John Boehner's plan to Barack Obama is, now that the House has OKed it. (And, with just five House Republicans in opposition, anybody who ever, again talks to me about "moderate Republicans" at the national level gets kicked in the nads.)

After the Clinton debacle, Republicans know they cannot win a politically-driven impeachment conviction, especially with any "charges" against Obama having even less substance than those against Slick Willie.

So, sue instead.

Isn't it funny how the GOP always talks about tort reform — except when it would hurt them?

And, gets hypocritical:

"What price do you place on the continuation of our system of checks and balances? What price do you put on the Constitution of the United States?" said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich. "My answer to each is 'priceless.'"

Checks and balances are already in place. Democrats who control the Senate won't pass your idiocy, so you boo-hoo and sue.

So, Speaker Boo-Boo (he's got Yogi's voice but Boo-Boo's face), or RedFace, as I also call him, is suing Obama for "being the President."

Let's let RedFace speak for himself:

"This is not about impeachment -- it's about him faithfully executing the laws of this country," Boehner said.

The speaker alleged that the president not only has ignored the law but "brags about it," decrying what he described as "arrogance and incompetence."

Boehner had been weighing such a lawsuit in recent days, over concerns that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority with executive actions.

Now, let's translate. On paragraph No. 3? This is another It's OK If You're A Republican, of course, because RedFace never talked about suing Shrub Bush, who wrote more executive orders than Obama ever did. 

Paragraph No. 1?

Failure in "faithfully executing the laws of this country" would certainly be considered a high crime or misdemeanor, as it would be violating his oath of office. Therefore, per Article I, Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

You're that Speaker guy, you idiot.

So, you're chickenshit because you know you'll lose an impeachment, but you, like many a GOPer, has no problem with barratry, and with waste of taxpayer money, when it suits your own ends.

So, will Senate Democrats please sue Boehner for being Speaker of the House? C'mon, Harry Reid, do it!

#FreeSpeech gets another win from the Supreme Court

I agree with The Nine in killing a Massachusetts law severely restricting conversations around abortion clinics. SCOTUS did not invalidate its previous ruling upholding a Colorado law with "bubble zones," which Massachusetts used before 2007.

It was also sad, but not surprising, to see the ACLU on the wrong side of this case. That said, today's ACLU probably would not defend neo-Nazis marching through Skokie, Ill. It certainly would not defend anti-gay rights activists marching through the Castro district of San Francisco.

Yes, the old bubble-rule law required more police work. Aren't Constitutional liberties worth it?

SCOTUS has also decided Canning vs. NLRB, the case over whether Obama could use presidential recess appointment powers during "pro forma" Senate sessions. A majority ruling said "no," while leaving open the possibility that if pro forma sessions every three days cover longer periods of time, they'll relook at the issue.

On the other hand, the pro-forma sessions in the case at hand covered a two-week period, per the Times. How much longer of a period Senate obstructionists would have to stall out with pro-forma sessions to trigger Stephen Breyer's concerns, I don't know.

Nino Scalia, vaunted alleged "originalist" interpreter of the Constitution, in a partially concurring opinion, shows that his "orginalism" blows with the wind, like much of the hot air out of his mouth, per the first link on this story:

"The majority practically bends over backward to ensure that recess appointments will remain a powerful weapon in the president's arsenal," he said. "That is unfortunate, because the recess appointment power is an anachronism."

What a liar he is.

It would be nice to think he might feel the same way were Obama a Republican. But, I don't believe that.

That said, I, overall, think the ruling was right. As the Times notes, the partial filibuster reform Harry Reid rammed through makes this somewhat, but not totally by any means, nugatory.

The Hobby Lobby vs. Obamacare case looks like its ruling is on hold for one more day.

Harry Reid trumps a 5-year Kumbaya chorus

I'm not a total fan of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He can still be in the pocket of hardrock miners in Nevada too much, and I'm still not sure just how liberal he is on socioeconomic issues.

But, I know he's less of a neoliberal, or seems to be, than Preznit Kumbaya, aka Dear Leader, aka President Barack Obama. And, he's certainly not in any special love with any mythical mellifluousness of his voice. 

First, the end of the filibustering of district and circuit court nominees was needed, period. Republicans, who talk about the poor as thieving criminals, were stealing not just one and a half loaves, but 3 or 4 loaves compared to the agreement to take the possible "nuclear option" off the table in Shrub Bush's presidency.

Second, anything that makes John McCain whine, exposes his hypocrisy, and catches his tail in a vice halfway between hardcore conservative and true nutbar is fine by me.

Let's read the Schmuck Talk Express™:

"They're governed by the newer members... who have never been in a minority, who are primarily driving this issue," McCain told reporters after the vote. "They succeeded and they will pay a very, very heavy price for it."

Really? Harry Reid's been around as long as you have, John.

See, what this is, is what psychologists call "projection." Here's what McCain was actually saying:

"(House Republicans are) governed by the newer members... who have never been in a minority, who are primarily driving this issue," McCain told reporters after the vote. "They succeeded (in the government shutdown) and they will pay a very, very heavy price for it."

Glad I could translate, Schmuck Talk.

Third, the Senate GOP had become the party of obstruction and obstruction, with young turks there finding a willing ally in Yertle the Turtle, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Reid pointed that out shortly before the denouement:

On the Senate floor Thursday morning, Reid pointed out that half of the 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominees in American history have come during the Obama Administration. "These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote," Reid said. "But Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote and deny the president his team.

Half. Period. End of story.

The Atlantic notes that Reid and McConnell don't really like each other, but both have been in the Senate long enough to try patchwork fixes. But, McConnell either couldn't or wouldn't do more.

And, that's important related to this. McConnell has long crowed about his knowledge of Senate parliamentary procedure arcana, and Reid just trumped him. My take is Yertle wouldn't do more, rather

Fourth, we know Reid squeezed Vice President Joe Biden out of the picture on government shutdown talks earlier this fall. Per my Photoshopped caption, he just put Dear Leader on notice, I think, that he will play the same hardball tactics, or worse, come next year. Reid finally decided, in the Chicago language and mannerisms that Obama is allegedly supposed to understand and practice, that it was time to bring a gun to a gunfight. McCain, in negotiations, brought an inadequate counteroffer, or a water pistol, if you will.

As for long-term ramifications? Well, the GOP needs to do more work on getting its Ted Cruzes and other knucklewalkers in line. Because, if the inside-the-Beltway take is correct on how this will make the GOP madder, I think Reid is ready to fire back.

Maybe Harry can even dissuade Dear Leader from chained CPI for entitlements and other nuttery of his Catfood Commission.

Or, I hope, get the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to find people to "primary" Carl Levin, Joe Manchin, and Mark Pryor.

Jon Chait, filibuster, #Obamiacs and the reality-based community?

Remember when Democrats, riffing on Karl Rove and his minions, said they were the "reality-based community"?

Well, top Obamiac fellator Jon Chait once again proves that's not true.

His latest malfeasance? Crowing over the deal in the Senate where Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed that the Senate GOP would stop filibustering a pack of Obama nominees in exchange for the Senate not doing a "nuclear option" and entirely killing the filibuster.

Here's his first teh wrong:

Democrats had proposed to change the Senate’s rules to prevent filibusters on executive branch nominations (but not to ban filibusters of legislation or judicial nominees). They’ve won.

Nope. No win. Obama still has multiple DC Circuit Court nominees in limbo. And Reid couldn't even get an agreement to force an actual Wendy Davis-style filibuster.

Then there's this:

Republicans got one face-saving concession: Democrats have to pick new names for the NLRB. This became an issue because Obama tried to execute an end-run around Congress by appointing them to their positions when Congress was functionally, though not technically, in recess, and was struck down by the Republican-controlled D.C. circuit court. 

As at least one labor group makes clear, this isn't a "face-saving concession." Instead, the Turtle had ramped up the whole idea of the "not in recess" recess precisely for this reason. Instead, this is a clear cave for Dear Leader.

Of course, even that's not the stupidist Jon Chait-ism. This is:

The deal was brokered by John McCain, who undercut McConnell and is fully emerging, yet again, as his old centrist self.

Wow, McCain a "centrist." Only in Jon Chait's Obama Happy Meal world.

John McCain a fucking centrist. Now I've heard it all.

Once again, IOKIYAO to spout this bullshit.

It's this same Beltway-based (yes, he's in NYC, I know) mentality of politics as chess game, and Dear Leader allegedly being the master of 11-dimensional chess (NOT) that I loathe. It's the same thinking that led Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas to put personalities, followed by personal victories, over policy victories.

Gun control dead: whose fault? Obama and Reid, not just GOP

Sure, sure, sure, it's easy to fault the Senate GOP for the key element in planned new gun control legislation being as dead as a doorknob by failing cloture.

But that's more than too easy by half.

The real villians are, as should surprise no truly smart-minded person, Barack Obama with his wingman on this one, Harry Reid.

Obama? As I noted about his big post-Newtown speech, could have been addressing half this issue over four years. You don't need an ATF director (even if he didn't try to get one appointed for four years) to step up arrests and prosecutions on gun buys that are already illegal (even if the Republicans are blocking your judicial appointments).

Beyond that, with a massive White House social media operation, a massive White House website with its petition-generating software and more, Obama's vaunted Organizing for America (itself a neoliberal sellout) and its alleged skill in microtargeting during the 2012 election, and you can't bust gun nuts in the chops on Facebook, Twitter, etc.? You can't get OFA to help with astroturfing letters to the editor to more conservative papers? And, you can't get Dear Leader to better target his in-person presence outside of the Rose Garden?

Pathetic. Did the Newtown survivors not have enough money for OFA?

Beyond that, if Joe Biden supposedly deals with the GOP so well, why wasn't he being used more on this issue?

Harry Reid? As I've said repeatedly, in a crude pun, Harry Reid has no Harry Balls. His sellout on filibuster reform, which I blogged about here, is typical. All that "cots and pillows" talk? That's for mainstream Democrats lured to sleep.

But yet, while rightfully focusing their anger on Republicans in general and the Senate GOP in particular, mainstream Democrats will likely stop there.

And, in so doing, given Batman and Robin another pass.

And, I've said this one before, too.

Enabling such behavior is like a spouse/lover/family member "enabling" the behavior of an alcoholic or addict. Period.

And, for a man who won two presidential elections, he can't play 3-dimensional political chess, let alone the 11-dimensional kind. Or else, if four years of reports of "diffidence" are correct, doesn't want to.

Fine. Resign. Let JoePa Biden be the Prez. He might be better.

Harry Reid is still no Harry Balls

Don't believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's latest huffing and puffing about "nuclear option" if the Senate GOP keeps "filibustering" judicial nominations of President Obama.

He, at the start of setting chamber rules at the start of this year's Senate, just like Dear Leader with the sequester (Bush Obama tax cuts, "fill in the blank"), had the exact measure of his opposition in front of him. Both he and Dear Leader caved.

It's all kabuki. Throw in a use or two of "respecting the traditions of the Senate," an incantation or two of "world's greatest deliberative body," and nothing's happening.

Well, not quite true.

If you've donated/contributed before, you'll be getting a mailing, or an emailing, soon from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, asking for your support in fighting the filibusterers.

Harry Reid, Nary Balls

Why do people now say that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is going to further change Senate filibuster rules?

The Senate GOP hasn't changed its stripes since the start of the term, when Harry the Ballless passed on making substantive changes when it would have been relatively easy to do so.

But, neolib-type Obamiac/Democratiac folks like Talking Points Memo bring up this tired old song again.

So, Harry Reid, Dick "Dick" Durbin, et al? Fool the Obamiac/Democratiac types once ... keep on trying, I guess!

And, TPM in general moved from too much old-time blog to too much online newspaper without an op-ed section. That said, is Josh Marshall still running gushing posts of slideshows from official White House photography?

Raise your hand if you thought Harry Reid had balls

Instead of passing pseudo-filibuster reform.

If your hand was raised, you probably think Dear Leader is actually going to do all that gun control stuff, and that Lanny Breuer's replacement will actually crack down on the banksters. (Tough hires at the SEC may look great, but that's just civil enforcement, folks.)

 Enjoy two more years of incremental neoliberalism!

Meanwhile, the "pro forma" Senate session may need as much reforming as the filibuster which Harry Reid pretended to touch. I don't know if SCOTUS will uphold the appellate court ruling or not, but this is a biggie on balance of powers issues. (More here from the LA Times; use "porn mode" to defeat the paywall as needed.)

The big question is, which is not clear, is will the appellate court ruling, if it stands, invalidate the NLRB rulings made since the most recent recess appointments? If it does, then we damn well better have some liberal groups suing over every Bush-era recess appointment, too.

Yes, that would be boatloads of chaos, but, better that than letting a one-sided ruling stand.

Team Obama vs. Mitch McConnell, round two

Actually, per the photo above, it won’t be just Team Obama trying to work with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, aka the Turtle, during Obama’s second administration. The Wicked Warlock of the West, for this story line, will definitely impact the three gents in the picture, in large part through his promise to continue being an obstructionist.

First, Tin Man John Boehner. He’s got an even more radical GOP in the House of Representatives for the next Congress than he’s had the past two years. And, the only way he gets re-elected as Speaker is to suck up to them even more. Even if he wants to deal with Obama on a somewhat more moderate basis, and House rules don’t allow for a Speaker to be unelected, he is going to have a tough time finding compromise. That includes on the “sequester cliff” that is allegedly ahead, even though Obama’s own Catfood Commission idea is partially responsible.

A possible “silver lining” for Obama would be if he’s finally learned how to “work” Congress and can peel off moderate conservative Republicans (there are no truly moderate House Republicans) on some issues.

Arkansas Dorothy? I wasn’t totally joking. By the end of 2013, her public comments, and public interactions, will tell us more about whether or not she intends to seek the nomination in 2016, and if so, what her angle will be. Otherwise, the only woman I could think of to Photoshop was Nancy Pelosi, and couldn’t figure out a Mitch McConnell angle for her. In hindsight, Sen. Betty Crocker, Dianne Feinstein, would have been great. But, she’s not that recognizable.

But, since Nate Silver says Hispanic demographics and other things may give Dems a 3 percentage point advantage in popular vote split to winning 270 electoral votes, Hilary has to be entertaining sugar plum ideas about 2016.

Scarecrow Barry? Regular readers of my blog know my issues with him, and they start with him not having the gonads to stand up to Mitch the Turtle, on the one hand, and on the other, believing that he can charm birds out of the trees with his voice, messianic skills, etc. A sidebar to that issue is that I believe he’s overrated as an orator. Ironically, I think that is partially due to the “soft bigotry of low expectations” from following the oratorical disaster who first uttered those words, George W. Bush.

The Cowardly Reid? He raised Senate filibuster rules reform issues two years ago. Yes, it was partially old lions on his side of the aisle, as well as the GOP’s, who resisted. Fresh blood might go along. Some Democrats might say, “but what if we want to us it.” Problem is, you never have, not like the Turtle, and like junior Scarecrow Barrys, you never will.

Let’s see if he stands by his new promise to raise the issue.

Even Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute favors filibuster reform. He says start with requiring the minority party to have 40 warm bodies available to block cloture when they threaten filibuster would be a good starting point.

#Reid - #Romney: #PolitiFact whiffs with 'Pants on Fire'

Between deliberately slapping ESPN in the face at times just to prove it's a good contract/consultant ombudsman, between financially affiliated St. Petersburg Times getting ready to call itself the Tampa ("Bay, if you will") Times while the Tampa Tribune still publishes, and other things, I'm beyond skeptical to cynical about both the paper and the media institute.


The latest? Its/their PolitiFact have awarded the claim that the GOP wants to kill Medicare the lie of the year, then said that the raft of objections to that award is all just from liberals being in an echo chamber.


Oh, technically, the GOP doesn't want to directly kill Medicare. But, privatization of it? Everybody with a brain knows that is exactly what will happen.


Basically, PolitiFact descends into he said/she said journalism:

We stand by our story and our conclusion that the claim was the most significant falsehood of 2011. We made no judgments on the merits of the Ryan plan; we just said that the characterization by the Democrats was false.

That's exactly the problem: Politifact made no judgment on the merits of the Ryan plan. Krugman's right: RIP PolitiFact. And, as far as I am concerned, everything else in the Poynter/St. Pete Times stable.

Update, Aug. 8: If there is any truth to this, Markos Moulitsas (Kos) may well be on the right track, that Jon Huntsman Sr., father of the GOP presidential candidate and former Utah gov, is Reid's source. It's an inter-Mormon connectedness source (and an inter-Mormon grudge — don't forget how Huntsman Jr. felt about Romney) who has place, time, connections, more.

#Debtmaggedon - Obama shafts House Dems blows McConnell

Here's where many a Member of Congress stands:

"I don't want my hands on (Debtmaggedon.)"

Those were the words, in part, of North Carolina Democrat G.K. Butterfield:

“I wouldn’t call it anger, but we are perplexed that it has turned out like it has. But we’ve run out of options and we know the consequences. I’ve heard horror stories from the Great Depression. I don’t want my fingerprints on that.”

Well, thanks to Preznit Kumbaya's surrender on the Bush Obama tax cuts last December, along with the asymmetric warfare of tea partiers, you're being forced to put your fingerprints on something that may cause a second depression as long-lasting as the current one.

Because, Mr. Butterfield, a second recession appears more likely. That's even as Wall Street, in hypocrisy mode, both worries about the effects of these cuts and kvetches about the deficit at the same time.

Those same markets don't like the economy as it is, and now that eurozone problems are becoming more pronounced in Italy, an economy too big to get the Greece treatment, they're more worried there too.

Meanwhile, Rep. Butterfield and other Dems are going to be put on the hook for two votes, the second coming just as 2012 and elections loom, as this NYT graphic of the process illustrates. Technically, it's not for the debt ceiling, but on how to address the debt ceiling, but in spirit, this is another thing Obama said he opposed ... and now doesn't.

Surrender? This is Yalta, or the stereotypical story of Yalta.

Meanwhile, back to Democrats, and back to what this means.

In his excellent analysis, Nate Silver points out that, in making this deal, Obama pissed off Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, having long ago pissed off House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi by largely freezing her out of the process.

As for Obama? Most the heavy budget hits start in 2013. Should he be re-elected, he's already hoist himself and his policy options by his own fiscal petard. Were it not so sad for the country as a whole, I'd laugh at the schadenfreude.

Back to other Democrats and the top-linked story. At least one leading black Democrat, Elijah Cummings, is already prepared to hold his nose and vote yes.

Pelosi? Well ... not yet, at least not for public comment.

“I look forward to reviewing the legislation with my caucus to see what level of support we can provide,” she said in a statement.

Whether a Raul Grivalja type really wants to vote no, and whether he can cross hands, and hold his nose, and get enough tea partiers and progressive Democrats to combine to sink the deal, I don't know, either.

Raul, here's what Team Obama thinks of you, anyway:

Senior White House officials said they were hopeful that Congressional leaders from both sides would manage to sell the deal to their parties. While “there are some Democrats who simply don’t believe in the necessity of deficit reduction,” one administration official said, “most do. I think it’s important as a party to show Americans that we’re serious about deficit reduction.”

So, go ahead, Raul, make his day.

The person who really logrolled Preznit Kumbaya, in the vulture-like fashion so typical of him? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who else. In 16 months, he'll be majority leader, and Obama just hoisted his second term by yet another petard.

Obama otherwise failed to get around a balanced budget amendment, and failed to get around having some sort of debt-related vote again before elections.

Grover Cleveland? Jimmy Carter? Buck Buchanon maybe? Unless you're an Obamiac who continues to blind him/herself to reality, none of this should surprise you. He's only done it at least half a dozen times on major issues, as documented here. The stimulus, health care, the Bush Obama tax cuts, immigration,

In Hobbitton: Reid, Boehner, Cantor and the mythic Ob A'Ma at #Debtmaggon

Harry Reid went Up the Hill to the House of Boehner, the Last Unfriendly House in TPVille. The evil Cantor saw him and began slavering "my precioussss, my preciousss, my precioussss balanced budget amendment." The mythical shapechanger Ob A'Ma was reported to be in the land, and the evil Cantor shuddered at the mention of his name. He refused to see that Ob A'Ma had already crafted his own Ring of Catfood to bind them all. Blinded by his lust for the preciousss, Cantor could not see that Ob A'Ma had voluntarily surrendered many of the powers of his ring to the dwellers of TPVille.

#Debtmageddon: Boehner passes DOA bill

Techically, the sticking pile of crapola that just passed the House does meet President Obama's requirement of pushing the debt ceiling issue past the 2012 elections - with one big catch.

The House plan would raise it by $900 billion, allowing the government to pay its bills for about six more months, but with another $1.6 trillion increase possible if the House and Senate agree — by a two-thirds vote — to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Boehner knows that's not going to happen. Tea partiers in the House GOP know the same. So, Boehner's final bill is all about posturing. This turkey will die in the Senate, even if the antiquated rules there mean we have to wait until Monday for it to die.

Of course, that means a full weekend of additional posturing by both halves of the duopoly, while we wait to see, and ponder, how many House Republicans will sign off on Harry Reid's bill if it passes the Senate.

Of course, that's a big if right there. What if the GOP does the fake filibuster threat? Will Reid force the Senate GOP into an actual filibuster? Does Mitch McConnell really want to go down that road?

And, what if Team Obama can pick off enough House Republicans to get Reid's bill passed? What happens to those folks within their own caucus? And, are House Dems dumb enough to try to recruit any of them as blue dogs?

But that's all about political theater. Let's look at political realities.

The Reid bill is little better.

Whether as debt theater, or as what the country really needs, it's little better.

Alleged savings from Iraq and Afghanistan? Please. With the Peace Prize Prez who hasn't met a war on his watch that is, per his 2002 non-antiwar speech, "rash and stupid"?

Medicare savings? Not a chance. Not when, year after year, Congress votes not to implement tighter Medicare payments to doctors.

And, there's many more alleged deficit cuts in both Reid's bill and Boehner's that aren't real cuts.

But, true progressives know those are secondary issues.

#Debtmageddon: Cantor & petards, Boehner & paybacks, more

Eric Cantor says that the fault of default will all be Harry Reid's if the Senate doesn't immediately pass a House deficit-cutting bill.

Not so fast, there, Cochise. You, John Boehner and the rest of the House GOP still can't get your own bill passed on your side of the Capitol.

You unleashed the wingnut/tea partiers like Michele Bachmann. Now you have to live with her intransigence.

Meanwhile, as tea partiers continue to oppose Boehner's bill, it looks like the Speaker does know one thing: paybacks will be hell. Ohio wingnut Jim Jordan reportedly will be redistricted out of his district, with Boehner's blessing.

That said, other than punting further decisions past the 2012 elections, it is true that there's not a huge amount of difference between Boehner's plan and Reid's. That shows just how much politics is involved, namely the politics of wanting to repoliticize the debt issue next year.

But, the ultimate blame for that is Preznit Kumbaya's. He hasn't explained how much the recession has cut tax collections. At the same time, he's made Bush's wars his own and expanded them.

For Republicans who accuse him of playing politics with this, to the degree he is, he's playing at Double-A ball level at best. Of course, that's because he's addicted to compromise.

I think Obama actually believes people are that rational. I guess teaching at University of Chicago had too many Chicago School economists rub off on him.

At the same time ... NOT kicking the debt ceiling down the road past November 2012 could put Mitt Romney on the spot. (Or whomever gets the GOP nod.) That said, Obama might muff that, too.

#Debtmageddon roundup for July 25

President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner remain at loggerheads, continuing to offer different plays (with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan looking more and more like a surrogate carrying water for Obama).

Both Boehner and Reid have "no new revenues" plans.

The big diff is that Boehner's doesn't kick this past 2013. (Of course, most countries don't have a "debt ceiling" anyway and we didn't before 1917.)

Boehner's short term plan could be bad politics for the GOP if enacted. You want Obama saying "we can't pay Social Security in, say, August 2012?) as well as just stupid.

But, given the way Obama in particular and many Democrats have acted on past issues, why shouldn't John of Orange hold out hope he can further wear down Preznit Kumbaya?

And, maybe part of the problem is that the GOP doesn't do math. John of Orange's "two-step solution" actually has five steps.

More than that, Boehner's continuing to tie a balanced-budget amendment vote to his plan shows how hostage he is to tea partiers. And, yet, they STILL don't like his latest offering. I would say tea partiers are Newt Gingrich of shutdown fame on steroids, but even that isn't right. Tea partiers are like shutdown-Newt on meth.

And, they lie even worse than Newt, too. Here's Ohio's Jim Jordan:

“The credit rating agencies have been clear that no matter what happens with the debt limit, the U.S. will lose its AAA credit rating unless we produce a credible plan to reduce the debt by trillions of dollars.

Nope. Rather, Moody's et al have said AAA is gone unless the debt ceiling is raised now and in a responsible manner. A balanced budget amendment, if passed, could lead to an even worse ratings tank at some point in the future.

Meanwhile, Boehner is trying to get Limbaugh's support. Whether against obama or against tea partiers, I'm not sure. maybe both.

Further proof of nuttery? Tea partier fave Steve King of Iowa wants to impeach Obama if we default.

Folks, we're going to have a default. Accept it. Now, whether Obama invokes the "full faith and credit" clause and/or 14th Amendment when Aug. 2 comes without a deal, who knows.

But, I'm giving 50-50 odds right now that we're going to have a default. No, that's not just me. ABC's "The Note" says 40 percent.

Update: First, Andrew Leonard doubts Obama will pull a 14th, or that it would settle much if he did. He's probably right on the impeachment angle; don't know about the rest.

Second, per Salon, Charles Greenstein has this to say about the "too mild for tea partiers" Boehner plan:

House Speaker John Boehner's new budget proposal would require deep cuts in the years immediately ahead in Social Security and Medicare benefits for current retirees, the repeal of health reform's coverage expansions, or wholesale evisceration of basic assistance programs for vulnerable Americans.

The plan is, thus, tantamount to a form of "class warfare." If enacted, it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history.

That default likelihood might be creeping north of 50 percent.

One #HarryReid national debt clusterfuck coming right up!

The Washington Post reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the mastermind behind what could be just such a clusterfuck.

He wants to combine elements of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's "let's punt the debt decisions off to Obama in 2012" idea with a Congressional national debt commission, similar to the military base closures commission of the 1990s. Combine that with Dems like Reid still trying to out-deficit-hawk some GOPers, and we get this trifecta.

First, the sign-off on McConnell's plan:

Reid confirmed that discussions are focused on what McConnell has called “Plan B”: an elaborate legal framework to raise the debt limit by $2.5 trillion that would place the entire political burden for the unpopular move on Obama.

Followed by Dems wanting more spending cuts:

Unveiled earlier this week, McConnell’s plan included no mechanism to force the sharp spending cuts that Republicans have demanded in exchange for voting to lift the debt limit. But in a sign of the unusual political times, Democrats said they were reluctant to go along with that proposal and are pressing to add roughly $1.5 trillion in cuts to government agencies to the measure.

Topped by the debt commission:

Talks were also underway over a plan to appoint 12 lawmakers from both parties to draft a long-term framework to stabilize the national debt. The new debt committee would be given a deadline, and its recommendations would be fast-tracked to a vote in the House and Senate without amendment, similar to the process used to close military bases.

Late Thursday, McConnell told a radio interviewer that the new debt-reduction panel would “probably be part of the bill” and that it would likely be asked to issue its report by the end of the year.

Let's unpackage this whole craptacular bag.

First, "pulling a McConnell." Are Senate Dems that worried about getting blamed for a default that they'll throw Obama under the bus? The sight of Obama and Reid shadow-boxing each other politically would have a certain attractiveness, were the stakes not so high.

Second, besides the uncuttable, sacrosanct Department of Defense not being on the table, what IS on the table?

Third, we've already seen Obama's Catfood Commission. Reid's Denture Commission, or whatever cynical name we want to give to it, will surely be worse, and more politicized. Note that McConnell said it should report back by the end of the year, just in time for political fireworks.

I'll be waiting for the Serious People in the DC Village and the NYC adjunct to applaud this.

Harry Reid, the man who makes Obama look 'manly'

The one Democrat with even fewer cojones than Barack Obama? (Not counting Blue Dogs in the House, who actually have cojones, but, they have deliberately parked them on the other side of the party line divide.)

You and I both know it’s Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Now, with Obama, he sold one of his nuts to Wall Street for neoliberal Democratic “purposes” and campaign cash that let him snooker John McCain and run for president without public campaign dollars, and he sold the other to Rahm Emanuel, the same “mastermind” of recruiting all those Blue Dogs.

That, at least, we know.

Harry Reid? I’m not even sure he sold his anywhere. I think they just shriveled.

That said, it’s not 100 percent his fault. The Batman-and-Robin duo of ObamNuel put Reid’s cojones in a vice on previous issues, including the stimulus and, above all, health care “reform.”

But, then, if Reid wins, but Senate numbers sink low enough, who would challenge him, and how good of a replacement would they be? Whip Dick Durbin, for better or worse, would theoretically be more attuned to Obama, but perhaps a bit more able to “push” him, at least on the edges. Policy chair Byron Dorgan may not get re-elected. Conference secretary Patty Murray’s never been talked up as a leadership type. I could see Chuck Schumer angling for the job, and he’d be worse than Reid in kowtowing to Wall Street, but, given that he pushed for a tax vote, and can be feisty overall, he wouldn’t be the worst. Feinstein might be interested, but Californians running both houses probably wouldn’t fly, and ugh on Sen. Betty Crocker anyway.

Her stance on the tax vote? Tone deaf:

Feinstein, whose home-state Democratic colleague, Barbara Boxer , is locked in a battle for re-election, said she opposes taking a tax cut vote before the election. “I actually believe taking a vote on taxes right before the election is a mistake — and I’m not up,” she said. “Because the message can be manipulated.”

Dooooohhhhhh, you cabeza de vaca! YOUR PARTY can be the one manipulating the message! I agree with a blogger who said every Democrat who was in office before 1994 but has spent the majority of his or her career, or nearly that, in the post-Gingrich House/Senate, acts like they’ve been pistol-whipped or something.

That said, back to possible Reid challengers.

Jim Webb is the one other Democrat I could see making a leadership move, and he doesn’t thrill me either.

And, what’s with the claim that Barbara Boxer, of all people, was among those who pushed to push back any tax cut vote? Sounds like her ovaries shrank.

David Broder’s self-righteous budget hand-wringing

All that and more are in the latest column of the man Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just recently derided as the retiree who rites an occasional column.

And rightly so, on Reid’s derision. Broder refuses to accept the word of the Congressional Budget office about the bill. Plus, most of the people and groups whose word he DOES accept want to privatize Medicare and Social Security, to boot.

Beyond that, where were Broder’s budget concerns when Bush gutted the estate tax? Went to war on off-budget spending? Rammed through Medicare Part D on budget lies?

I hear crickets.