tonnyb's Blog

Chris Dodds is Trying to Stop Fillibuster Rule Changes

2010-08-04T18:55:30Z

Senator Chris Dodd is full of it. After a meeting with ten Senate freshman, Dodd make the following comment.

"I made a case last night to about ten freshman senators, you know, you want to turn this into a unicameral body? What's the point of having a Senate? If the vote margins are the same as in the House, you might as well close the doors,"

Making the Senate "majority rules" would not make the Senate the same as the House. The Senate would still function in a more deliberate manner as Senators are elected every six years, they don't have the same political timetable that Representatives have. Senators also represent a broader constituencies and have more to consider politically than Representatives do.

There may be a good reason to keep things as they are, but this certainly isn't one of them.

Mary Landreau's Oil Company Bailout

2010-05-07T13:18:17Z

Senator Menendez is trying to raise the cap on oil company liability for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill from 75 million to 10 billion. Senator Landreau opposes it. BP's 2010 first quarter profits was about 6 billion dollars. Louisiana economy is tied to the gulf oil industry and Senator Landreau gets lots of money from the oil industry.

Louisiana gets $1.78 for every $1.00 they give to the federal government. Perhaps she believes the federal government should pay for BP's mistake.

DEMOCRATIC MESSAGING: KEEP and DELETE CAMPAIGN

2010-02-26T20:59:50Z

Democrats are once again having trouble explaining the passage of the current HCR bill that the polls say the public doesn't like. They are also trying to justify the use of reconciliation to complete the process. Our Democratic friends need some help.

Here are suggestions for a simplified "talking point" message that will help explain both.

We could call it the "Keep and Delete" strategy.

To explain reconciliation and completion of the bill, Democrats can say they are "using reconciliation to KEEP the popular parts and DELETE the rest."

While Republicans are trying to paint reconciliation as a bad thing, this sound bite repaints reconciliation as a good thing. Its similar to "In with good and out with the bad."

To explain the passage of the bill, Democrats can simple say they are voting to "KEEP the popular parts and DELETE the rest."

Its simple, media friendly, easy to remember, easy to understand and it even rhymes.

What do you think? If you have any ideas, considering posting them in comments and recommend if you think this will help.

Obama responds to birthers

2010-02-04T14:28:31Z

This morning at the prayer breakfast. Obama said "that you could certainly challenge my policies without question my faith. Or for that matter, my citizenship."

The audience applauded.

Wall Street Journal Calls for Glass-Steagall like Restrictions, Obama Finally Sees the Light

2010-01-21T20:40:36Z

Here is the quote

"A better idea is to do the hard policy work of creating a plan that...separates traditional banking from hedge-fund trading, as Bank of England Governor Mervyn King and former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volker have suggested."

In other words separate high risk banking from commercial banking. The Wall Street Journal had previously supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 and has touted the benefits of its repeal since then.

Volker and King have been pushing this over the pass year. Volker had been marginalized by Obama and his economic team. That is until today when Obama called for restrictions on high risk investment by commerical banks. Obama, calling it the Volker Rule, proposed that

"[commercial] banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers."

I think the message of the Mass Senate defeat may have gotten through to him.

Post Election and Mid-December Polls Showed Public not Interested in Health Mandate w/o Public Option or Medicare Buy-In

2010-01-21T14:30:13Z

Republicans and the many in the Media are desperately trying to frame the Massachusetts loss as caused by big government spending and the public dislike for healthcare reform. Controversy sells and the media needs it to sell itself. But the facts is that Mass Voters protested weak Wall Street and Healthcare policies. Said another way, Mass voters protested the pro-Wall Street and pro-insurance health care reform policies of the Obama adminstration.

A Research 2000 poll conducted the day after the Massachusetts election shows that the biggest issue that motivated voters was healthcare reform and that the lack of a public option hurt Democrats chances for holding on to that seat.

The poll also found that of the Obama backers surveyed who voted for Brown (18%) "82 percent said they favored a public option for insurance coverage, with 14 percent opposed," while the ones who sat out the election favored a public option by a margin of 86% to 7%.
The findings here, of course, would seem to be evidence to throw very cold water on the notions being proffered today by the GOP/Tea Baggers, the DLC/Democrats and our friend Frank Schaeffer, suggesting that Dems should pull back on a Progressive agenda, rather than (finally) actually push for one!

A mid-December poll conducted by Research 2000 found the public is not buying the 30 million more insured hype being advanced by the Senate bill's promoters. The survey asked

If the government requires 30 million uninsured Americans to buy health insurance, and gives subsidies to some Americans to help them afford this insurance, would it be accurate to say this plan, quote, "PROVIDES" 30 million Americans with health insurance?
36% responded Yes, 48% voted no.

The bill forces everyone to buy and promises subsidies for some.

Respondents overwhelmingly say Obama didn't fight Lieberman hard enough, 63% to 29%. Reform with public option or medicare expansion won 59% to 31% support. Mandates without a public option or medicare expansion loss 33% to 56%.

Here are some regional cross tab data on the following question. "Would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?"

	--For--	Oppose--	Not Sure
Northeast	--73%	--17%--	10%
South	--45%	--43%--	12%
Midwest	--62%	--29%--	9%
West	--61%	--31%--	8%

Interesting to note that even in the South, were the base of the Teabaggers reside, a Public Option gets a fair degree of support.

Seems to me that Democrats trying to pass legislation and promising to explain it after its pass is playing "too cute by half." The American public through the historically liberal Massachusetts voters have had their say. Lets see if Democrats get the message.

The Republican Wing of the Democratic Party

2009-12-16T17:46:52Z

Enuf said.

Another Reason for Liberals to Oppose Lieberman's "Healthcare Reform"

2009-12-16T17:09:45Z

There are good reasons for opposing the bill. Josh mentioned yesterday that both the House and Senate bills don't allow for enough enrollment to have much effect on premium costs. That alone is cause for opposition. Perhaps those hoping for a true public option have been willing to allow a weak PO to pass, with the intention of improving the bill over time. But now with no public option and no medicare buy-in, there is nothing in the bill that expands public medical coverage and by extension, nothing to build on.

That said, there is another reason for liberals to oppose the bill.

Liberals/progressives have labored under a negative image since the late '60s. Some of it is deserved. A lot of it isn't. But one persistent fact about liberals that has marginalized them over the last 40 years, is their willingness to give in. On the other side of the political spectrum, the extreme right appear to be willing to sink the GOP if they can't force their beliefs on the rest of the country.

Well, here is an opportunity of liberals to regain some real power. If they oppose this bill, it will no longer be assumed that they will be an automatic vote. Going along will only reinforce their current reputation.

Joe Takes a Scalpel to Health Reform & Delivers for the Insurance Industry

2009-12-15T12:41:32Z

Mandatory insurance. No competition. I wonder if the rumored provision that requires 90% of premiums collected to go to paying medical care will survive Joe's scalpel?

I wonder if their will be a rebellion against this pro-insurance reform bill? The fact is that, without cost controls, the insurance companies can simple charge more to cover all the great new provisions that this reform bill will contain. We will get better provisions but we will end up paying for it, plus higher executive bonuses.

The insurance industry is big in Connecticut. Through the years, Joe has received over 1 million dollars from them. There have been questions about Joe's relationship with the industry from his years as Connecticut's Attorney General. Is it any surprise that Joe would put his and their interest ahead of the country's?

Ed Schultz recently stated

"you have got the wife working on behalf of the industry that's lining the pockets of the senator who has now come out against the public option."

According to Wikipedia, Joe's wife

"... worked for the lobbying company, APCO Associates, that had many pharmaceutical and healthcare corporations among its clients, as well as four major drug companies such as Pfizer. In March 2005, Hadassah was hired by Hill & Knowlton as "senior counselor" in the firm's "health care and pharmaceuticals practice." Hadassah's close relationship with pharmaceutical and healthcare corporations while her husband introduced legislation benefiting these exact companies has raised questions about improprieties and conflict of interest."

Allowing medicare to have a buy-in option would reduce a significant part of the mandatory market congress is giving to the insurance industry. Joe won't have it. So out it goes.

While they're at it, maybe they can remove 'mandatory' from the bill.

WSJ Tacks to the Left of Obama on Glass-Steagall

2009-11-24T15:05:26Z

A WSJ editorial, No Bondholder Left Behind, is advocating for the separation of risky financial services companies from commercial banking.

It is the same position advocated by Obama adviser and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, Bank of England Chairman Mervyn King, former Citigroup CEO John S. Reed, progressive economists, James K. Galbraith and Dean Bakerand and Nobel laureate economist Joseph E. Stiglitz.

Glass-Steagall Act is a depression era law passed in 1933 that prohibited commercial banks from owning riskier financial companies or engaging in those types of activities. The Act was weakened by Reagan and Congress in the 80's and repealed in 1999, by legislation promoted by former Senator Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic adviser during the 2008 campaign, and signed by President Bill Clinton.

"Some economists state that the 1999 legislation spearheaded by Gramm and signed into law by President Clinton -- the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- was significantly to blame for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis."

So far, the Obama administration has chosen to regulate these banks instead of breaking them up. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is the only prominent voice in the administration advocating for a return to Glass-Steagall.

Update: The WSJ editorial states in the last paragraph,

"... the other way to reduce moral hazard is to limit certain kinds of risk-taking by institutions that hold taxpayer-insured deposits, as suggested by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and Bank of England Chairman Mervyn King. This has its own problems. But unlike the emerging plans in Washington, it is credible and would give capitalism a fighting chance to survive regulatory reform."

"Institutions that hold taxpayer-insured deposits" refers to banks. "Certain kinds of risk-taking" refers to the type of derivatives created by the wall street's gambling houses.

The Paul-Grayson Amendment - Change Coming from an Unexpected Source?

2009-11-20T14:01:53Z

From the Huffington Post

"In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter."

I am an Obama supporter. I worked on the campaign making calls and donated substantially to it. I must say I have been disappointed by their unwillingness to deal with wall street in a substantial way. The media meme is that Obama's drop in the polls its all about jobs jobs jobs. I don't think so.

With the financial health of so many Americans either in shambles, on the brink, or threatened by increasing unemployment, you would think that someone would stand up for the working class. I think many Americans believed Obama would be different and would act on their behalf. But IMO, from a distance, the new administration's handling of some aspects of the financial crisis seemed like nothing has "changed."

Some of the government regulators who oversaw the worse financial collapse since the Great Depression, were given prominent positions in the new administration. The lack of action on excessive bonus pay, consumer protection, future regulation and too-big-too-fail has put into question whether or not this administration had our best interests at heart.

I think the combination of these factors have eroded Obama's support. Obama's administration's action in these matters appear to defend the wealthy instead of the majority of Americans. The money we used to bail out the banks is not being used to help America's small businesses and by extension, American workers, as was promised. Instead, It is finding its way into more profitable short term investments that do nothing for the average worker.

If Obama spent the past 9 months working on job creation, a focus of dubious value, IMO, it would have little positive effect on his poll numbers, if at the same time wall street bonus pay and regulation, consumer protection, and too-big-too-fail were handled in the same manner as they have been so far.

I realize that my comments might not be well received by some who participate on this blog. But, unlike the Fox News crowd, I think we need to be critical when criticism is justified.

An Alternative Method for Ending a Filibuster

2009-11-20T04:35:08Z

We've all heard about the 60 vote rule involved with reaching cloture. You need 60 votes to place a bill on the floor, where the bill can be debated, and amendments can be offered, debated and voted on. You need 60 votes to end debate. The general impression is that 60 votes is the only way to end the debate and conduct a vote on a bill. But in fact, that is not the case. There is another way to end debate that requires time, perseverance and 51 votes. Maybe its because Senators are too lazy to fulfill the responsibilities involved with filibustering that this other method is rarely mentioned.

According to Senate rules on the filibuster, debate on a bill can continue until everyone who wants to speak get two chances to speak. Once all 41 or so Senators opposed to the bill get to speak twice, the filibuster is over.

Under Rule XIX, unless any special limits on debate are in effect, Senators who have been recognized may speak for as long as they wish. They usually cannot be forced to cede the floor, or even interrupted, without their consent. (There are some exceptions: for example, Senators can lose the floor if they violate the Senate's standards of decorum in debate, or, as discussed later, they may be interrupted for the presentation of a cloture motion.) ...

Rule XIX places no limit on the length of individual speeches or on the number of Senators who may speak on a pending question. It does, however, tend to limit the possibility of extended debate by its provision that "no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate."

A legislative day ends only with Senate adjournment. The leadership can "recess" the Senate at any time, instead of "adjourning" it, in order to allow opponents of a bill to exhaust their allotted opportunities to speak. A session recessed overnight, would continue the next day and be considered part of the same legislative day. In this manner, a legislative day could potentially last weeks or months.

I don't know if it came to that, if Democrats would stick together through weeks or month's of filibustering. It wouldn't take only 51 Senators to keep the process moving forward.

Senators often can circumvent the two-speech rule by making a motion or offering an amendment that constitutes a new and different "Therefore, the two speech rule requires not a mechanical test, but the application of the rule of reason." Riddick's Senate Procedure, pp. 782-783. debatable question. For example, each Senator can make two speeches on each bill, each first-degree amendment to a bill, and each second-degree amendment to each of those amendments as well.

Amendments can be used as a delaying tactic. The amendments don't have to be germane to the bill being debated. But they can be defeated by 51 votes to "table" the amendment. Tabling it defeats it and discussion on the bill can resume. The document linked here, is a senate.gov pdf that discusses in detail the rules and practical application of the filibuster. Good reading to you all.

P.S. - As an aside, during the 20th century, the filibuster was used most often by Southern Democrats -- the predecessors of much of today's Republican base -- to block civil rights and anti-lynching legislation.They have a formidable history of using it to maintain the status quo.

On Comparing Obama to a 9/11 Terrorist, Part Deux!

2009-11-14T21:10:35Z

Last Tuesday, Republican State Senator's David Schultheis tweeted "Don't for a second think Obama wants what is best for U.S. He is flying the US Plane right into the ground at full speed. Let's Roll."

His statements were taken by some, including some from his own party as a reference to the 9/11 plane crash.

The Denver Post reported that State Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, demanded Wednesday that Schultheis retract his statement, calling it "appalling." Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, agreed the statement was inappropriate. "Dave shouldn't have gone there," Penry said.

5280, Denver's Magazine reported "Ed Kowalski, a director for the New York-based 9/11 Families for a Secure America, believes Schultheis was "clearly" referring to Flight 93 when he used the words of the passengers who fought to take back the ill-fated plane: "Let's roll.""Kowalski also disagrees with many of Obama's policies but says, "Let's not cheapen what happened on Sept. 11 by making random and or ill-fated comparisons to current policy."

There are some folks you just don't see the connection between Schultheis's tweet and 9/11. Why would anyone take the state Senators statement as a reference to 9/11? I'll respond in Q&A form.

Q. When was a US plane flown into the ground at full speed?
A. On September 11th, 2001.

Q. Are there any other examples of a US plane being flown into the ground?
A. Not among the major crashes that get National Press.

Q. Aren't other major plane crash equivalent to "flying the US Plane right into the ground at full speed"?
A. No

Q. Why aren't they?
A. Because, with the exception of 9/11, there is no evidence that a major crash was the result of "flying" a plane into the ground at full speed. The major crashes are the result of equipment failure and/or pilot error. They are not "flown into" the ground, they "fall to" the ground. In addition, since most crashes occur while taking off or landing, these crashes occur at low speed or stall speeds, not at full speed.

Q. Why would anyone want to fly a plane into the ground?
A. The "only" know nationally covered case of intentionally flying a plane into the ground occurred on 9/11. That was the result of terrorism.

Q. Besides, the Democratic President and the Republican minority leaders of the Arizona State Senate, Ed Kowalski, a director for the New York-based 9/11 Families for a Secure America, are there any other pertinent people who see this as a reference to 9/11?
A. Yes.

Q. Who?
Republican State Senator's David Schultheis.

Q. What a minute, isn't that the guy who made the statement in the first place?
A. Yup.

On Comparing Obama to a 9/11 Hijacker

2009-11-13T03:23:02Z

I thought GOPer's believed in respecting the commander-in-chief? Do these folks believe in anything?

Obama Rejects Military Options: Is Obama Finally Showing Some Independence?

2009-11-12T02:38:38Z

AP is reporting that President Obama has rejected all the options that his National Security team have offered him.

From a distance, the new administration's handling of some aspects of the financial crisis seemed like nothing had "changed." Some of the government regulators who oversaw the worse financial collapse since the Great Depression, were given prominent positions in the new administration. The lack of action on excessive bonus pay, consumer protection, future regulation and too-big-too-fail financial companies has put into question whether or not this administration had our best interests at heart.

Presidents are dependent on their advisers to help them navigate the mounds of policy issues that face them on a daily basis. Those advisers also provide options to the President when action is required on his part. Many of the administration's critics question whether Obama's advisers are serving him well.

It is too early to tell. I hope this act of independence is a new beginning. It may be that the President is finally taking control of Afghanistan. Hopefully the same will occur with the issues surrounding the regulation of the financial sector.