Look who's suddenly all for passing things in the Senate with 51 votes.
In a new column entitled "Democrats can't filibuster ObamaCare repeal," Karl Rove argues that Republicans can use the budget reconciliation process to repeal the health care law with 51 votes. That's the filibuster-proof process that allowed Democrats to tweak revenue and spending measures in the greater health care law, which Republicans at the time compared to Chicago-mob style politics.
On March 1, 2010 Rove himself called that "changing rules midstream."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)At this point it's all but certain that the Democrats will be able to ratify the new START treaty before the end of the week. Yesterday was a breakthrough, as key on-the-fence Senators announced their support or near support. But the dam fully broke this morning when Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) -- the Senate's third-ranking Republican -- broke with his leadership team, including anti-START ringleader Jon Kyl, to announce his support.
"I will vote to ratify the new START treaty," Alexander said on the Senate floor. Even after the arms reductions the treaty demands, Alexander said, the US will still have enough weapons to blow "enemies" to "kingdom come."
He joins Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) as the most recent Republican to announce their intent to support the treaty; Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) is widely expected to solidify his support for the treaty as well.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Incoming Budget Committee chairman -- and fiscal commission member -- Paul Ryan (R-WI) will not be voting for the White House Fiscal Commission's report, he told reporters at a breakfast roundtable hosted by the Christian Science Monitor today.
"Obviously I'm not going to vote for it," Ryan said. "I think I pretty much telegraphed that."
Ryan was at pains to praise the commission's chairmen, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, for their efforts, but ultimately criticized the plan dramatically -- in particular, he says, because it reinforces President Obama's health care law.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The New York Times Magazine is up with this weekend's massive interview with President Obama by the paper's Peter Baker. The story in a nutshell? Obama is ready to reboot after a tough first two years in office.
From the story:
While proud of his record, Obama has already begun thinking about what went wrong -- and what he needs to do to change course for the next two years. He has spent what one aide called "a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0" with his new interim chief of staff, Pete Rouse, and his deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina. During our hour together, Obama told me he had no regrets about the broad direction of his presidency. But he did identify what he called "tactical lessons." He let himself look too much like "the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat." He realized too late that "there's no such thing as shovel-ready projects" when it comes to public works. Perhaps he should not have proposed tax breaks as part of his stimulus and instead "let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts" so it could be seen as a bipartisan compromise.
Here are some highlights from the transcript of Baker's long interview with the President.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is sending out a warning to his fellow Republicans: Stand tall against government spending this fall, and be prepared for a showdown.
"[B]efore they're replaced in January, all of the Democrats who are put out of a job in November will be able to come back and rob the nation blind," DeMint writes in the conservative National Review.
At a glance it appears DeMint is lashing out at Democrats. But his real concern is that members of his own party -- who he described last week as "retiring Republican appropriators" -- will join Democrats during the lame-duck session of Congress and pass large spending legislation to keep the government running (what's known on the Hill as an omnibus spending bill).
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Recall back in 2009, when Democrats gingerly toyed with the idea of using the 51-vote budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform in the Senate on a majority-rules basis? Republicans howled. The GOP's two top budget guys, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) in particular blasted Democrats. Gregg compared it to "running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River."
With Republicans poised for big gains in November, though, the two of them have had a change of heart. Appearing on CNBC yesterday, the two were asked "Can you use reconciliation to chip away and gradually roll back some of the unpopular Obama policies?"
Sure!
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Last week former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, who co-chairs the White House's fiscal commission, drew a storm of criticism for comparing Social Security to a "cow with 310 million tits." But Titgate isn't really about language. It's about both Simpson himself -- who has long viewed Social Security as a bloated program for spoiled old people -- and about the commission as a whole. Comprised of nine tax-averse Republicans and nine Democrats, many of whom have expressed support for Social Security changes in the past, the commission will almost certainly be biased toward benefit cuts, and away from raising taxes, when it presents its report on December 1. Below, the cast of characters who will be making the calls.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Republicans are at pains these days to present themselves as the party of fiscal austerity. They're also at pains to advertise themselves as the party that will repeal (or repeal and replace) the Democrats' new health care law.
The problem for them is that those two platforms are basically mutually exclusive. If Republicans attempt to repeal the health care bill, they'll run headlong into the Congressional Budget Office, which found that the health care bill reduces deficits by over $100 billion over its first 10 years. Repeal that, and Republicans will have to raise taxes or cut spending to keep from driving up the deficit they decry. Or they could simply ignore Congressional scorekeepers -- which is what top Republicans seem intent on doing.
"We all know that it's going to increase the deficit," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell at his weekly press availability, in response to a question from TPMDC.
For weeks, Senate Republicans have filibustered an extension of unemployment benefits on the grounds that Democrats aren't willing to cut spending or raise taxes to pay for them. At the same time, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, and Republicans want them to be renewed. For two days, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl has raised eyebrows by insisting that emergency aid to unemployed people -- what he called a "necessary evil" -- be paid for through either tax hikes or spending cuts, while the tax cuts (which mostly benefit wealthy people) not be offset in any way. Yesterday claimed that this view is shared by "most of the people in my party."
He was correct.
"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)Republicans have spent the better part of two years distancing themselves from bailouts and hitting Democrats for supporting them. But given a choice between continuing the 2008 bank bailout and regulating Wall Street, several Republicans voted last night (and almost all of them will ultimately vote) to keep the bailout alive.
Last night, in a scramble to save the bill in the wake of Sen. Scott Brown's (R-MA) objections to the conference report, Democrats worked with moderate Republicans to figure out a new way to pay for Wall Street reform. What they came up with was pretty simple: end the TARP legislation (i.e., the much-maligned bank bailout) early. Every Republican negotiator on the conference committee objected, some vociferously.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) called it "fraud on the American people."
Not to be outdone, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) called it "smoke and mirrors."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Late update: Financial reform negotiators agreed tonight on a party line vote to make fixes sought by Sens. Scott Brown, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe, changing the way the legislation will be paid for. Speaking to reporters after the impromptu conference committee session, House Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank implied strongly that he'd received assurances that the Senate now has 60 votes to pass Wall Street reform. The House will likely take the bill up tomorrow, while the Senate may have to wait until after the July 4 recess to hold its final vote.
Here's how Democrats propose to placate moderate Republicans, who've been threatening to renege on their previous support for Wall Street reform. Instead of paying for the $19 billion cost of financial regulation bill by taxing big banks, the legislation will now raise money in two ways: Ending TARP, and raising the minimum target for FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund.
Democrats took the extraordinary step this evening of reconvening the financial reform conference committee and making the switch in order to secure 60 votes for the legislation in the Senate. Brown said he'd bolt from the bill without a new pay-for, and Maine Republicans Collins and Snowe made similar threats, leaving Democrats likely vulnerable to a Republican financial reform filibuster.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) says it should be no biggie for Congress to scrap a controversial proposal in the Senate Wall Street reform bill that would prevent large financial firms from trading derivatives in-house.
Last night I asked him whether anti-Wall Street sentiment might make it more difficult for House and Senate negotiators to get rid of the so-called "spin off" plan. Gregg shrugged it off.
"I wouldn't think so, because it's logical and it's good language," Gregg said.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Perhaps the most fascinating political conundrum of the 2010 election is one faced by GOP senators, almost all of whom voted for TARP and supported some of the other bailouts in the thick of the financial crisis. The good news is that, for all their shortcomings, the bailouts did the trick, preventing a deeper economic crisis. The bad news is those bailouts are now considered political poison by the tea partying conservative base.
That puts Republicans in a strange position: unable to say the legislation failed, but at pains to distance themselves from their vote nonetheless. Over the past couple days, I've asked a number of GOP senators whether, nearly two years later, they think the bailout bill was effective. Their answers were revealing.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)Republicans--including moderates--are solidifying opposition to Democratic efforts to impose stricter regulations on Wall Street. They aren't just attacking the Democrats' financial regulatory reform bill as a vehicle that will lead to more bailouts. They're also laying the blame for the lack of GOP support for reform directly at President Obama's feet. And all the while, Republican leaders are seeking donations from major financial institutions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections.
"Right now the administration is saying 'no' to some common sense type of reforms that would strengthen financial services regulations and not affect small businesses in a negative way and allow for us to get a handle on the real problems in that industry," said Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), thought by many to be a potential swing vote on Wall Street reform. "Shame on the President."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)In the wake of the passage of health care reform, Senate Republicans say that they're less willing to work with Democrats than they were in the past--if such a thing is even possible. But at the same time, multiple key GOP senators say they're certain one major initiative--financial regulatory reform--will pass the Senate this year.
"I think it's going to be very, very difficult -- very difficult -- to get 41 members [to sustain a filibuster]," Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) said in a speech last week.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), who was tapped to serve as a Republican negotiator in an early round of the regulatory reform debate, told reporters last week he was "100 percent" certain that a major bill would pass this year.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)Senate Republicans are running out of options. As Democrats inch closer to passing health care reform, the GOPers in the upper chamber have realized they can't rely on the procedural tricks they have at their disposal in the Senate to stall or derail the process because all of the action is in the House.
So their latest plan to derail the reform legislation is more devious: Senate Republicans have embarked on a rhetorical scorched-Earth strategy about the political perils of passing health care, to sow the seeds of doubts in the minds of House Democrats in the hopes that they lose their nerve and sink the bill.
Call it Congressional psy-ops.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Scott Brown To Be Sworn In Today
Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) is expected to be sworn in today, officially bringing the Senate Republican caucus to 41 members -- and thus enabling them to block Democratic legislation -- after his victory int he special election for the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Brown had originally been scheduled to be sworn in on February 11, but demanded that this be moved up due to votes that had been scheduled to take place earlier than that.
Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama and the First Lady attended the National Prayer Breakfast at 8 a.m. ET, with Obama delivering remarks. Obama will receive the presidential daily briefing at 9:30 a.m. ET. Obama will meet at 10:40 a.m. ET with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Obama will have lunch with business leaders at 12 p.m. ET. Obama and Vice President Biden will meet at 3 p.m. ET with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and at 3:30 p.m. ET with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obama will deliver remarks and take questions at a Democratic National Committee fundraising reception at 5:45 p.m. ET, and will speak at a DNC fundraising dinner at 8 p.m. ET.
Obama: New Bin Laden Tape 'An Indication Of How Weakened He Is'
In an interview aired today on Good Morning America, President Obama said that the new purported tape message from Osama bin Laden is a sign of weakness in Al Qaeda: "Al Qaeda itself is greatly weakened from where it was back in 2000. Bin Laden sending out a tape trying to take credit for a Nigerian student who engaged in a failed bombing attempt is an indication of how weakened he is because this is not something necessarily directed by him."
Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama and Vice President Biden will receive the presidential daily briefing at 9:45 a.m. ET. Obama will meet at 10:15 a.m. ET with senior advisers, and will have lunch at 12 p.m. ET with business leaders. At 4:30 p.m. ET, Obama and Biden will meet with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
The Senate is expected to vote tomorrow on a proposal to create a bipartisan debt commission charged with reducing soaring budget deficits, which are projected to be around $1 trillion a year for the next decade.
The commission would potentially have the power to force Congress into an up-or-down vote on systematic changes to the tax code and government entitlement programs, including Medicare and Social Security. That's got a lot of progressives worried -- and mad.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Sen. Judd Gregg said RNC Chairman Mike Steele was using "foolish" language when he said Congress was "flipping the bird" at the American people.
Interviewed today on MSNBC Gregg (R-NH) called it "foolish language" and said "people are getting a little frayed down here and there has been a lot of foolish language on both sides of the aisle."
He also was asked about a Washington Times report that Steele is raking in speaking fees. He said he wasn't familiar with the issue but added a joke, "He shouldn't charge Republcian groups for it that's for sure."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Apparently not all Republicans think the most fruitful use of their time is delaying a final vote on health care reform. Early this afternoon, Republicans filed into a caucus meeting just off the Senate floor to discuss whether it makes sense to require Democrats to run out the clock, as is their right under Senate rules, or to cede back some time so that members can go home early.
Filing in, though, Republicans I spoke with seemed to think it would be best to stick around for the long haul.
Among Republicans, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has been the most adamant that the minority use all of the tools at its disposal--maximize the number of filibusters, and make sure they last as long as possible--to delay (or forestall) a final vote.
In a brief interview with TPMDC, Coburn said he will make sure the Senate stays in session until the last possible moment. "No, there's no chance," he told me.
Coburn said he would object if Democrats asked for unanimous consent to hold health care votes in more rapid succession.
Complicating factors for members is that they have to hold a vote, before the year is out, on raising the country's debt ceiling. If Republicans refuse to cede back time on health care, that vote will have to happen next week, after a very brief Christmas break. But Coburn says he's going to force the issue.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)If and when health care passes, the White House and the Congress will be tugged in two seemingly different directions. On the one hand, with unemployment in the double digits (and an election around the corner), Democrats will have to do something about jobs--and that means another spending bill. The House has already begun its work and the Senate will have to follow suit if the economy is to improve, and if Democrats want to avoid a political blood bath. But the White House, and a bipartisan bloc in the Senate, have made very clear that they'll pay equal, or greater, attention to addressing the country's perilous fiscal situation. And that could touch off yet another tug of war between liberal Democrats and centrist legislators over the country's priorities.
Last month, liberals were taken by surprise when a number of senators--including several Democrats--issued a chilling ultimatum: let us tinker with entitlement programs and taxes, they said, or we'll block raising the amount of debt the government can take on. According to Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), 11 or 12 senators have said they will not vote for must-pass legislation to raise the country's debt ceiling unless they are authorized to create an external commission with extraordinary power over Medicare, Social Security and so on.
This week, Conrad and several of his supporters unveiled their proposal, and it turns out, liberals may have had less to worry about than it seemed at first blush. Not because the members of the commission would like to be gentle to American welfare programs, but because its authors seem to have set it up to fail.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took direct aim at Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)--ranking member on the Budget Committee--for authoring a detailed memo advising Republicans on the procedural tricks they can use to delay health care legislation.
"[T]he Republican plan we've waited weeks and months to see [is] not even about health care at all," Reid said on the Senate floor this morning. "The first and only plan Senate Republicans could be bothered to draft is an instruction manual on how to bring the Senate to a screeching halt."
"The Senate might be interested to learn that the architect behind this blueprint is none other than the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, the senior Senator from New Hampshire," Reid said. "It's worth noting that this Senator - who, more than any other, often speaks publicly about how to properly use citizens' tax dollars - has now signed his name to a plan with the explicit goal of wasting the taxpayer's time and money."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)If Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) gets his way, the dilatory tactics that have marked the early days of the Senate health care debate will grow more and more severe.
"We, the minority party, must use the tools we have under Senate rules to insist on a full, complete and fully informed debate on the health care legislation - as well as all legislation - coming before the Senate," Gregg wrote in a letter to Republican colleagues yesterday. "As laid out in the attached document, we have certain rights before measures are considered on the floor as well as certain rights during the actual consideration of measures. Every Republican senator should be familiar with the scope of these rights, which serve to protect our ability to speak on behalf of the millions of Americans who depend on us to be their voice during this historic debate."
Gregg says Republicans should be prepared to filibuster every motion, "with the exception of Conference Reports and Budget Resolutions, most such motions are fully debatable and 60 votes for cloture is needed to cut off extended debate."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)With Thanksgiving recess now upon us, it seems an appropriate time to revisit the hysterical Republican whoppers and talking points about the Democratic party agenda that have dominated this Congress. Herewith a top-five list:
Number Five: Paul Ryan Draws Line On Graph
Back in the Spring, when Democrats were putting together the federal budget, House Budget Committee ranking member Paul Ryan (R-WI) released a much-mocked Republican alternative, which would have basically canceled the stimulus and instituted a spending freeze of sorts. The ideas in the Republican alternative budget were roundly rebuked by experts, but Ryan wasn't deterred. Instead of accepting defeat, he unveiled some graphs suggesting that, under Republican budgets, spending would be restrained, while under Democratic budgets, it would blow through the roof.

Except his numbers weren't based on any analysis at all. Instead, Ryan used CBO numbers through 2018 and then drew an upward-sloping line on the graph completely at random. It didn't take long for Republicans to catch on and begin claiming that Democratic policies would make government spending half of GDP before the end of the century.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Whenever a Democratic agenda item spends some time in the spotlight--be it health care or energy--Republicans do a little hocus pocus and claim that, whatever the CBO might believe, the true costs of reform are sky high. So it's no surprise that the new GOP line regarding the Senate health care bill is that it's actually three times more expensive over a 10 year window than the CBO says it will be.
Where does this number--$2.5 trillion--come from? In this USA Today counterpoint, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), cites this article in The Hill. But the article in question simply quotes Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who seems to pull the number out of thin air. "When fully implemented, it will cost $2.5 trillion," McConnell said.
And where did McConnell get this idea?
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Obama: Fort Hood Shooting Will Be Fully Reviewed
In this weekend's YouTube address, President Obama said there will be a full investigation of the shooting at Fort Hood, and whether better steps could have been taken to prevent it:
"The purpose of this review is clear: We must compile every piece of information that was known about the gunman, and we must learn what was done with that information," said Obama. "Once we have those facts, we must act upon them. If there was a failure to take appropriate action before the shootings, there must be accountability. Beyond that - and most importantly - we must quickly and thoroughly evaluate and address any flaws in the system, so that we can prevent a similar breach from happening again. Our government must be able to act swiftly and surely when it has threatening information. And our troops must have the security that they deserve."
Kirk: Dem Health Care Bill Would Make Top Taxes Worse Than France
This weekend's Republican address is by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), a candidate for President Obama's former Senate seat in 2010. Kirk attacks the Democrats on health care -- and even says it would make some Americans worse off than if they were in France:
"The Pelosi health care bill has no significant lawsuit reforms and does not guarantee your medical rights from government waiting lines or restrictions," said Kirk. "In the teeth of the Great Recession, the Pelosi bill would impose ten new taxes on the American economy. The top combined tax rate for my state of Illinois would be four percentage points higher than France."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Here are the line-ups for the Sunday talk shows this weekend:
• ABC, This Week: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
• CBS, Face The Nation: Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
• CNN, State Of The Union: White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod; Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH); Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT).
• Fox News Sunday: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY); Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
• NBC, Meet The Press: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Rev. Al Sharpton.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)As Republicans walk away from bipartisan health care negotiations and Democrats prepare to pass reforms on their own, the GOP is sharpening its rhetorical swords ahead of a big legislative fight.
"I think that would wreck our health care system and wreck the Democratic Party if they did that," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) told reporters during a Tuesday conference call. "[T]here would be a minor revolution in the country."
He's beginning to sound like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). Which is telling for a senator who's normally thought of as one of the GOP's less abrasive members. And though Alexander probably isn't the best source of information for what will or will not wreck the Democratic party, his dramatic words signal that the Republicans take the threat seriously.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)As Senate leaders begin work on a Democrat-only health care bill, they're finding themselves confronted with an unexpected irony: Though the caucus has reached an uneasy consensus around a public option that's modeled in many ways after a private insurer, it may be necessary to make the public option more liberal, and thus, more politically radioactive, if it's to overcome a number of unique procedural hurdles.
This is the needle Democrats may have to thread if they want a public option, and at the same time, want to bypass a Republican filibuster. And the key for them will be keeping conservative Democrats on board.
"A very robust public option that scores significant savings would presumably be easy to justify doing through reconciliation," says a Senate Democratic aide. "But it is still being studied whether other, more moderate versions of a public option could pass parliamentary muster."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Democratic party leaders have a message for Republicans, who are crying foul over the news that they may get shut out of the health care debate: turnabout's fair play.
In a memo that was drafted and circulated on background in April, Senate Democrats made the case that using a budget reconciliation bill to pass health care reforms is perfectly within their rights, given the Republicans' promiscuous use of the same tactic when they were in power. Excerpts of the memo were published by various news outlets back in the spring, but the memo doesn't appear to have been previously published in its entirety until now. And now, with Democrats ramping up the threat that they'll invoke the process in the fall, they're rehashing those same arguments.
"[S]hould Republicans choose not to cooperate [on health care reform], the inclusion of reconciliation instructions [in the budget] provides a backup option which could be used to prevent a filibuster and approve legislation by a majority vote," the memo reads. "[T]here is nothing unprecedented or unusual about the use of reconciliation."
Sotomayor Set To Be Confirmed Today
The Senate is expected to vote today to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Her confirmation is essentially guaranteed, as no Democrats have come out against her, and eight Republicans are now set to vote in favor of the nomination as well.
Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will meet with members of the Senate Finance Committee at 11:30 a.m. ET. He will meet with Sec. of the Treasury Tim Geithner at 3:15 p.m. ET. He will meet at 4 p.m. ET with John Brennan, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. He will speak at a 6:40 p.m. ET fundraiser in Virginia for state Sen. Creigh Deeds, the Democratic nominee for governor this year, and then speak at a 7:10 p.m. ET rally for Deeds.
A Congressional Quarterly article about GOP efforts to get conservative Democrats to oppose major legislation contains an interesting admission from Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH).
Acording to the piece, Republicans "have vowed to block, reshape or defeat a number of Democratic initiatives in coming months, even though Specter's defection has left the Senate Republican caucus with just 40 members."
But in a 99-member Senate, 40 votes are enough to keep Democrats from cutting off debate on major legislation. "Usually you need 41 votes to get anything done around here. But right now, you can do a lot with 40 votes,'' said Judd Gregg
In a 99-seat Senate, 40 votes isn't nearly enough to "get anything done." Not at all. It is rather the bare minimum necessary to make sure nothing gets done. And it explains why so many Republican senators will routinely vote against cloture on major Democratic agenda items. It's called a filibuster--and it isn't typically thought of as way to "get stuff done."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member on the Budget Committee, has an interesting position on the question of passing legislation through the budget reconciliation process. That is to say, he unequivocally opposes the procedure in all circumstances (unless those circumstances involve Republican agenda items like tax cuts). We've tracked his swings here pretty thoroughly, and noticed that he was at it again today on Fox News. Watch:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Just as a quick addendum to this post: The Senate agreed last night to send Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Judd Gregg (R-NH)--the chair and ranking member of the Budget Committee--and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) to the budget conference committee. There they will hash out all the differences between the Senate's budget and the House's.
So what does this mean for reconciliation? Recall that reconciliation is a process that allows Congress to circumvent a filibuster, and, potentially, an avenue for passing major reform with little room for obstruction or debate. It's a potentially huge deal and, at the very least, a tool that could provide Democrats tons of leverage in their pursuit of health reform through the standard legislative process. The House budget includes reconciliation "instructions", but the Senate bill does not, and the crucial question--will the final budget include reconciliation instructions?--will be settled in the conference committee.
Conrad and Gregg have made their opposition to the process known (though according to The Hill, "Conrad told reporters that he doesn't want to use reconciliation rules to pass healthcare reform but that he is feeling pressure to include the option in the budget resolution from House members and the Obama administration").
But what about Murray?
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Via ThinkProgress, I see Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is taking a sanguine and, dare I say, democratic, view of the budget reconciliation process.
"It's their right. They did win the election," said Ryan, R-Wis. "That's what I tell all my constituents who are worried about this. They won the election. They did run on these ideas. They did run on nationalizing health care. So, you're right about that. They have the votes with reconciliation. They nailed down the process so that they can make sure they have the votes and that they can get this thing through really fast. It is their right. It is what they can do."
One can quibble with some of this rhetoric. Democrats won the election on a platform of universalizing health care through a combination of private and public insurance, and government subsidies. But this is certainly a more realistic assessment than that of, say, Ryan's Senate counterpart Judd Gregg (R-NH) who supports the reconciliation process when Republicans use it to pass tax cuts and ANWR drilling, but compares it to "running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River," when the Democrats so much as propose it for health reform.
But has Ryan always been so fair? Let's go to the tape:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)If you've been reading Elana's reporting, you know that many Republicans and some Democrats are opposing the Obama administration's mostly-implicit threat to put health care reform and cap and trade legislation into the budget resolution to immunize them from the filibuster.
Judd Gregg--the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee who came thiiis close to becoming Barack Obama's Commerce Secretary before deciding he'd rather block the president's agenda at almost every turn--compared the idea of passing the bills through the reconciliation process to "running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River." (This, of course, despite his long record of supporting the controversial measures President Bush rammed through the budget.)
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)As patently mock-able as it is, this morning's Politico story on the GOP emboldening wrought by Sen. Judd Gregg's (R-NH) pullout from the Obama administration has a crazy kind of truth to it. Republicans are eagerly lionizing Gregg as a conservative hero whose conscience could not allow him to serve under a -- gasp! -- liberal president who believes that government spending can heal the economy.
Listen to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) on Fox this morning:
JORDAN: [Y]ou have Senator Gregg ... he understands that the stimulus package is going to do nothing to stimulate the economy. So I think it is kind of the final thing of a really bad week for the administration for Democrats.REPORTER: You know, I'm not sure it was a bad week. They got an $800 billion stimulus plan pushed through. That's a pretty good week if you're a Democrat.
JORDAN: That's bad for the American people. That's what Senator Gregg understands.
And that's not even touching on control of the Census, which the GOP turned into a rallying cry to protect Gregg's power in the Obama administration -- before Gregg cited it as a major reason for his withdrawal. Suddenly the dry business of counting Americans, which helps determine congressional re-districting, has become a hot political debate for the GOP. Even our old buddy Hans von Spakovsky can't help but get in on the act.
Yesterday Matt likened Gregg to Sir Thomas More, but I'm thinking he might be congressional Republicans' William Wallace. "Tell our enemies that they can take our majority, but they'll never take ... THE CENSUS!!!"
Late Update: And the lionizing continues. Gregg's party is now imploring him to reconsider his decision not to seek re-election next year.
What's next, www.juddgreggisyournewbicycle.com?
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)