... and the kicker: "Obama Indicates He'll Sign It."
There's much to notice here, and some about which to wait and see. First the news, via the New York Times (my emphasis):
Senate Panel Passes Bill on Iran Nuclear Deal; Obama Indicates He’ll Sign It
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved legislation granting Congress a voice in negotiations on the Iran nuclear accord, sending the once-controversial legislation to the full Senate after President Obama withdrew his opposition rather than face a bipartisan rebuke.
Republican opponents of the nuclear agreement on the committee sided with Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters in demanding a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. The bill would mandate that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it is completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions during a congressional review and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.
The perp, or at least the "lead perp" — the lead Democrat taking blame so the rest don't have to — is Ben Cardin of Maryland:
”We’re involved here. We have to be involved here. Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before Tuesday’s vote.
Did Obama cave, or was he facing a potential veto-proof majority?
With passage certain, White House officials insisted the president only
changed his position because of substantial changes to the bill itself.
Mr. Corker called that spin, saying the president switched sides in the
face of a steamroller.
Because the White House is not negotiating a treaty, the Senate bill must go to the House, where Nancy Pelosi may or may not be able to put together enough Democratic support to prevent a veto override there:
Nancy Pelosi May Save The Iran Negotiations For Obama
The United States Senate has spent the better part of the past two
years working to inject itself into nuclear negotiations between Iran
and a coalition of countries that includes the U.S. But as the talks
work toward a conclusion this summer, the upper chamber may be in for a
rude surprise.
The Senate, thanks to its constitutional duty to
ratify treaties, has long considered foreign affairs its domain. But the
White House is not negotiating a treaty, which means that the Senate
must enact legislation in order to exercise control over the pending
Iran deal. And the Senate can't make law without the House of
Representatives.
Senate Republicans on Tuesday reached a deal with
the White House to require an Iran agreement to go through Congress for
final approval. But even if they [the Senate] can come up with the two-thirds vote
they would need to make a potential rejection of that agreement
veto-proof, opponents would still need the same fraction in the House.
Finding 292 votes there will be difficult, given the ability of House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to hold her caucus together.
Naysayers there would need 292 House votes to override a possible veto
by President Barack Obama, meaning that Pelosi would need to hold only
145 of her 188 Democrats to stop an override.
But even that's iffy, especially since, as noted above, Obama has signaled he'd sign the legislation. So where does that leave Pelosi?
When asked if she would push House Democrats to get behind the bill if it reaches the House floor, Pelosi wouldn't say.
"I'm
listening to the caucus to see what they want to do. All they want to
do is be sure that we have an agreement at the end and give the
president the strongest possible hand to negotiate that," she said.
But
later on Tuesday evening, Pelosi emailed her members to note that the
White House had said the president would sign the revised bill. "While
the original Corker legislation was harmful to the negotiations, the
Cardin compromise of Corker can be supported," she wrote.
That last line — "'the
Cardin compromise of Corker can be supported,' she wrote" — can either be a true statement or the sound of a face being saved in the face of a White House cave. Which came first, the White House agreement to sign the bill or the loss, if any, of support in the House? We don't know. We don't even know if House Democrats will mount an opposition.
What's the Bottom Line?
If Obama has collapsed his resistance, the Corker bill is a done deal. If he's still going to hold the fort in the House, we'll have to wait and see if this is over or not. These stories read like a White House collapse to me, but the news is pretty fresh, so we should be open to revised interpretation.
Regardless of the political analysis, however, the bill itself, if Obama signs it, could be make-or-break for his Iranian negotiations. Hanging in the balance, ultimately, is Netanyahu's fondest dream — war.
Netanyahu told cabinet: Our biggest fear is that Iran will honor nuclear deal
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at a recent meeting of the security cabinet that if a comprehensive nuclear agreement between Iran and the six world powers is indeed signed by the June 30 deadline, the greatest concern is that Tehran will fully implement it without violations, two senior Israeli officials said.
This is a dream that, to all appearances, Senate Democrats share. I'm going to be very interested in the roll call of the floor vote. Ultimately, this could be the fault of the newly crowned future minority leader, Iran hawk Chuck Schumer, who supported the Corker bill.
So what to think? The bill is softer — see this excellent analysis from the Huffington Post for the bullet points — but is it soft enough not to sink the deal? Bottom line — No. One. Knows.
If Chuck Schumer, and Senate and AIPAC hawks, wanted a game-altering monkey wrench, they got it.
GP
From 1980, one of the last concerts with the original group
Look who's back! It's America's own favoritest war criminal! UPDATE: Hank the K sidelined!
>
UPDATE: Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker announced Monday that a shoulder fracture will keep the 91-year-old former secretary of state from appearing this week
Lookin' sassy, Doctor K!Okay, I've chopped former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher out of the picture, taken in June 2013 at a Berlin reception for Henry the K’s 90th birthday (which had happened on May 27), because heck, we're here to celebrate our own Scumbags 'n' Crackpots -- and while Germans may wish to still think of our Hank as one of theirs, we know better, don't we?
by Ken
It's one of the things I have fond remembrance of the late Christopher Hitchens, a man it isn't easy to remember fondly. (This was before his brain succumbed to all that pickling, or whatever happened to it.) He began a book review with an apology, explaining that he was breaking his vow not to read another book by this author until the first volume of his prison diaries. The author, as you've no doubt guessed, was Henry Kissinger.
In the carnival atmosphere of this week in Our Nation's Capital, marking the opening of the new Congress -- "The Crackpot 114th™," as it's known affectionately to its friends -- I imagine the Capitol festooned with celebratory signs, probably hand-painted on old bed sheets, like this:
And this:
And especially this:
Because, yes, in addition to welcoming all the new scumbags taking their seats in The Crackpot 114th™, the Crackpot 'n' Scumbags ringleaders are pleased to welcome bag crackpots and scumbags from days of old. Yes, two of the Senate's new committee chairment, "Corkless Bob" Corker of Foreign Relations and "Young Johnny" McCranky of Armed Services, are kicking off their new shows with Old Gravel Puss, at 10am and 2:30pm respectively.
And — wouldn’t you know it? — it just so happens Kissinger’s latest book, his 14th, came out a few months ago, appropriately titled, World Order.
Perhaps he could rev up the new teams with an elaborate disquisition on the Treaty of Westphalia back in the mid-17th century — you know, the one that ended the Thirty Years’ War — and the Islamist rejection of those principles?
Just make sure committee members and staff are sufficiently caffeinated.
What, you don't have your copy of World Order yet? You can probably find it at your local bookseller's, or at, you know, Amazon or one of those places.
Every poll you read has the America people saying they want a "balanced approach" to solving the problems caused by our political elites' inability to function in the best interests of the country (something they're calling the "Fiscal Cliff" in an attempt to terrorize low-info voters). People want to see the rich start paying their fair share of taxes and they want to see cutbacks on wasteful spending. They do NOT want to see cutbacks in benefits for seniors and the most vulnerable Americans (which is basically the only chip Boehner and Ryan have brought to the party). Yesterday Greg Sargent was asking Washington Post readers how much longer would the Party of Greed and Selfishness, Hatred and Bigotry be able to keep ignoring public opinion.
Some of the party’s most sacred principles lead to positions that are deeply unpopular. At the same time, many individual GOP lawmakers have clear incentives to continue to hold those positions. They come from safe districts where majorities agree with them, and standing behind them earns praise from conservative interest groups and media. Yet those positions-- and their underlying principles-- are damaging the party as a whole. Regular association with them may be increasingly damaging the party’s “brand”-- Republicans lost the election in part because they were seen as patrons of the wealthy-- and they constrain the party from reaching the compromise with Dems the public overwhelmingly wants, hurting its overall image further still.
The new Pew poll drives this home. It confirms again that Dems hold the middle ground in the fiscal cliff battle. But it goes further. Majorities broadly sees the Democratic Party as in line with their priorities on many issues and with their basic sense of how government should solve our problems.
[O]ur new NBC/WSJ poll shows that the Republican Party has already gone off one cliff, per co-pollster Peter Hart (D)-- the image cliff. The GOP’s fav/unfav rating in the poll now stands at 30%/45% (minus-15), which is down from 36%/43% (minus-7) right before the election. That’s compared with the Democratic Party’s 44%/35% rating (plus-9). And other than self-described Republicans and conservatives, just two other groups have a net positive view of the GOP: folks who live in rural America (39%/33%) and folks who live in the South (39%/38%), that’s it. What’s more, asked to give a word or short phrase to describe the Republican Party, 65% offered a negative comment, including MORE THAN HALF of Republicans. The top responses: “Bad,” “weak,” “negative,” “uncompromising,” “need to work together,” “broken,” “disorganized” and “lost.” By contrast, 37% gave negative descriptions of the Democratic Party, while 35% were positive.
But that hasn't stopped Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker from making a last-ditch attempt to stick it to working families. Wednesday he introduced a bill that would make raising the debt ceiling dependent on cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits for seniors and poor people, the so-called "Dollar For Dollar Act." It seeks to hold the economy hostage unless he gets to chop nearly a trillion dollars ($937 billion) off benefits for America's most vulnerable people and he claims the plan is based on the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles commission (although there were no recommendations from that commission... because it couldn't come to any agreements). Corker's proposal is actually based on a litany of distorted baseless and partisan talking points from right-wing think tanks financed by wealthy families and the insane ravings of right-wing propagandists on Hate Talk Radio like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity. Other than to the Republican base, Corker's proposal looks absolutely insane.
Corker said his bill would raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67 and would include the Medicare Total Health package that would increase private-sector competition for covering the elderly. Corker also said there would be a form of means-testing, making wealthy Medicare recipients pay more of their healthcare needs. Corker said he’d also “slowly” raise the age of eligibility for Social Security benefits, but did not specify an age.
“We should address [Social Security] now because it’s causing the government to spend more than it takes in,” Corker said. “It will be bankrupt by 2017 if we do nothing.” Corker said his bill would also implement a chained Consumer Price Index for Social Security, a suggestion from the Bowles-Simpson Commission. Corker said that system would more accurately assess the costs of inflation, but some Democrats have said it would reduce Social Security benefits for the poor and people with disabilities. Corker’s bill includes a waiver program for states for Medicaid coverage.
Corker won't have to face Tennessee voters again until 2018. He just won reelection against an anti-Choice, homophobic, bigoted fake Democrat, Mark Clayton, who even Tennessee's Blue Dog-riven Democratic Party disavowed and urged Democrats to not vote for. Clayton only managed to pull 30% of the vote and lost every single county in the state save Democratic strongholds, Shelby (Memphis) and Haywood, even losing Davidson County (Nashville) where Democrats always win and where Obama swamped Romney. Aside from Corker winning Nashville, he racked up 80% of the vote in half a dozen counties and 82% in Bradley County: Corker- 28.179, Clayton- 5,299! That's what happens when democracy devolves, as it has in Tennessee, to a one-party state. Corker feels like he's in the cat bird's seat and it makes it possible for him to cater to an extremist base and offer crazy legislation that flies right in the face of what the American people say they want-- and don't want. I'll add one note worth pondering: in distorted DC politics, Corker is considered a "moderate" or "mainstream."
Boehner, William Wallace? Um... Mel Gibson... Maybe
>
Gibson and Boehner are both drunken right-wing slobs. That's about as close to Braveheart as the congressional Republicans are going to manage to get. Unless David Dreier, Patrick McHenry and Aaron Schock decide to use their makeup kits to lather on some warpaint. No one can see how raising taxes on 160 million Americans a week before Christmas somehow conflates to Phil Gingrey's Braveheart moment-- with Boehner, no less, in the role of a kilt wearing William Wallace. Are these delusional handmaidens of the one-percent really that delusional?
Apparently not every single one of them. Tuesday, despairing and freaking out over Elizabeth Warren's polling numbers, Scott Brown (R-MA) called Boehner's inability to control the House Republicans "irresponsible and wrong," just a few minutes before McCain ran to CNN to whine that the House Republicans are "harming" the party. And this morning it was Tennessee Republican Bob Corker's turn, claiming his own party is "losing the public relations battle over a payroll tax cut extension and should find a way to extend the tax holiday and move on:"
"Are Republicans getting killed now in public opinion? There's no question," Corker said Wednesday on CNBC.
"Both Republicans and Democrats have agreed that this is going to happen and probably the best thing to happen now is just to get it over with-- one more policy blunder-- but just get it over with and move on because now it's been framed as a tax increase which it's not," he said.
Gingrey needs to tell Aaron Schock to try a different kind of makeup for today's talking point
Corker was responding to a Wall Street Journalmissive that basically said Boehner and his extremist House caucus are not only putting their majority in jeopardy, but handing Obama reelection and making it harder for the GOP to capture the Senate.
GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell famously said a year ago that his main task in the 112th Congress was to make sure that President Obama would not be re-elected. Given how he and House Speaker John Boehner have handled the payroll tax debate, we wonder if they might end up re-electing the President before the 2012 campaign even begins in earnest.
...House Republicans yesterday voted down the Senate's two-month extension of the two-percentage-point payroll tax holiday to 4.2% from 6.2%. They say the short extension makes no economic sense, but then neither does a one-year extension. No employer is going to hire a worker based on such a small and temporary decrease in employment costs, as this year's tax holiday has demonstrated. The entire exercise is political, but Republicans have thoroughly botched the politics.
Their first mistake was adopting the President's language that he is proposing a tax cut rather than calling it a temporary tax holiday. People will understand the difference-- and discount the benefit.
Republicans also failed to put together a unified House and Senate strategy. The House passed a one-year extension last week that included spending cuts to offset the $120 billion or so in lost revenue, such as a one-year freeze on raises for federal employees. Then Mr. McConnell agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the two-month extension financed by higher fees on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (meaning on mortgage borrowers), among other things. It passed with 89 votes and all but seven Republicans.
...One reason for the revolt of House backbenchers is the accumulated frustration over a year of political disappointment. Their high point was the Paul Ryan budget in the spring that set the terms of debate and forced Mr. Obama to adopt at least the rhetoric of budget reform and spending cuts.
But then Messrs. Boehner and McConnell were gulled into going behind closed doors with the President, who dragged out negotiations and later emerged to sandbag them with his blame-the-GOP and soak-the-rich re-election strategy. Any difference between the parties on taxes and spending has been blurred in the interim.
After a year of the tea party House, Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have had to make no major policy concessions beyond extending the Bush tax rates for two years. Mr. Obama is in a stronger re-election position today than he was a year ago, and the chances of Mr. McConnell becoming Majority Leader in 2013 are declining.
At this stage, Republicans would do best to cut their losses and find a way to extend the payroll holiday quickly. Then go home and return in January with a united House-Senate strategy that forces Democrats to make specific policy choices that highlight the differences between the parties on spending, taxes and regulation. Wisconsin freshman Senator Ron Johnson has been floating a useful agenda for such a strategy. The alternative is more chaotic retreat and the return of all-Democratic rule.
Looks like the House Republicans hadn't read the Journal's suggestions before this morning's session, when Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) gaveled the session to a close as soon as the Democrats tried to get a vote on the Senate payroll tax bill. Hoyer, playing his role, feigned concern: "You're walking out, you're walking away, just as so many Republicans have walked away from middle class taxpayers, the unemployed, and… those who will be seeking medical assistance from their doctors... We regret, Mr. Speaker, that you have walked off the platform without addressing the issue of critical importance to this country." Boehner's office then turned off the CSPAN cameras as fast as they could find the controls.
UPDATE: Reid Tosses Boehner A Lifeline
A couple of hours ago Harry Reid sent Boehner a letter that could help him save face and get himself out of the predicament his insane caucus got him into:
Dear Speaker Boehner,
Our respective chambers have been seeking for weeks to negotiate a year-long extension of the payroll tax cut for middle-class families, as well as unemployment benefits and Medicare payments for physicians.
You and I agree that this should be our goal. But as these weeks have made clear, there remain differences between our parties over how to fund and implement these programs that will take longer then a few days to reconcile.
Recognizing this reality, eighty-nine Republican and Democratic senators came together to agree to a short-term extension of these programs. As you requested when we met last Wednesday, Senator McConnell and I worked together to find this common ground. Once the House of Representatives acts on this immediate extension, we will be able to sit down and complete negotiations on a longer extension. But because we have a responsibility to assure middle-class families that their taxes will not go up while we work out our differences, we must pass this immediate extension first.
As the Senate vote made clear, there is no reason for this to be a partisan issue. I am fully confident that we can work out our differences and find common ground on a year-long extension. But in the meantime, families should not have to worry that they will wake up to a tax increase on January 1, 2012.
To provide middle-class families the certainty they deserve, I urge you to reconvene the House to act on the Senate’s bipartisan compromise as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Senator Harry Reid
ANOTHER UPDATE: How's This Playing Out In The Congressional Districts With Hot Elecions?
You're not going to find House race anywhere with a clearer difference than in northwest Arkansas where one-percenter Steve Womack is desperately fighting off a challenge from blue collar progressive Democrat Ken Aden. Womack, as always, rubberstamped the House leadership's decision to torpedo the unemployment extension and the payroll tax cut for middle-class workers. As Ken showed us last night, that means the average Arkansas working family will have $900 a year left in their pockets to spend every month. Boehner, who lives in a gated golfing community, dismissed that as "chickenshit." Womack should know better; Ken Aden sure does.
Congressman Steve Womack’s vote yesterday against bi-partisan legislation extending tax cuts to middle class families is the equivalent of a giant lump of coal in the stockings of thousands of Northwest Arkansas families and seniors, the campaign of Ken Aden, Democratic candidate for Congress from Arkansas’ Third Congressional District said early Wednesday.
Aden notes that not only does Womack’s vote against the tax cut harm middle class families now facing a tax hike, but it hurts the district’s long-term unemployed because an extension of unemployment benefits were included as part of the legislation. In addition, Womack’s “no” vote on the bi-partisan legislation places many Medicare recipients in jeopardy of loosing access to affordable healthcare, as the bill included a two-year fix preventing drastic cuts to physicians serving Medicare patients.
"Congressman Steve Womack gave the voters of the 3rd Congressional District an early Christmas present yesterday when he joined with Speaker Boehner and radical elements in the House in rejecting a bipartisan plan to extend tax cuts to the middle class, give a hand-up to the long-term unemployed, and protect our seniors on Medicare from loosing access to their doctors,” Aden said. “Womack’s holiday gift to his constituents, is a tax hike for middle class families, seniors on Medicare getting shut out of their doctor’s offices, and the long-term unemployed being sent into poverty,” he continued.
Aden said it is time for Womack to stop doing the bidding of House Speaker John Boehner and the radical Tea Party elements in Congress and do what is right for middle class families.
"Speaker Boehner has devised a perfectly evil plan for the citizens of this country. His plan raises taxes for middle class families and adds in massive amounts of red tape to the heart wrenching process of filing for unemployment insurance-- and Steve Womack is sticking with Boehner like a wrapper on a candy cain,” Aden said. “It is unconscionable,” he noted.
Finally, Speaker Boehner and his ally Womack, have added in a proposal to use American tax payer funds as part of a scheme to build out the KeystoneXL pipeline, the primary purpose of which is to aid Canadians in selling oil extracted from tar sands to China.
“Why on earth Rep. Womack would rather help China than his own constituents should be perfectly understandable. He's not there to represent the people of Arkansas, he's in Congress to help out Speaker Boehner. It's offensive and positively anti-American."
By contrast, while Womack was voting in Congress to kill unemployment benefits, raise taxes, and block seniors on Medicare from their doctors, Ken Aden and his campaign staff were collecting and distributing toys to children’s homes across Northwest Arkansas.
“The citizens of the Third District should look carefully at these two men and observe this contrast. While Womack is in Washington voting with Speaker Boehner to hurt thousands of people in our district, Ken is out helping he less fortunate,” said Jacob Burris, campaign director for Aden’s campaign.
You can help Ken Aden get Womack out of government by contributing to his campaign here. And just west of Arkansas, is great big Texas, where all the Republicans voted against the payroll tax break for the middle class and against an unemployment extension. Dan Grant recently declared he'd be taking on reprehensible reactionary plutocrat Michale McCaul, a multimillionaire who married into the Clear Channel family. Dan sent a summary of what happened yesterday to Austin area voters:
Yesterday, millionaire Michael McCaul, the single richest member of Congress, voted to do nothing to stop a tax increase on working families that will take effect on January 1st. He rejected a bipartisan measure backed by nearly 90% of the Senate, and supported across America. This forces Congress into another dangerous game of political chicken that threatens to add $1000 annually-- or $40 per paycheck-- to the tax burdens of millions of families while the country is still struggling out of the worst recession in decades. This complete refusal to act and rejection of the most basic Congressional responsibility-- to govern-- hurts all Americans and threatens our economy. It’s a shameful failure of both priorities and leadership in Washington.
This is infuriating. But sadly it's not surprising.
Michael McCaul and this out-of-touch Congress have spent more time playing politics than doing their jobs: supporting political theater, showdowns, and standoffs, rather than working to address the issues that truly matter.
We need more people in Congress who understand that their job is to look out for hardworking families, not to play games with their lives and livelihoods. We need people in Congress who understand what $1000 dollars means to a family at Christmas, to a family saving for college, or struggling to stay afloat in these tough times.
And, despairing, one of Miss McConnell's top aides told media sources that the House Republicans have put the party into an untenable position and that their stupidity and blundering is "inexcusable... This is a lose/lose situation for us. They've let the Democrats get the messaging advantage and more specifically we've turned one of our key issues on its head. The Republicans look like they are the ones blocking tax relief... The House Republicans pulled defeat from the jaws of victory."
The Obama Administration definitely sees passage of the job-killing/Social Security-harming tax break for billionaires as a way station on the path to Obama's reelection. They're very much in tune with right-wing polemicist Charles Krauthammer, who has convinced himself that by turning sharply right and repeatedly spitting on the base that elected him in 2008, Obama is headed for a win in 2012. How anyone can fall for that in light of what happened in November to the House Democrats who played that game-- Blue Dogs like Bobby Bright (AL), Travis Childers (MS), Jim Marshall (GA), Zach Space (OH), Gene Taylor (MS), Michael Arcuri (NY), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA), Lincoln Davis (TN), Glenn Nye (VA), Frank Kratovil (MD), Betsy Markey (CO), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Walt Minnick (ID) and plenty of others, plus conservatove fellow-travelers like John Adler (NJ), Suzanne Kosmas (FL), Tom Perriello (VA), Rick Boucher (VA), Michael McMahon (NY), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Ike Skelton (MO), etc. Every one of them played that game-- voting for the anti-family Republican agenda and leaving Democratic voters high and dry-- and every one of them was defeated, some resoundingly, for the same reason: Democratic voters and left-leaning independents did not come out to vote. Republicans and right-leaning independents did-- but, of course, they voted for Republicans.
Idaho Blue Dog Walt Minnick, for example, has accrued one of the worst voting records of any Democrat in the House, voting far more frequently with John Boehner than with Nancy Pelosi on contentious and substantive issues. But it did him no good. Democrats were disgusted by him and refused to even show up to vote, and Republicans and independents flocked to an obscure and extreme teabagger, Raul Labador, who beat him decisively, 126,055 (51%) to 101,870 (41%) and destroyed him in 10 of the 11 counties in this district, including in Ada County-- the big one-- by 10,000 votes, and in Canyon-- the second-biggest-- by an even bigger margin!
This week Minnick said he wouldn't even bother to try to win his seat back. In a farewell interview with the NY Times, Minnick, like most of the defeated Blue Dogs, blames liberal policies for their political demise rather than their own shortcomings as political leaders. He whines about Democrats having voted for cap and trade but never explains why he couldn't even explain his "no" vote to his constituents back home.
"Very little went well in energy and the environment," the 68-year-old representative said in an interview last week. "That was an area where we had a particularly tin ear and where the solution to the biggest issue-- global warming-- proposed by the party ... got transformed by its opposition from cap and trade to cap and tax and became politically toxic almost every place in the country."
Minnick calls the political misjudgments that led to House passage of the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" and the inability to then message the bill or have a fallback position "equally disastrous" to the way the Nixon administration tried to message Watergate.
The process, Minnick said, was an "absolute total failure."
..."It was a failure of Democratic leadership," Minnick continued.
In part that was due to the fact that the solution was so partisan and that there was no buy-in from the Republicans, he said.
Minnick faults Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for running the House in a top-down style similar to that of one of her predecessors, Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).
Minnick is a former Republican-- who worked for Nixon in the '70s-- and although he changed his T-shirt color to blue after the Watergate scandal, in his heart he's always been a Republican, with a typically anti-egalitarian, authoritarian perspective that always puts Big Business ahead of society, ahead of individuals and ahead of liberty. He sees the Democrats as being driven by the extreme left, having little idea what that even means. Like his doofus colleagues in the decimated, clueless Blue Dog Coalition, America is far better off without him in Washington. Actually, he's keeping his place in DC-- and obviously hopes to get a job working for one of the corrupt lobbying firms he served so well while he was a Member of Congress.
Sorry for the tangent; back to the Obama-Krauthammer vision of a conservative consensus that is already a proven loser. "[W]ith his stunning tax deal, Obama is back. Holding no high cards, he nonetheless managed to resurface suddenly not just as a player but as orchestrator, dealmaker and central actor in a high $1 trillion drama." Krauthammer slobberingly describes him as even shrewder and more nimble than the triangulating Bill Clinton.
Remember the question after Election Day: Can Obama move to the center to win back the independents who had abandoned the party in November? And if so, how long would it take? Answer: Five weeks. An indoor record, although an asterisk should denote that he had help-- Republicans clearing his path and sprinkling it with rose petals.
Obama's repositioning to the center was first symbolized by his joint appearance with Clinton, the quintessential centrist Democrat, and followed days later by the overwhelming 81 to 19 Senate majority that supported the tax deal. That bipartisan margin will go a long way toward erasing the partisan stigma of Obama's first two years, marked by Stimulus I, which passed without a single House Republican, and a health-care bill that garnered no congressional Republicans at all.
Despite this, some on the right are gloating that Obama had been maneuvered into forfeiting his liberal base. Nonsense. He will never lose his base. Where do they go?
They just showed America where they will go-- they'll stay home. But Krauthammer and other creatures of the Beltway think the whole country functions like their incestuous little tiny world. They don't understand that ordinary American families are hurting and that the billions McConnell and Obama just handed to Republicans was like pulling the scabs off their wounds and pouring tabasco sauce on.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid understand that. For although both did their jobs and helped Obama pass his dreadful tax giveaway, neither showed up for the signing ceremony yesterday. They left that for Obama, Tiny Tim Geithner and their new pal, Miss McConnell. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wasn't there-- probably wasn't invited-- and he sees the travesty as non-stumulative to the economy and embodying the essence of Reaganomics.
A disproportionate share of the $858 billion deal will go to people in the top 1 percent who spend only a fraction of what they earn and save the rest. Their savings are sent around the world to wherever they will earn the highest return. The only practical effect of adding $858 billion to the deficit will be to put more pressure on Democrats to reduce non-defense spending of all sorts, including Social Security and Medicare, as well as education and infrastructure.
It is nothing short of Ronald Reagan’s (and David Stockman’s) notorious “starve the beast” strategy. In 2012, an election year, when congressional Democrats have less power than they do now, the pressure to extend the Bush tax cuts further will be overwhelming. Worse yet, the deal adds to the underlying structural problem that caused the Great Recession in the first place.
Since Ronald Reagan was president, median hourly wages have barely budged, and America’s vast working and middle classes have taken home a steadily smaller share of the nation’s income (adjusted for inflation). The typical male worker today is earning less than the typical male worker thirty years ago.
Yet the richest 1 percent of Americans is now taking home a larger percentage of the nation’s income than at any time since 1928. And we recall what happened in 1929.
Unless the vast majority of Americans has enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without going ever more deeply into debt, the economy will eventually go over a cliff.
That’s what happened in 1929 and 2008.
START Stop?
The Senate Republicans have the Democrats in a pickle again. There are enough votes to overcome the great homophobic filibuster against repealing the shameful Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and today is supposed to be the day. Susan Coleman, Ben Nelson, Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski and Olympia Snowe are grudgingly on board with the Democrats. But don't start the big coming-out party just yet. Obama is far more-- like way far more-- concerned with the START treaty, and die-hard anti-gay Republicans are now saying, in a last-ditch attempt to screw the gays (or screw the Democrats with that part of their base) that if they repeal DADT, the GOP will defeat START. This strategy has been thought up by two Republicans in trouble with their own reactionary bases back home: desperate closet queen Lindsey Graham and quasi-once-in-a-blue-moon-maninstream conservative Bob Corker. Apparently it smells sweeter in Lindsey's closet, but he and Corker are determined to show the yahoos in South Carolina and Tennessee that they can be hostage-taking assholes too, national security be damned.
"I felt like momentum was growing for START," Corker said, adding that since Reid announced he was holding votes on DADT and DREAM, it has had a "chilling effect."
"I'm watching support for the treaty erode, because of highly partisan political issues being brought up solely because activist groups in the Democratic Party want this done," he continued.
Corker said he wasn't issuing a personal threat, and was merely commenting on the reaction of his Senate GOP colleagues. When I pressed Senator Corker on whether Republican Senators would really base their decision on START on whether Reid held a vote on DADT, Corker didn't answer directly.
"That being thrown into the middle of this debate is causing many Republicans to want to see START pushed back and candidly is causing them to oppose it," Corker said. "This is hardening them against passage of this treaty at this time."
The House Took Other Votes This Week Too
On Thursday evening, the House took up S. 987, a widely popular bill meant to help protect girls in developing countries through the prevention of child marriage. It failed to pass under suspension (two-thirds needed), the 241-166 majority in favor falling short. Although a dozen Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with all but 9 (reactionary) Democrats, a baseless whisper campaign that discouraging underage girls from being forced into marriages would somehow increase abortions killed the bill. Anti-choice fanatics on both sides of the aisle did their worst, the repulsive likes of Lipinski Jr, Gene Taylor, Travis Childers and Rick Boucher joining forces with Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert and John Boehner to make sure the world is a far more miserable place in the future.
Fortunately, not even Boehner's best efforts were enough to kill S. 3874, the bill to reduce the level of lead in drinking water. Hard to imagine anyone would vote against this? Some industries want to keep polluting-- and they pay their congressional supporters well-- and besides, rich Republicans drink bottled water. The bill passed, on suspension, 226-109, only one scumbag Blue Dog, brine-taking champ Collin Peterson (MN), joining Boehner and his 109 GOP poisoners. Shockingly 31 Republicans just did not have the stomach to vote to kill their own constituents outright and crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats and against Boehner and Cantor. Even knee-jerk right-wing kooks who never veer from the party line like David Dreier (CA), Frank Wolf (VA), Paul Ryan (WI) and Aaron Schock (IL) found this one too tough to vote against.
None of those Republicans, on the other hand, found it distasteful enough to vote against H.R. 5510, Marcy Kaptur's bill to aid families facing foreclosure. It needed two-thirds and only managed to win 210-145, not quite enough. Interestingly, 4 House Republicans from Boehner's own state of Ohio were among the half-dozen Republicans crossing the aisle on this one. But they were offset by 5 reactionary Democrats, conservative slobs John Adler (NJ), Dan Boren (OK), Jim Marshall (GA), Michael McMahon (NY) and Scott Owens (NY).
Oh, and there was this: Even if the House approved keeping more lead out of our drinking water, the Senate decided to make it eat-at-your-own-risk when it comes to food safety. Very sad that this is the quality of what passes for political leadership in our disintegrating nation:
Live-Blogging The Repeal Of DADT From Marrakech
Ron Wyden was on the Senate floor early this morning-- next week he gets the prostate cancer surgery-- and he said, quite sensibly, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell is wrong. I don't care who you love, if you love this country enough to risk your life for it. You shouldn't have to hide who you are. You ought to be able to serve. (Now there's a concept Miss McConnell, who was booted out of the Army after 10 days for groping a private's privates, Mark Kirk and Lindsey Graham will never understand. All three sickening, hypocritical closet queens are expected to vote no today.) "The history of our wonderful nation, continued Wyden, "is spotted with wrongs, but this institution is at its best when it corrects them. That's the opportunity we will have today." Speaking for the 3 closet cases, a nasty and bitter old John McCain grumbled on the floor of the Senate, "I'm aware that this vote will probably pass today... and there will be high fives all over the liberal bastions of America, and we'll see the talk shows tomorrow, a bunch of people talking about how great it is. Most of them never have served in the military or maybe not even known someone in the military."
No matter how bad much of a disappointment Obama has been, the only choice was between him and the bitter, nasty, bigoted creature quoted above. Bigoted conservatives have already defeated the DREAM Act. The only Republicans with the guts to do the right thing were William Bennett (UT), Richard Lugar (IN), and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska). Democrats running across the aisle in the other direction to vote with the GOP were Ben Nelson (NE), Max Baucus (MT), Jon Tester (MT-- big disappointment, but he's up for reelection and scared), Mark Pryor (AR), and Kay Hagan (NC). Gun-totin' macho man Joe Manchin (D-WV) hid under his, confused and desk trembling, and couldn't work up the courage to vote at all.
The repulsive Republican filibuster of equality for gay men and women in the armed forces was just defeated 63-33. George Voinovich (R-OH) and closet case Mark Kirk (R-IL) were the last minute GOP aisle crossers in favor. Now it will only take 51 votes to pass the bill and whoever is afraid to voted for equality can avoid it. The cowards afraid to vote on this one were Manchin again, plus Republicans who were expected to vote NO, Jim Bunning, Judd Gregg, and Orrin Hatch. I guess we should thank all 4 of them in a way. DNC Chair Tim Kaine, in an elegant slap at bitter old bigot John McCain, included the term "high-fives all around" in his congratulations statement. After the vote President Obama issued this statement:
Today, the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend. By ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.
As Commander-in-Chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known. And I join the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the overwhelming majority of service members asked by the Pentagon, in knowing that we can responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness.
I want to thank Majority Leader Reid, Senators Lieberman and Collins and the countless others who have worked so hard to get this done. It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law.
And they did. The final vote to repeal the heinous DADT was 65-31, two more than the vote to pass cloture and shut down the McCain hate-filled filibuster. Burr and Ensign were the two Republicans who switched sides and voted for LBGT equality at the last minute and once repeal was assured. More than Joe Manchin, still frozen in fear under his desk, did!
GOP Strategy For A Takeover In November: Let Them-- Meaning Us-- Eat Fake
>
Will a strategy of concerted dishonesty backfire on them?
If Republican activists sniff out even a whiff of rational behavior on their side of the aisle, their wrath knows no bounds. New York Republican Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava is writing a book about it. And Tennessee junior Senator Bob Corker is learning to perfect his backpedal... fast. Only dangerously clueless Republicans in Washington-- a Virginia Foxx (R-NC) or Paul Broun (R-GA), maybe a Trent Franks (R-AZ) or drugged-up John Sullivan (R-OK)-- actually believe, for example, that healthcare reform legislation is going to be repealed. But for a Republican to say that out loud... well, that drives extremists insane(r).
That's just what Corker did-- as did Republican Representative and wanna-be senator Mark Kirk, runnin' scared North Carolina kook Richard "Bank Run" Burr and even Miss McConnell. Teabaggers, John Birchers, Fox viewers and Hate Talk Radio fans went bonkers-- at that and Corker's signal that he might cooperate with the Democrats on Wall Street reform (I guess in the teabaggy world hatred of colored presidents' agendas trumps hatred even of banksters), and Corker retreated unceremoniously.
Naturally, this left some folks mighty ticked off. So now Corker’s gotten on the phone with the Weekly Standard to clarify. Sort of.
Corker told the Standard he only meant that repeal can’t happen next year, not that it can never happen. “It’s an issue of simple math,” Corker said, adding that as long as Obama is president, “it takes 67 votes in the Senate for that to occur.”
But, tellingly, when asked by the Standard if he would commit to supporting repeal in 2012 if a Republican is elected President, he demurred.
All of which is to say that the folks pushing for repeal are signaling that they’re going to keep this crusade going for years to come. Here, for instance, is another writer suggesting that Republicans might be able to repeal Obamacare in the year 2014 if they develop large enough Congressional majorities.
Rational Republicans, like Corker, can't have it both ways. They either have to drink the Kool-Aid completely and start drooling and declaring Obama was born in Indonesia or Kenya or Mexico or they'll be driven out of the Party of Hatred and Bigotry. So while most Americans were feeling a bit of cheer over a glimmer at the end of the Bush Recession tunnel and at the marked reversal in the unemployment outlook today (even some teabaggers might be able to understand that graph below), Republican activists were busy re-enacting an updated Civil War by putting up anti-Obama billboards, filled with invective and covered with right-wing fairy tales and socialism and war in the Atlanta Metro Area.
Republican elected officials are all about fake outrage and their grassroots activists-- what we call teabaggers-- have embraced it wholeheartedly. This could backfire come November. Last night Rachel Maddow gave a great explanation of the phenomenon. The first half of the tape below is about what she terms "the unmooring of politics from facts," in this case how the right destroyed Acorn and almost destroyed climate science. It leads to this, "Let Them Eat Fake":
When Republicans complain that President Obama is using recess appointments they're faking it. Because if they really have a real concern about recess appointments, they wouldn't have been fine with them when George W. Bush used them. The recess appointments outrage is bull. Republicans are faking their outrage about their being an individual mandate in health reform too. It's a Republican idea. Republicans are faking their outrage over terrorism suspects being read their Miranda rights. They had no problem with that when it was done by the previous administration. That fake outrage is bull. Same goes with the Republican outrage over civilian trials for terrorism suspects. If you weren't outraged over the shoe bomber getting a civilian trial, that's proof that your purported outrage over the underpants bomber getting a civilian trial is bull. Republicans are faking their outrage over the Stimulus. You can tell because when they go to their home districts they admit that it's working great. Their Washington outrage over the Stimulus bill is bull. The anti-Acorn crusade was bull. Climategate was bull. Repealing healthcare reform is bull. The lawsuits against health reform are bull. The death panels: bull. The president is secretly foreign and doesn't have a birth certificate: bull. Fear of the census is bull. Supposed threats to end the Second Amendment: bull. The claims that thousands of armed IRS agents are going to be storm troopers to enforce health reform... it's bull. The Administration taking away the right to go fishing... it's bull...
Rachel loves an argument, loves debate and insists it's healthy for the country, but she points out that there are "two things that disqualify you from this process: you can't threaten to shoot people, and you have to... stop... making... stuff... up."
A Handful Of GOP Obstructionists Still Want To Rail Against Sonia Sotomayor-- Just For The Sake Of Being Dicks
>
Maybe Lord Corker will vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor just to protect the equal rights of his lovely daughter Julia
Their own polling and focus groups warn the Senate Republicans that the right-wing jihad against Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court is a loser for them-- in every way. They never thought they could actually derail the confirmation. They just wanted to make a lot of noise to satisfy their drooling base and get them to donate some money to the faltering party. Instead, the public has been very sympathetic to the nominee, has wondered why the Republicans are so automatically obstructionist on everything, and even the drooling base has not been forthcoming with the cash. Predictions are that as many as a dozen Republican senators will abandon the far right of their party and vote to confirm. “She doesn’t have the punch out there in terms of fundraising and recruiting, I think-- at least so far,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who most likely will be elected as the No. 4 Republican in Senate leadership this week, following the abrupt departure of former GOP presidential hopeful, John Ensign, currently embroiled in a rapidly unfolding sex scandal and cover-up and fighting for his political survival.
The worst of the hard core obstructionists, and the unreconstructed racists and misogynists, don't care what the polls and focus groups say. Opposition is all they know-- opposition to everything and anything Obama does. Somehow it didn't surprise me last week when I read how the Senate's most extremist fanatic, Jim Inhofe (R-OK) said he's already made up his mind to oppose Judge Sotomayor-- he just hates all foreigners (New York City is "foreign" to the dimwitted Inhofe... unless he's using it to demagogue about 9/11. And because he made up his mind he refused to talk with her. Like I said, I wasn't surprised but it does make me wonder about Oklahoma voters. They just re-elected this bigoted kook to represent them by a very wide margin, 66-34%, against an enlightened and accomplished state senator, Andrew Rice.
Inhofe's spokesman explained that since the Senator has already decided to vote against the nomination, there's no reason to waste time on a sit-down discussion.
Earlier this week, Inhofe called his vote against Sotomayor a "foregone conclusion," citing his vote against her nomination to a circuit court in 1998.
...Inhofe's Oklahoma colleague Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) did meet with Sotomayor, however, and had some kind words.
"She's got the demeanor of a judge," Coburn told NewsOK.com. He added that the two had a "philosophical discussion [about] life, problems in our country, difficulties we face."
Coburn is one of 71 senators that Judge Sotomayor has sat down and talked with and Inhofe had been the only one rude enough to turn down the courtesy call. Until today. And then came Tennessee elitist, Bob Corker.
The multimillionaire businessman and real estate speculator-- and a verysquirrely attitude about disclosures-- Corker has taken easily to the customs of the American House of Lords. Voters back in Tennessee are constantly complaining about his inability-- or unwillingness-- to represent regular working families. Last week his Lordship got all huffy when Sonia Sotomayor "hobbling along with her leg in a cast" was 10 minutes late. NO ONE IS 10 MINUTES LATE FOR LORD CORKER! He bailed.
UPDATE: Is Jeff Sessions Even Fit To Sit In Judgment of Sonia Sotomayor?
Back on May 5 we looked at the differences between an ill-educated KKK sympathizer (at best) from an unaccredited Bible "college" and one of the most qualified people ever nominated to a federal judgeship. Jeff Sessions was rushed into his position as Republican ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee because he is a partisan hack and vicious racist. His appointment is a disgrace and an insult. Yesterday NPR asked the question: Cab Jeff Sessions Fairly Evaluate Sonia Sotomayor? They interviewed Gerald Hebert-- a former DOJ attorney who worked with Jeff Sessions and testified at his 1986 hearings-- and one is drawn to the same conclusion I came to.
NPR: Is there something in [Sessions’] record at the time that causes you to believe that he did cross that line from being merely conservative in his approach to social issues to being racially hostile or insensitive was the word that was commonly used?
Mr. HEBERT: Oh, definitely back in 1986, I had no doubt about that and testified to that effect, I believe, that it wasn’t a question of, you know, he was joking about these things or saying them in a joking manner. He was someone who was a product of the Deep South, and his racial attitudes reflected at that time a continued hostility towards equal-opportunity efforts by African- Americans, particularly in Alabama. And that was true back then, and obviously he now represents many of those same people as a U.S. senator. […]
He will ask questions that he thinks he’s entitled to ask, and he’ll ask them in a very professional and what I would believe would be a very polite way. At the same time, ultimately, many of us feel that no matter what the answers are, he’ll still ultimately vote no.
No doubt... and along with most of the other hackish obstructionists who make the GOP Senate caucus so despised and loathed by normal Americans.
Have You Heard Bush Telling Americans Not To Worry Lately And To Just Go Shopping Because The Fundamentals Of The Economy Are Strong?
>
The other day I was complaining because Toyota added $1,000 to the price of my new Prius for no reason other than that they could. I'm lucky I was able to pay it without having to cut back on something else in my life-- like a home payment or medical care. I wasn't always so lucky. There was a stretch in my life when I certainly wouldn't have made it without the help the federal government gave me with food stamps. To this day when I bemoan (silently) all the taxes I have to pay, I think about how grateful I should be that the government invested in me when I really needed it and gave me at least a year's worth of food stamps.
Nevertheless, I was saddened to read on Wednesday that in September food stamps hit an all time record-- up 17% from last year. Over 31.5 million Americans used them in September. The economy has tanked and unemployment has skyrocketed since then. And economists expect it to get much worse before it gets better. The last food stamps record-- 29.85 million people in November, 2005, was the result of emergency benefits for victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. Victims of the Bush Economic Miracle are getting hit much harder.
[A]nti-hunger groups said the economic downturn is the main reason behind the higher figures.
"It's a disturbing trend," said Ellen Vollinger, legal director with the Food Research and Action Center. She said she expects more people will turn to food stamps as unemployment figures rise and the economy remains weak.
One in 10 Americans were participating in the food stamp program as of September, said Dottie Rosenbaum, analyst with Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank.
That's approaching the all-time high of 10.5 percent of the population that used the program in 1994, and is similar to levels seen in the early 1980s, she said.
States that have seen a drop in job numbers and increase in home foreclosures such as Florida and Nevada also have seen a marked increase in food stamp use, Rosenbaum said.
Food banks are struggling to meet increased requests for food, said Maura Daly of Feeding America, a network of food banks.
"The tough economic time that our nation is facing is having a tremendous impact on the level of food assistance needed across the country," Daly said.
How do I know things are going to get much worse before they get better? I'm awake. We're just escaping from years and years of violently antisocial financial and economic policy based on greed, avarice and the law of the jungle. The NY Times reported yesterday that the retail sector is an unmitigated disaster. Should that surprise anyone after years and years of hollowing out the economy, shipping jobs overseas, destroying labor unions and redistributing the nation's wealth upward?
The nation’s retailers turned in the worst sales figures in at least a generation on Thursday, starting the holiday shopping season with double-digit declines across a broad spectrum of stores.
...The International Council of Shopping Centers, an industry group, described November’s figures as the weakest in more than 35 years. Declines were recorded in every retail segment the group tracks, with the biggest coming from department stores, with sales down 13.3 percent compared with November a year ago, and specialty apparel retailers, down 10.4 percent.
Republican members of Congress and-- I suspect-- some reactionary Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party (I can't wait to see them vote), are making a bad situation worse. Jim Bunning (R-KY) should be hauled before a court and asked to explain why he shouldn't be charged with treason. After watching Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) playing games with the auto executives on TV today, I'm inclined to think he needs the same treatment as Bunning. Corker voted for the ill-conceived Wall Street bailout for the banksters. Is it that he just hates workers? And many of the loudest advocates among the union busting Republicans who joined Corker on bailing out the banksters, agreed with him that the American automakers can go to hell. Among them are several facing re-election in 2 years: Robert Bennett (R-UT), Kit Bond (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and John Thune (R-SD). We need to watch this crew closely.
UPDATE: LOOKS LIKE CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS HAVE AGREE TO RESCUE THE BIG 3
That's good news... maybe. The devil, as always, is in the details. And we don't have those yet. It looks like the idea is for short term loans until Bush is back in Texas.
[I]t was the Labor Department’s report of 533,000 jobs lost in November that seemed to put a final halt to the hand-wringing on Capitol Hill and prompted the Democrats to announce that they would draw up legislation for votes next week.
“Today’s announcement of major job losses and findings from Congressional hearings from the last two days make it clear that Congress must work on a bipartisan basis to provide short-term and limited assistance to the automobile industry while it undertakes major restructuring,” Ms. Pelosi said in a statement.
She added: “Congress will insist that any legislation include rigorous and ongoing oversight to guarantee that taxpayers are protected and that resources are directed to ensure the long term viability and competitiveness of the American automobile industry.”
...But some Republicans, including Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior member of the banking committee, have said they will oppose a taxpayer financed rescue for the automakers under any circumstances.
Some conservative House Republicans have called openly for allowing one or more of the auto companies to fail and enter bankruptcy.
