Is Chuck Grassley Still Capable Of Working For The Good Of The Citizens Of Iowa?

Julian Bond has been fighting the good fight

for a long, long time

I first met Julian Bond in 1966 when I was in college and he had been elected to-- and denied seating in-- the Georgia state legislature. I blogged about meeting him a couple years ago; fun post about something I'm very proud of. In case all you know about Julian is his service as the chairman of the NAACP from 1998 until this year, he was around long before that. He helped found the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and was the first president of the Southern Poverty Law Center. And he served for 20 years in the Georgia state House and state Senate, although that all started kind of rough when the crackers who ran that show refused to seat him because they hated smart, uppity black people-- the same way Georgia racist Lynn Westmoreland hates President Obama half a century later-- and because he was opposed to the war against Vietnam. When I met him the Supreme Court had just ruled 9-0 (Bond vs Floyd) that the Georgia House of Representatives had denied him his freedom of speech and was required to seat him. He went on to organize the state legislature's Black Caucus, which wasn't very popular with the power structure there either. So what's all this got to do with Chuck Grassley? Julian did a spectacular OpEd in the Des Moines Register yesterday about Grassley's idiotic attack on the legacy of Thurgood Marshall.

Now that the Senate has formally approved Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, one thing we know about her is that she clerked for and reveres Thurgood Marshall. That is because this became a major line of attack by Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, chief among them Iowa's Sen. Charles Grassley, as they gauged her fitness as a potential justice. Many watchers were surprised by the attacks against Marshall by Grassley and his fellow Republican senators. I wasn't one of them. Appalled, yes; surprised, no.

Knowing that none of Marshall's 112 opinions from his time as a judge on the Second Circuit was overturned, Grassley nevertheless said Marshall's legal viewpoint "does not comport with the proper role of a judge or judicial method."

Kagan's work for Marshall, Grassley said, "indicates a liberal and seemingly outcome-based approach to your legal analysis."

Knowing that Marshall led the fight to dismantle the "separate but equal" doctrine in public education, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the committee, suggested Kagan was somehow wrong for esteeming him as her hero.

These attacks didn't surprise me because they're completely consistent with a party locked in the past, echoing the anti-civil rights message of those who opposed Justice Marshall's own confirmation in 1967.

Grassley, Sessions and their fellow Republicans roasted Solicitor General Kagan with the same attacks used against Marshall four decades earlier. Then, the late Sen. Sam Ervin of North Carolina complained about the likelihood that Marshall would be "a judicial activist," which he defined as someone "unable to exercise the self-restraint which is inherent in the judicial process when it is properly understood and applied, and who is willing to add to the Constitution things that are not in it and to subtract from the Constitution things which are in it."

When Ervin spoke of adding rights to the Constitution, there was no doubt that he was referring to the court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which he had fervently opposed. Ervin went on to join with 10 other southern Senators in voting against Marshall's confirmation.

Now, in an effort to curry favor with an increasingly extreme base, personified by the likes of Sarah Palin, Republican senators flagrantly disparage a civil rights hero and the legacy of equality for which he fought. Although smears against Justice Marshall might have seemed out of place in the committee room, they fit right in among some of the GOP's most extreme supporters who wave posters portraying our president as a witch doctor and fling racial slurs. For that matter, they fit right in alongside attacks against last year's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who was herself accused of racism at the same time she was painted with ugly stereotypes about Latinos.

Grassley cannot participate in these subtle smears and at the same time claim to be representing all Iowans. Instead he, like others in the GOP, is making a calculated decision to pander to some while spitting on the values and history of others.

Blue America is very enthusiastic about the progressive Democrat running against Grassley, Roxanne Conlin. She joined us for a live blog session back in February at Crooks & Liars. When I asked her to tell me why Grassley voted against Elena Kagan's confirmation she seemed to indicate that Grassley had changed... and rather dramatically.

Senator Grassley’s vote against Elena Kagan is proof that Washington is broken, and any bipartisanship in the Senate is on the verge of extinction. Senator Grassley has chosen to vote against two talented, qualified women nominated to the Supreme Court, by a Democratic president, after decades of support for past nominations. This is an incredibly dangerous and disturbing precedent.  Voting on a Supreme Court nominee is a serious responsibility and Iowans deserve much better than childish, partisan games.

Lisa Murkowski And The GOP Thwarted In Their Attempt To Gut The Clean Air Act

Lisa Murkowski's attempt to gut the Clean Air Act yesterday failed 47-53. But she was outraged-- just outraged-- that anyone would attribute-- the way we did-- her attempt to the gigantic amounts of bribes she (and her father) have accepted from Big Oil. Afterall, it was all about Big Carpets. And a pizzeria in Ohio.

Joining every single Republican-- including self-proclaimed "moderates" Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Scott Brown-- were half a dozen Democrats who always seem to feel their constituents are corporate lobbyists: Blanche Lincoln (who slimy insider Bob Menendez celebrated yesterday as an "independent" voice, but who is always a champion of whatever anyone pays her to champion), Mark Pryor, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu (see Blanche Lincoln), Ben Nelson, and Jay Rockefeller.

A Democratic champion of clean air and a steadfast pollution opponent-- both of the industrial and the K Street kind-- is Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold. After voting against Murkowski's toxic amendment he made a statement to voters in his state:

“Climate change is real and we need to address it. By blocking action on climate change, the Murkowski resolution would have stalled our march toward energy independence through more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels and renewable energy, all of which can spur new American jobs. And as we continue to grapple with the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, we need to move away from dependence on oil. Instead of giving the oil industry a gift by passing the Murkowski resolution, we need to end the cozy relationship between big oil and the federal government.”

As yesterday's NY Times pointed out, "Democratic opponents of the Murkowski proposal said its backers were protecting oil companies and other industrial interests at the expense of public welfare and were ignoring science that substantiated the hazards of greenhouse gas emissions. They said Ms. Murkowski and her allies wanted to prevent the E.P.A. from taking action while simultaneously stalling Congressional action, essentially protecting the status quo."

"This is about delay in changes in our energy policy,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who said many of Ms. Murkowski’s allies “want nothing to do with comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. What they want is the E.P.A. to go away.”

I wonder if people like Lisa Murkowski-- or any of the Beltway hacks-- ever watch shows like Rachel Maddow's. Doubtful...



UPDATE: Grassley vs Roxanne Conlin

As usual, Grassley just marched along with the rest of the GOP lemmings in denying climate change. We reached Roxanne Conlin, the progressive Democrat running for the Senate seat Grassley's been occupying since just before the War of 1812. Basically I asked her what I'm asking everyone, something to the effect of are these Republicans just insane or do they hate their own children (and humanity)? She told us Grassley's vote to stop the EPA from trying to prevent climate change was troubling. "The vote," she said "shows us that he is a career politician who cares only about his next election and not the next generation. He obeyed the Republican party and the wishes of his contributors; Halliburton, oil companies, and Wall Street. We owe our children and grandchildren a livable planet. Today he said no to cleaner air. I'm glad this amendment was sounded defeatedly by senators who care about the next generation."

Is The Senate Letting Wall Street Get Off Too Lightly? What A Silly Question!

If you notice things like this, you might have detected that we didn't run anything yesterday about the passage of the Senate's version of H.R.4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. That's because we've been trying to grapple with what it seems to be accomplishing and what is isn't even going to try to accomplish, how it differs from the House version and... well, what it all means. Obviously with the financial industry having spent more money than any other sector on lobbying ($4,052,217,962 since 1998), not to mention another $1,395,315,634 in the thinly-veiled bribes we conveniently refer to as "campaign contributions," the financial sector isn't allowing the boys and girls they own to get too wild, even if they did nearly bankrupt the country with their unregulated greed and avarice.

OK, so first the vote late Thursday evening, passing the bill 59-39, hot on the heels of the cloture vote shutting down the Republican Party filibuster earlier in the day, which passed 60-40. Democrats Russ Feingold and Maria Cantwell joined the GOP filibuster and voted against the bill (more on that below). Republicans Scott Brown (MA- not the 41st vote after all), Susan Collins (ME) and Olympia Snowe (ME) voted with the Democrats in the interests of consumers and Main Street and against the Wall Street banksters, whose interests Republicans had been seeking so assiduously to defend. Even fully-owned subsidiaries of the financial sector like Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman voted with the Democrats, making me suspicious that there must be something really wrong with the bill. (Petrified that recent polls show him losing to Roxanne Conlin in Iowa in November, Chuck Grassley, stuck with his reactionary party's filibuster but at the last second crossed the aisle and voted for the final bill. More on that below too.)

Yesterday Paul Krugman said it could have been better and it surely could have been a lot worse, and thank the selfish and corrupt banksters, particularly Lloyd Blankfein, for providing "scandals at just the right time."

What’s good? Resolution authority, which was sorely lacking last year; consumer protection; derivatives traded through clearinghouses; ratings reform, thanks to Al Franken; tighter capital standards for big players, although with too much discretion to regulators.

What’s missing? Hard leverage limits; size caps; not much in the way of restoring Glass-Steagall. If you think that too big to fail is the core problem, it’s disappointing; if you think that shadow banking is the core, as I do, not too bad.

Feingold's excuse sounded a little thin and hollow to me, in case you've noticed that Blue America isn't raising contributions for him this year: "The bill," he said, "does not eliminate the risk to our economy posed by ‘too big to fail’ financial firms, nor does it restore the proven safeguards established after the Great Depression, which separated Main Street banks from big Wall Street firms and are essential to preventing another economic meltdown. The recent financial crisis triggered the nation’s worst recession since the Great Depression. The bill should have included reforms to prevent another such crisis. Regrettably, it did not.”

Is he right? Sure. Is he on the same planet the rest of us are on? Judge for yourself. One of his Wisconsin constituents, Dave Sherbula who sometimes writes for us about Paul Ryan, seems fit to be tied-- but doesn't disagree with Feingold's stand:

I am disgusted.

The whores in the Senate (not one Republican voted to end usury and 21 Democrats went along with them) did nothing to cap interest rates on credit cards. Think about that for a minute. The US Government bailed out a bunch of criminal bankers and gave them practically no interest loans. The bankers devastated of our economy. Yet we let them charge usury-as rates on credit cards. People are struggling. Credit cards can keep you afloat for while. 

It get's better. The credit rating agencies score you on the percentage of your credit line you use.  So they are lowering peoples credit ratings who have an unblemished record of payments because the banksters cut your credit line. Because the banksters trashed our economy by their incompetence. But the US Government opens the Fed window to criminal bankers who are insolvent and give practically no interest loans.

I used to be against the death penalty. I changed my mind. I think it has a place in financial crimes that destroy so many lives. Large banks are weapons of mass destruction.

Politicians who enable them need to be held to the same standard as someone who supported a terrorist organization.

ThinkProgress has a good side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate version, which will now have to be reconciled-- and where the bankster lobbyists are now trying to work their magic. Is the bill likely to get better in reconcilation? No chance. Is it likely to get worse? I'd bet on it-- and I'd bet big. Here's their chart on the major differences:


Yesterday Roxanne Conley addressed Grassley's confused role in this whole process and how her campaign has forced him to veer away from his own reactionary instincts and from those of his deranged party. "We have turned up the heat on Senator Grassley.  Because of our efforts Senator Grassley reversed his five previous votes to block debate on Wall Street reform and supported the final measure. I am so proud of our grassroots supporters who mobilized online and across the state and reached out to Senator Grassley to get him to switch his position.  While this does not make amends for Senator Grassley's $700 billion bailout of Wall Street or the fact that he created the atmosphere that allowed for recklessness and greed to wreak havoc on nation's economic system, I am pleased with his vote today."

North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall has had similar types of successes in getting Richard Burr to vote against the Republican Party line from time to time. But not that time. Last night she pointed out that his "vote against financial reform is a slap in the face to anyone who has lost a job, watched their savings shrink or been harmed in this recession. He has once again shown that his allegiance lies with Wall Street banks, not the people of North Carolina. It's time to send Richard Burr home."

I'd like to leave the discussion today with some remarks from the Senate's most trustworthy member on anything to do with the banking business, Bernie Sanders (I-VT):

“As a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior of Wall Street, this country was plunged into a horrendous recession. While this bill does not go as far as I would like, it is a strong beginning in the effort to reregulate huge financial institutions and to bring transparency to their often nefarious activities.
 
“I am especially proud that in this bill there is a major provision I authored which, for the first time, will lift the veil of secrecy at the Federal Reserve and give the American people an understanding of where trillions of their tax dollars went in the Wall Street bailout.

“I am disappointed that we could not garner the necessary votes to lower interest rates on credit cards or to begin the process of breaking up the largest financial institutions in this country which are the cause of so many of our problems. I intend to continue that effort until we succeed.”

Roxanne Conlin-- Is She The Democrat Most Likely To Paint A Red Seat Blue In 2010?

The ideologically-based media and the corporately owned media have been diligent in painting a decidedly one-sided anti-Democratic picture going into the November Midterm elections. They hope the conventional wisdom that they've created-- that this is a wave year for Republicans-- will become a self-fulfilling prophesy. This isn't borne out by the facts-- Republicans are as untrusted and unpopular as ever, for example, and as the economy recovers from Bush-Republican financial and economic policies (and deprecations), Democrats look more and more attractive to ordinary Americans. What is clear, on the other hand, is that 2010 will be a bad year for incumbents, particularly conservative ones.

Last weekend in Utah, ultra-conservative Republican Senator Robert Bennett saw his political career come to a screeching halt at the hands of deranged teabaggers. At the same time, one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress, Blue Dog Jim Matheson, was denied the Democratic Party endorsement-- with corporate shill Steny Hoyer in the room pleading with delegates to vote for him-- by an openly lesbian progressive Democrat, Claudia Wright. Mormon-dominated Utah hasn't exactly been fertile soil for progressive values or the Democratic Party, but progressives and Democrats stand to make gains all over the country. And the Blue America guest at Crooks and Liars today (11am, PT), Roxanne Conlin of Iowa, may well be the best shot the Democrats have of turning a red Senate seat blue.

She's also the best shot Iowa Democrats have of taking that seat back from the conservatives in living memory. She's a trial attorney whose life's work has been standing up for ordinary American families against predatory corporations, the kinds of predatory corporations that have financed Chuck Grassley's political career. Conservative barnacle Grassley was first elected to political office in 1958. How old were you then? He's been gulping from the public trough-- with no interruption-- for 52 years. Even if the media doesn't, wily old Grassley does understand that 2010 is shaping up to be an anti-incumbent year, not an anti-Democratic year. And this will be the first time Grassley has ever faced a strong Democratic opponent and the first time he's run with a registration disadvantage. Iowa Democrats overtook Republicans in 2006, increased their share of voters substantially in 2008 and go into 2010 with around 100,000 more registered voters than Republicans.

Grassley, who may be personally liked by-- or at least familiar to-- most Iowa voters, is increasingly seen as kind of senile and bizarre, making inappropriate comments, about "pulling the plug on Grandma" and crazy stuff like that, as though he had turrets syndrome. One of K Street's best friends and widely viewed as a senator whose vote is always up for sale to the highest paying corporate interest, Grassley actually failed to keep pace with Roxanne's grassroots fundraising in the first quarter! The 28 point spread between Grassley and Roxanne in January has shrunk to a 9 point advantage for the 30 year incumbent.

So far all this momentum for Roxanne has come with no help from Washington, no TV ads, nothing but grassroots, on-the-ground, old style retail campaigning. She's visited all 99 of Iowa's counties, even the ones that vote for Steve King! She's already beating Grassley among women voters. And what does she talk about? Real issues with a real impact on people's lives. And that's bad news for Grassley. He may not remember, but he was the one who stuck a little provision into Bush's Medicare Part D giveaway for Grassley's Big Pharma campaign contributors that guaranteed that the federal government could not negotiate for fair prices for senior citizens. This is one of Roxanne's favorite points. She told me that when someone buys Zocor (20mg) through the VA (where the government does negotiate), they pay $127.44 annually. Vets were lucky Grassley didn't do to them what he did to seniors. Seniors buying the same Zocor through Medicare Part D pay $1,485.96, thanks entirely to Chuck Grassley and the other conservative corporate shills in the Senate. If you buy your Protonix (40mg) through the VA, the government gets you a nice deal-- $214.53/year. The Chuck Grassley price is a stunning $1,148.40. No wonder the pharmaceutical industry loves him. He's responsible for transferring billions of our dollars into their coffers. He gets a cut, too; they've given him $549,180 over the years.

Roxanne looks forward to getting into the Senate and changing this-- as well as the ban on drug importation, another reason the Big Drug companies love Grassley so very, very dearly. She's also eager to debate Grassley on his ardent backing for corporations that ship American jobs overseas. He has a long and sordid voting record she wants to talk with him about. In 2005, for example, he voted against an amendment (along with every Republican and a few conservative corporate Dems) that would repeal tax incentives for domestic companies that move their manufacturing plants to offshore locations and use the resulting revenue to reduce the federal deficit and debt by $3.2 billion from 2006 to 2010. The year before, he voted against prohibiting American tax dollars from being used to ship jobs outside the country. The amendment Grassley voted against would have: limited the ability of civilian agencies to award contracts to companies that would use offshore workers, prohibited the privatization of jobs when contractors would take the work overseas, and require states to certify that they will not use federal funds for services performed outside the United States, eliminated tax advantages for companies that move factories overseas to make goods that are shipped back to the U.S. market, and prohibited companies from deferring taxes on income earned from these “runaway” manufacturing plants. Again, Grassley and every single Republican voted against it-- joined by 4 DLC corporate freaks, John Breaux, Ben Nelson, Zell Miller and Max Baucus. 2004 was also the year Grassley voted against an amendment that would have struck $39 billion in tax breaks on overseas income. The amendment would have provided for an immediate 9% tax deduction for domestic manufacturers. And in 2003 there were three more votes along the same lines: helping wreck the middle class by rewarding corporations for shipping American jobs overseas. If Roxanne can make this case stick-- get Iowa voters to focus on Grassley's voting record-- he's toast. Let's help her get the message out.

Will Wall Street Get Their Money's Worth From McConnell And Their GOP Puppets?

This evening the Republicans are going to have to man-up and take a deep breath and level with the American people. Today the vote none of them want the country to see-- the one that says, basically, "I am with Wall Street" or "I stand with my constituents"-- will come before the Senate for a vote. I can't wait to see how Richard Burr, one of the slimiest cowards in Congress-- and one of the most vulnerable-- handles it. So far McConnell and Shelby have been unable to make the kind of deal that will let their members off easy without making them vote for Wall Street.

Even if all 59 Democrats vote "yes"-- and, yes, even Blanche Lincoln is on board for a change-- and all 41 Republicans-- including Snowe, Collins and Scott "teabagger" Brown-- manage to filibuster financial reform to death, the long term death prospects are for the GOP.

Shelby, the top ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, told George Stephanopoulos that his staff would be meeting with staff from Chairman Chris Dodd's office at 2:00 p.m., leaving little time to cement a bargain. Without an agreement, all 59 members of the Democratic caucus are committed to moving ahead and hoping to peel off at least one Republican.

GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said that he has 41 votes to block debate. Shelby insisted Monday that was still the case. "I believe we will have the votes this afternoon," said Shelby.

Several Republicans have wavered in recent days, giving Democrats a sense of momentum heading into the vote. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa.) voted last week in the Agriculture Committee to back strong derivatives reform, legislation that Shelby said he could "absolutely" get behind.

"To trade with the idea of highly leveraged positions hoping that the taxpayer will bail them out... that's wrong, it's a mistake, and we're going to end that," said Shelby, arguing that the casino culture must be ended. "If they want to gamble, go to Las Vegas or somewhere."

...Jim Manley, senior communications adviser for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said that Republicans must choose between siding with reform or backing Wall Street. "Today, Republicans face a major choice: Will they stand up for the American people, and join us to hold Wall Street accountable for the reckless gambling that cost 8 million Americans their jobs and millions more their economic livelihood? Or will they follow the marching orders they've been getting at their secret, closed-door meetings with Wall Street executives, and continue to protect Wall Street? We remain eager to work with Republicans who are sincere about reforming Wall Street, and we are hopeful for bipartisan agreement on this important effort," he said. "But there are no two ways about it: a vote against even opening debate on holding Wall Street accountable is a vote to protect Wall Street."

If Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway-- currently running on a very strong reform Wall Street platform-- is elected in November, he will be at loggerheads with Kentucky's other senator, one of teh most disgraceful Wall Street shills in the history of the U.S. Senate. "I think that Kentucky's senior Senator Mitch McConnell should stop defending big banks like Goldman Sachs and join his fellow Republicans in a bipartisan effort to reform Wall Street, because that's what will help Kentucky working families. We need to protect consumers and taxpayers and prevent any institution from ever again becoming 'too big to fail'." That statement from Conway this morning pretty much sums up why he is different not just from McConnell but from the 3 conservatives he's running against for Senate, Daniel Mongiardo, Rand Paul and McConnell's boy Trey Grayson.

This morning I got an e-mail from Lawrence Lessig at Change Congress that explains Senator Brown's "stand" on financial reform. It's even scarier than what you might suppose. Watch the video at the link above.

Scott Brown, Massachusetts' new senator, opposes legislation in Congress that would strengthen regulations for Wall Street.

But when a reporter recently asked him why he's against this bill, Brown couldn't give an answer. He's against financial reform, but he has no idea why.

Let me help Senator Brown: During his campaign last year, Brown received half of his campaign contributions from Wall Street and business executives. He benefited from another million dollars in issue ads by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They oppose the bill, so Senator Brown opposes the bill. It's no wonder Pew recently found that trust in Congress is at its lowest point ever.

Russ Feingold, one of only 8 senators who refused to vote for 1999's catastrophic Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which tore down the firewall between Main Street banks and Wall Street securities firms and insurance companies, says he'll vote to get the debate going-- which is more than the lockstep Republican obstructionists-- but he isn't committing to voting for anything he doesn't feel is in teh best interests of America.

“I will vote to take up the financial regulatory reform bill. Preventing even a debate on this critically important issue is a fantasy for the Wall Street banks that seek to undermine the first serious effort to reform financial regulations since their reckless and irresponsible actions triggered the worst recession our nation has experienced since the Great Depression.
 
“But while I support opening debate on that measure, I will not support any predetermined amending process, or as one senator described it, a ‘template’ for floor consideration that effectively puts the fix in for some negotiated final product.  Congress’ recent history on regulating the financial sector is not a proud one.  For the last 30 years, Congress has consistently given in to the wishes of Wall Street banks and voted to weaken essential safeguards.  And as has been the case in so many areas, members of both political parties in Washington are to blame.  Legislation that paved the way for the creation of massive Wall Street entities and removed essential protections for our economy-- including the Riegle-Neal Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act-- passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.  Congress needs to get it right this time, and finally enact tough reforms to prevent Wall Street from driving our economy into the ditch again.  I will not vote to end debate on this bill unless and until it meets that goal.”

The fight over Wall Street reform is spilling over into the congressional campaigns too. Charlie Bass is the probable GOP nominee for the New Hampshire House seat Paul Hodes is giving up to run for Senate. He thinks he owns the seat because his daddy was a congressman too. When Bass held the seat, between 1994 and 2006, he was widely known as a classic Wall Street shill (well over half a million dollars in "contributions from the financial sector) and someone very sketchy in the ethics area. (He had taken $14,233 in payoffs from DeLay and even after DeLay was indicted Bass refused to divest himself of the bribes.) Over the weekend Bass called the attempt to reform Wall Street "extremist." His main Democratic opponent, Ann McLane Kuster, came back this morning with an answer: “Congressman Bass might think that it is ‘extremist’ to reform Wall Street, but I think it is common sense,” said Kuster. “The only extremism here is defending a broken system that has allowed the biggest banks to profit while everyone else is left worrying about their job, their retirement, their college savings, and more. We won’t see stable economic growth again until we fix the broken system that got us here, and I am disappointed that Congressman Bass is dragging his heels and trying to preserve the status quo.”

One of the most serious voices inside the Senate for strong and effective reform, Jeff Merkley (D-OR) sent this quote to DWT:

Just prior to the vote today to continue debate on Wall Street reform, Republican leadership wants to continue backroom deals rather than have an open floor debate in front of the American people. With today’s vote, members of Congress will either choose to stand with Main Street or Wall Street. We can stand with Main Street and put some common sense rules of the road in place; or we can stand with Wall Street and continue the bank casinos that took the homes, jobs and savings of the American people. We can stand for bringing accountability to Wall Street and reining in the abuses by the payday lenders, mortgage brokers and credit card companies or we can stand alongside the millions in bonuses and billions in profits for Wall Street. To me, it’s an easy choice. Wall Street reform is needed. Every family and business owner on Main Street knows this. It’s up to us to fight for the American middle class and do what’s right.

UPDATE: Your Intuition Was Right

The Washington Post/ABC News poll just out this morning is clear that the vast majority of Americans agree with Obama and the Democrats that Wall Street must be re-regulated.

About two-thirds of Americans support stricter regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their business, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Majorities also back two main components of legislation congressional Democrats plan to bring to a vote in the Senate this week: greater federal oversight of consumer loans and a company-paid fund that would cover the costs of dismantling failed firms that put the broader economy at risk... [C]ompared with congressional Republicans, Obama has a clear advantage. A slim majority-- 52 percent-- of all Americans says they trust Obama over the GOP on the issue, while 35 percent favor the Republicans in Congress. Independents prefer Obama 47 to 35 percent, with 16 percent trusting neither side on the issue.

In the poll, most Democrats back each of the three major elements of the reform legislation and most Republicans oppose them, echoing the congressional showdown expected this week.

Roxanne Conlin is running against one of the most insidious obstacles to effective Wall Street reform, Iowa barnacle Chuck Grassley, who has managed to gobble up $2,590,499 in thinly veiled bribes from the Financial Sector since entering Congress in 1891. This morning Roxanne told us that she feels "the Financial Stability Act of 2010 is a step in the right direction, as reforms  are desperately needed.  However, the current bill simply does not go far enough. In America, we have safety systems for many activities like speed limits, no passing zones, and air traffic control. This bill only seems to paint new lines on the road without imposing the type of overall re-regulation that would prevent another financial meltdown.  

"We must reinstitute a modernized version of  the Glass-Steagall Act that will prevent these large institutions from merging traditional banks with investment banks and with insurance companies. We must take steps to prevent institutions from becoming  "too big to fail" and create a fair system for winding down the ones that fail without ever again relying on the taxpayers. We must institute personal responsibility and stop rewarding risk without accountability for the risk takers when they lose. The whole system of compensation needs to be revamped and incorporate ordinary notions of fairness.  In addition, we must encourage prosecution of those deceitful individuals who perpetrated fraud and celebrated as our economy collapsed, killing jobs and robbing citizens of trillions of dollars of assets and costing taxpayers billions of dollars in bailouts." 


UPDATE: The GOP Just Voted In Lockstep Against Even Beginning The Debate On Reform

In the most blatant combination of obstructionism, toadyism towards Wall Street and disdain for the American public, every single Republican in the Senate just voted against allowing a debate to proceed to even discuss the kind of financial reform needed to prevent another economic collapse that the GOP seems to specialize in. Ben Nelson, a Republican disguised as a Democrat, voted with his GOP buddies today. The final vote to cut off the Republican filibuster failed 57-41. Sixty votes were needed (Nelson plus one Republican plus Harry Reid who had to switch "no" so he can bring it up again). There's some speculation that Nelson was drunk again when he voted, having told CNN that he's worried "this legislation will adversely impact Main Street when the focus needs to be on Wall Street. ... I don't think everyone is aware of the unintended consequences."

President Obama just weighed in:

“I am deeply disappointed that Senate Republicans voted in a block against allowing a public debate on Wall Street reform to begin. Some of these Senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether. But the American people can’t afford that. A lack of consumer protections and a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly brought our economy to its knees, and helped cause the pain that has left millions of Americans without jobs and without homes. The reform that both parties have been working on for a year would prevent a crisis like this from happening again, and I urge the Senate to get back to work and put the interests of the country ahead of party.”

I liked what North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall said even more. “Richard Burr could have taken these people on. Instead, he took their money. We used to call that ‘on the take.’ You would think he would at least be ashamed.”

Elaine is running against Burr for the Senate seat he's occupying. Last week, he attended a GOP fundraiser thrown by the lobbyists for many of the sleaziest and most contemptible Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs. This weekend, emails disclosed that Goldman Sachs, which is facing charges of fraud, made huge profits betting against the housing market. Burr has taken $10,000 from the firm's political action committee and immense sums from Goldman Sachs executives who have counted on him to protect their interests even when it conflicts with his own constituents' interests-- as they often do.

Roxanne Conlin (D-IA) Explains A Legal Approach That Can Open A Pathway Towards Healthcare Reform

Wednesday the House voted overwhelmingly to abolish the exemption the health insurance monopolies have been enjoying from antitrust laws. I spoke to half a dozen candidates running for House seats from around the country, all of whom were very enthusiastic about the action (as you can see at the link above). Today an old Blue America friend, Rep. John Hall, sent us a statement reminding us that he's been talking about doing just this since last summer.

Finally, the House of Representatives has repealed the anti-trust exemption for the health insurance industry. I have been talking about this since last August, when it elicited applause from progressives and conservatives alike in my health care town hall meetings. I have spoken forcefully in our caucus about the insanity of allowing monopolistic practices, price-fixing, collusion and consolidation by corporations which are gouging the consumer with skyrocketing insurance premiums, shrinking coverage, underpaying of doctors, and refusing coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions.

Today, we finally got a debate and a vote on this first, clear issue pertaining to health care reform. Competition is key in driving down costs for families and small businesses. Monopolies kill competition. I have not heard a credible reason for health insurance companies to have such protection. It is especially obvious when Anthem Blue Cross just proposed a premium hike of 39% for one year, while simultaneously posting record profits and dropping millions more from coverage. I have heard from many of you who have experienced similar hikes from your insurance companies.

Enough is enough. I co-sponsored the legislation that passed by a bipartisan vote of 406-19. Republican Representatives argued strenuously against the bill, then flip-flopped and voted for it. I guess they didn't want to face the voters after casting a vote to protect an industry that clearly does not need protection.

By chance I also happened to be on the phone with Roxanne Conlin, a progressive Democrat running for the Iowa Senate seat currently occupied by anti-healthcare fanatic Chuck Grassley. Roxanne is an attorney who "has devoted her law practice in Des Moines, Iowa to representing people who have been injured by others, whether by discrimination, products, doctors or vehicles and has gained national attention and the respect of her peers in the process." She knows quite a lot about why repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act will be a tremendous boost for the whole cause of health care reform. John and I have invited her to C&L today (at noon, PT) to talk about this issue as the bill moves on to the Senate, the body she is aspiring to be part of. Meet us-- and Roxanne-- in the comments section.

How Worthwhile Is Obama's Healthcare Bill?

I guess he doesn't have the will-- let alone the power-- to line all the Insurance Industry CEOs up against a wall (plus their lobbyists, including Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman) and give them blindfolds and last cigarettes, so the weak tea in the form of oversight is the best we can expect from Obama's breathtakingly sad healthcare "reform" bill. Not only is it a pathetic bill that will have no support on the right or the left, he says he'll use reconciliation to pass it. Unless, he's got some tricks up his sleeve to make the godawful Senate bill-- which is essentially what his stinker of a bill is-- more family-friendly, using reconciliation will probably guarantee a massive landslide in November... and not the kind we'd like to see. The White House is trying to spin it as a "bridge" between the relatively progressive House bill and the worst of all worlds Senate bill. It's good he removed the bribes Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu traded their votes for-- so it's only 99% crap instead of 100%. OK, ok, I'm exaggerating... a little.

The Obama plan maintains key elements of the Senate proposal but also incorporates stronger anti-fraud provisions and allows the federal government to review insurance rate hikes. On a call with reporters Pfeiffer insisted that the administration has not determined “on which path to move forward with,” but the bill’s substance suggests that Obama is hoping to bypass a prolonged-Senate debate and use the reconciliation process to fix the Senate bill and convince reluctant House progressives to pass the Senate legislation. “The American people deserve up or down vote on health reform,”Pfeiffer said. “We can get an up or down vote if opposition decides to take extraordinary steps of filibustering health reforms.”

But it’s unclear if progressive House members will embrace the new compromise. While the bill addresses House members’ affordability concerns, increases the excise tax thresholds and completely closes the donut hole in Medicare Part D, the legislation does not include a public option, retains the Senate bill’s state-based exchanges and keeps the start date for most reforms at 2014. (Obama’s plan also retains the Senate’s abortion compromise and most other core provisions).

Yesterday I was on the phone with a supporter of genuine healthcare reform, Iowa Senate candidate Roxanne Conley (who's running against anti-reform fanatic and saboteur Chuck Grassley) and I mentioned that her opposition to escalating the Afghanistan War was contrary to the president's-- President Obama, not "President" Bush. I got back to her a few hours ago about Obama's healthcare proposal to see how she was reacting. Here's what she told me-- word for word:

I have held town hall meetings in half of Iowa's 99 counties over the past two months and Iowans from all walks of life are telling me they want a public option. The public option can help contain runaway costs, increase competition in the marketplace, while providing greater access and accountability to the system. I'm disappointed the President has not included it in his plan-- and hope he will continue to work with Congress to make it part of health care reform. I welcome his ambition to close the "donut hole" Chuck Grassley created for Medicare prescription drug beneficiaries and strongly support that effort.

Another grassroots Democratic candidate running far from the confines of the Beltway, Mitchell Howie, is up against Blue Dog obstructionist-turned-Republican-obstructionist Parker Griffith in northern Alabama. He's running a very grassroots populist campaign and, like Roxanne, he doesn't think Obama's proposal serves the interests of his neighbors and prospective constituents.

I will always represent the folks of the 5th district first. And occasionally that means not supporting the president's agenda in every respect. When Washington's proposals diverge from the interests of the people I represent then I will work for the people always, not Washington. 

Regarding health care: It is important the president put forward proposals that allow for a full debate of issues on the merits that may bring down health care costs that are a burden to our economy.

The single payer/public option debate is one that should be held in the halls of Congress (on C Span as previously promised) not decided on in back rooms.

It's easy to detect the palpable sense of discomfort from Democrats who are profoundly disappointed in Obama's attempt-- unsuccessful attempt-- to placate obstructionist Republicans, who, by their very nature are implacable-- at the expense of ordinary American families. It's especially strong among incumbents. I don't know anyone who fought harder to pass the public option than Maryland progressive Donna Edwards and I know she will continue to fight. Last night she said that Obama's bill is a step in the right direction. “We are closer than ever to passing historic comprehensive and affordable health care reform. The President’s proposal is a step forward that includes several strong reforms from the House and Senate bills including a proposal I championed that would require rate reviews of insurance premiums to hold down costs. Without affordability, families do not have access to quality care.  However, we have further to go towards ensuring that Americans have truly meaningful health care reform that will hold down costs for middle class families, invest in long-term care, guarantee transparency, preserve women’s full reproductive health care access, sustain state Medicaid programs, and help the unemployed afford quality care. I look forward to the President’s Health Care Summit so we can finish the job of implementing meaningful health reform for American families.” 

Raul Grijalva, Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has worked very hard with Donna to keep the public option on the table. Today he patted the president respectfully on the head for what was included in the bill and didn't mince words about what's missing from it.

I appreciate the president working to move the health care agenda forward. Given the gridlock produced by constant Republican obstructionism, the White House’s continued effort to reach a meaningful solution is welcome. The president’s plan includes several essential elements-- including efforts to hold down premium increases and eliminating the special Nebraska deal in the original Senate bill-- that I think are vital.
 
I and many other progressives would enthusiastically support the bill if a public option, which would provide insurance industry competition and greatly reduce the deficit, were a higher priority. I am also concerned that affordability credits are not sufficient for many working Americans who often have to choose between health care and other equally basic expenses each month. Insurance industry regulations in the bill could be stronger, and I will look carefully at the outcome of final negotiations on this point.
 
I look forward to finalizing a reform package that will give all Americans adequate, reliable health care access. Although the president’s bill does not include certain elements that I consider fundamental to successful reform, I applaud his commitment to the issue and fully expect to work with other lawmakers to produce a strong final product that we can be proud of.

Another progressive who has fought for healthcare reform, Washington state Sen. Craig Pridemore (Blue America's newest endorsee) has a similar read on what's happening here to Donna's and Raul's. Last night he told me that "It’s difficult to just walk away from what little progress this bill does make. Covering 31 million more Americans and pre-existing conditions are great things and should be done immediately. But the rest of this proposal, as with both the House and Senate versions, leaves far more to be desired than it does to satisfy. If this really is the best we can accomplish right now, health care reform will continue to be a high priority issue in the next Congress." That what Donna has been warning me for months.

Yesterday CREDO was first out of the box with a petition urging Congress to oppose Obama's attempt at a weak, shameful, "bipartisan" bill and to demand a public option be put back on the table.

The president's plan is just an opening bid for discussion with Republicans, so you might think that it would include a public option that is supported by most Americans and is extremely popular with Democrats. But there is no public option in the president's proposal.

Instead, it is largely based upon the negotiations that were happening before Jan. 19th's election in Massachusetts. It's still a plan that is written with 60 votes in mind to succeed. It still includes elements written by Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. It includes proposals from Republicans. It has all kinds of trade-offs aimed at senators who will never vote for this bill.

President Obama has given the Republicans and conservative Democrats ample opportunity to get on board with health care reform. It's time to pass health care without them.

Inside the Beltway, there is confusion and a lack of clarity on how progressives will feel about Obama's offering. In America, there isn't any lack of clarity. Francine Busby is hardly a leftist. She's a solid Democratic Party grassroots activist who was a major Obama campaigner in 2008. She's running against ex-lobbyist Brian Bilbray for Congress in North San Diego County this year. Her comments were quite clear:

I firmly support a public option because it is necessary to provide a viable alternative to private insurance companies who have proven that they have no interest in the health and well-being of Americans or our health care system. Without the public option, we are exacerbating the problem by giving these for-profit companies tens of millions more customers on the taxpayers' dime. We must unite in support of the people of this country to bring meaningful reform that will lower the cost of health care, increase competition and give everyone the peace of mind that they have access to quality health care.

And Francine isn't the only southern California Democratic challenger less than overjoyed with Obama's approach. Marcy Winograd, the Blue America-endorsed progressive running against Blue Dog Jane Harman has been a leading voice in Los Angeles for the single payer approach favored by most Democrats. This morning she told us flatly that she "cannot support mandated purchasing of private health insurance. Why would we force Americans to buy from a health insurance industry that consistently denies care and gouges the public with usurious rate increases? If the President and Congress want to outlaw pre-conditions or limit rate increases, then they should do that-- separate and apart from mandated purchasing. Ultimately, the answer is single-payer."

John Thrasher is running against one of the most extremist members of Congress, terribly angry-at-the-world closet queen Trent Franks (R-AZ) and, needless to say, Franks doesn't want anyone getting healthcare (other than himself and his own family). Thrasher is a big supporter of real healthcare reform. His point of view is about as far from the Beltway bullshit as you'll get.

With Arizona's economy in serious trouble and a Legislature that cannot pass a budget, it is most likely time to take a look at how we spend taxpayers' money. Should we reconsider whether to spend taxpayers' money overseas, or would spending taxpayers' money on America's infrastructure be more productive? Encouraging the demand side of labor will create jobs, negotiating for costs of health care and returning our fare share is required to rebuild the middle class.

President Obama's health care plan did not mention single payer nor did it offer a public option that 82% of the American people have made very clear that must be included.

It is clear to the American people, but apparently not this Congress, that unless we stop the corporate control of our health care, that can control premium increases at a moments notice, and without getting approval from the owner of the premium, I do not see that I could support this Bill presented today. 

We must have an acceptable healthcare Bill, however, it has to be one that the owners of the policies have choices that will create competition and stop the rip-offs of continued cost increases, like the 39% raise by Anthem Healthcare in California, or refusing to keep a policy holder enrolled. It should be called the American Health Care System, covering everyone. Craft it to be similar to the Medicare (E), or Medicare for everyone plan, which does lower premiums and can operate in a similar 3% overhead cost, saving hundreds of millions in high profits for a few CEO's, and on our dime. Stop bonuses with money that should go to premium control and lower costs for the owners of health care. I will look for the public option and/or public policy to be included before I will consider such a bill acceptable.

Billy Kennedy is the Democrat running against one of the most doctrinaire of the GOP obstructionists, Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and his perspective takes into account the needs of ordinary working families in western North Carolina.

I am an independent person and will be an independent candidate and office holder as well. I am not beholden to, and will not put myself in the position of becoming beholden to, the corporate interests of the insurance and the pharmaceutical industries over the interests of working Americans. I, like the majority of Americans, am a strong supporter of a public option in any health care reform proposal, but would consider an optional Medicare buy-in in its place. I believe such a buy-in, if well constructed, would get us started on the path of providing competition and cost controls for a greater number of Americans. While there are some good beginning reforms outlined in the President’s proposed bill, there is little to nothing in the bill to control costs or drive them down, and there is no proposed Public option or Medicare buy-in. There is no anti-trust exemption repeal, and there is no national exchange. Furthermore, Americans will be mandated to purchase insurance policies they can’t afford from for-profit companies subsidized with tax-payer dollars to for-profit companies without some competitive agent (like a public option and/or a Medicare buy-in). In other words, we’re a long way from true reform. The good news, however, is it appears the President and the Senate Democrats appear ready to pass health care reform through reconciliation (and it’s about time). The unfortunate reality is that the President is not going to push for a public option or Medicare buy in, so that means those of us who believe so strongly that this is essential to any reform must find another means to deliver to Americans what they have strongly supported from the get go: strong non-profit competition to insurance companies. At the time I’m writing this, 20 Senators have signed onto a pledge to vote for a public option through Senate reconciliation. It seems to clear to me at this time, this is where we must apply pressure and demand accountability.

In line with Blue America's quest for Better Democrats, we were eager to hear from Andrew Gall, the courageous former Obama campaign staffer challenging Majority Leader and friend of all Blue Dogs, Steny Hoyer. Andrew has a far more family-friendly take on what the healthcare is all about that Hoyer, who has taken in immense amounts of money from Big Insurance ($546,477) and from the Medical Industrial Complex ($2,070,708). I got Andrew on the phone yesterday just after the details of Obama's proposal were posted online:

It is disappointing to see that there is no public option. While I do not have an ideological predilection towards seeing the inclusion of a public option, I do have an ideological predilection towards good policy. One of the two primary objectives of health care reform is to rein in costs, and the CBO scored the public option as one of the best tools put forth to do so.  Consequently, if lawmakers are serious about stemming the unsustainable rise in health care costs, they should support a robust public option. Unfortunately, President Obama doesn’t want to re-fight this battle. While I understand, pragmatic politics, the reality is that Republicans-- as Leader Boehner already demonstrated today-- are going to call anything the President puts forth a “government takeover of health care.” If you’re going to receive such political barbs, you might as well put forth the best policy possible. There are other disappointments as well, including a failure to adequately crackdown on uncompetitive pharmaceutical bidding and the lack of a national insurance exchange, but I disagree with those (including my father) that argue a bill without a public option isn’t worth passing at all. Obama’s proposal does in fact contain many positive measures: it would expand access to health care for a large swath of Americans by ending insurance discrimination, crack down on fraud, close the infamous donut hole, raise Medicare payroll taxes on the wealthiest Americans to provide larger subsidies to lower and middle income Americans, and, uniquely, give the government the ability to prevent exorbitant rate hikes. In sum, it is a middling bill, but health care is too important to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Jennifer Brunner's campaign shot this video over the weekend, before Obama put out his flawed bill. It's a message from the heartland, very much in tune with what people who don't have lunches and dinners with lobbyists and CEOs are thinking. Give it a look:

Can Populist Roxanne Conlin Beat Corporate Shill Chuck Grassley?

I had a really pleasant talk today with Roxanne Conlin a woman challenging Chuck Grassley for his Senate seat. She was on her way back from meeting with a hearty bunch of Democratic activists in Harrison County (the Missouri Valley, north of Council Bluffs). I think it was their energy-- these are people in Steve King Country who nearly won their county for Barack Obama in 2008-- that had her all fired up. It was our first conversation and we were just getting to know each other for the first time, although we have mutual friends in author Mike Lux and Congressman Bruce Braley.

I was moved by Roxanne's compelling personal story. After her dad, struggling with alcoholism, lost his job when she was a child, the family's comfortable middle class lifestyle collapsed. Suddenly she knew cold and hunger and privation. With no car and no money for medical care, a minor ear infection turned into a serious problem for the school-aged Roxanne who wound up with partial deafness in one ear. She's dedicated her political and civic life towards making sure that wouldn't happen to her neighbors' children.

Right now she's battling the Republican Goliath of Iowa politics, Chuck Grassley, who's closing in on 80 years old and has been a professional politician since 1958 when he was first elected to the state legislature. He's been living in Washington, DC since 1974 when he was elected to Congress and had been in the Senate since 1981. Today the Des Moines Register reported that Grassley's polling number's had slipped into the danger zone-- and this without Roxanne having even begun campaigning against him yet.

Iowans of all stripes have been disappointed that since Obama was elected Grassley has gone over to the lockstep obstructionist wing of his political party and has stopped working across the aisle for the good of regular families. As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Grassley was in a position to bring both sides together in a bipartisan way. Buckling to far right pressure from the national GOP-- and lured by the great amounts of money from special interests with their own agendas-- Grassley has been swept up in the unlikely role of an ideologue and fanatic.

A darling of special interests, he has taken in $1,155,179 from Agribusiness-- this year second only to corrupt Arkansas Democrat (and Agriculture Committee chair) Blanche Lincoln. And in the areas overseen by his committee-- the finance sector-- he has taken in $2,545,050, a clear conflict of interest. Similarly, at the height of the battle over healthcare reform-- much of it played out in the Finance Committee, Grassley was selling his support to Big Insurance and the Medical Industrial Complex. The so-called "Health sector" has funneled $2,237,789 into his political career and this year he was #7 ($342,710, just behind corrupt North Carolina Big Pharma hack Richard Burr) on the list of senators accepting this kind of thinly veiled bribery from the health care industry.

Unlike Grassley, Roxanne is eager to co-sponsor Dick Durbin's Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752), which will move to lessen the influence of big financial interests on American politics. She turned down an offer from help from the Blue America PAC because she doesn't accept PAC money-- not from anyone-- and is determined to finance her campaign through grassroots contributions. Big uphill climb, but she's already amassed a bigger warchest than any Democrat who has ever gone up against Senator Grassley. If you want to help, her website is looking for volunteers here and for contributions here. Get to know here: