The 111th Congress: maligned yet productive in 2009

Norman Ornstein has a nice piece over at The Washington Post discussing Congress's accomplishments over this past year (yes, accomplishments). It's easy to discredit the quantity and quality of legislation passed in the current awful political climate. However, Ornstein notes:

• The stimulus package
• Expansion of health insurance for children
• TARP funds oversight
• FDA regulation of tobacco
• Land conservation law
• A credit card holder's "bill of rights"
  
• Defense procurement reform
• The relatively speedy House has passed even more bills, including cap-and-trade and financial regulatory reform.
• Both chambers of Congress also passed significant health care reform bills.
  

I would add that Congress has done an effective, if inefficient, job of supporting unemployment programs with federal cash

Now, certainly people can take issue with the quality of this legislation, but the Congress has been active and impressive, especially given its ponderous nature in general and its functioning as the most partisan Congress ever. It's unfortunate that these accomplishments get lost in the hyperbolic discourse of political "debate" in this country, but it doesn't make the accomplishments any less impressive.

The Obama administration and the Dems have failed to sell their successes, both in the general and specific. This is a critical failure with regard to the public - both in its interest and their own.

Pollack on passing health care reform, cont'd

Pollack follows up his open letter to congressional Democrats with this post:

If the House and Senate bills are abandoned, we may (eventually) win Medicaid expansions for people who need help, expanded tax credits for people who cannot afford coverage, and other measures to cover the uninsured. We may even see more stringent regulation of health underwriting and other toxic practices in the insurance industry.

We will not soon see serious delivery reforms or cost-control measures. Whether the issue is high-cost insurance plans, bundled payments, comparative effectiveness research, overpayments to medical device makers, drug companies, specialists, and Medicare Advantage plans, there will be very limited political will to match what is in the current bills.

We will not be able to get these things because we will fracture the political coalition required to enact these painful measures, because the operative lesson of last summer will be that death panel demagoguery trumps real policy argument, and because there are fewer policy levers and fewer political incentives to address these difficulties outside a comprehensive bill.

Last Friday, I and others pled with anxious House members to step up in passing comprehensive reform. Senators: Now I am pleading with you.

President Obama: Now is the time for you to step up, too. Some in your administration are starting to send good signals. Others remain unduly tentative. Fight for this thing as if your legacy is on the line--because it is. I believe you have about 48 hours to fix this up. [emphasis is mine]

In its entirety. Not sure I agree 100% here, but close enough. PTFB.

Reid announces Senate health care reform bill: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Yesterday afternoon Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced his chamber's version of a long-anticipated (and dreaded) health care reform bill . The bill was the result of a merger between . . . more

German Chancellor Angela Merkel addresses joint session of Congress [video]

	This morning Angela Merkel became the first Chancellor of Germany to address a joint session of Congress. Merkel, who was recently reelected to another four-year term in September, focused on . . . more

Senate proposes extending homebuyer tax credit alongside unemployment extension

The good news is that you may be able to rely on a government subsidy to buy your next house. The bad news? You need a job to pay for it. Amidst the uproar over its lack of progress on passing legislation . . . more

Kyl puts the kibosh on unemployment extension bill vote

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) can expect a lot of hate mail soon. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tried to accelerate the usual lengthy process in order to take a quick vote on proposed bill H.R. . . . more

Unemployment Extension Update: Senate Dems propose 50 state coverage

Thursday on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats introduced an amendment to H.R. 3548, the House bill which generously extended unemployment benefits to half the states in the Union, and ungenerously (and, . . . more

White House calls for unemployment benefits extension

Yesterday the White House echoed the sentiments of many Americans with its support of the extension of unemployment benefits, in addition to an extension of the social safety net as part of the American . . . more

Unemployment extension bill stalls in Senate

Despite increasing pressure from state labor groups, constituents, strong Democratic support, and signs from Republican leaders that they would not obstruct its passage, the unemployment extension bill . . . more

Bad Policy?

Breaking down the Baucus health care bill, from James Kwak over at Baseline Scenario:

One reason the Baucus bill is "cheaper" than the House bill is that it has lower subsidies. For illustration, let's assume that the whole $140 billion difference is due to lower subsidies. Relative to the House bill, then, the Baucus bill costs the government $140 billion less; but it costs middle-income people exactly $140 billion more, since they have to buy health insurance. The difference is that in the House bill, the money comes from taxes on the very rich; in the Baucus bill, it comes out of the pockets of the middle-class people who are getting smaller subsidies. Put another way, the Baucus bill is the House bill, plus a $140 billion tax on people making around $40-80,000 per year. That' s not only stupid policy; it's stupid politics.

Via Planet Money.

Ca$h Rules Everything Around Me, C.R.E.A.M. Get Those Election Funds, Dolla Dolla Bill, Y'all

(With apologies to the Wu-Tang Clan.)

Not news so much as an acute kick in the cubes of Good Government:

Nobody even tries to hide this any longer. The only way they could make it more blatant is if they hung a huge Goldman Sachs logo on the Capitol dome and then branded it onto the foreheads of leading members of Congress and executive branch officials.

Quoted in the article, this doozy from Matt Taibbi:

That’s why even people like [Glenn] Beck’s audience, who I’d wager are mostly lower-income people, can’t imagine themselves protesting against the Wall Street barons who in actuality are the ones who fucked them over. . . .

Actual rich people can’t ever be the target. It’s a classic peasant mentality: going into fits of groveling and bowing whenever the master’s carriage rides by, then fuming against the Turks in Crimea or the Jews in the Pale or whoever after spending fifteen hard hours in the fields. You know you’re a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and taking your shit. Whatever the master does, you’re on board. When you get frisky, he sticks a big cross in the middle of your village, and you spend the rest of your life praying to it with big googly eyes. Or he puts out newspapers full of innuendo about this or that faraway group and you immediately salute and rush off to join the hate squad. A good peasant is loyal, simpleminded, and full of misdirected anger. And that’s what we’ve got now, a lot of misdirected anger searching around for a non-target to mis-punish . . . can’t be mad at AIG, can’t be mad at Citi or Goldman Sachs. The real villains have to be the anti-AIG protesters! After all, those people earned those bonuses! If ever there was a textbook case of peasant thinking, it’s struggling middle-class Americans burned up in defense of taxpayer-funded bonuses to millionaires. It’s really weird stuff.

And don't forget:

One might think it would be a big news story for the second most-powerful member of the U.S. Senate to baldly state that the Congress is "owned" by the bankers who spawned the financial crisis and continue to dictate the government's actions. But it won't be.

Indeed. Ah, America!

Greenwald over at Salon. Good stuff, if you don't mind vomiting after reading.

Not Governing In Anger, Vol. 1

Glad to hear that the "Bonus Tax" bill - at best questionable and at worst very dangerous - is foundering.

Cooler heads.

Stimulus

Until I received a notice yesterday I was unaware of this part of the massive stimulus act by Congress:

This notice is to inform you that effective February 22, 2009, an additional $25 per week increase in unemployment benefits was authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The $25 weekly benefit will be paid beginning the week of March 23, 2009, and you will be compensated retroactively to the effective date of the Act (February 22, 2009).

Now that might not seem like much, but it's actually significant for those of us on the dole. Cheers for a small bump directly into the pockets of the unemployed!

I feel stimulated.

"I don't really have a question but I was told that I can use the five minutes."

Check out this clip from the House Committee on Financial Services hearing on 2/12, when TARP recipients went to the Hill with their tails between their legs to receive the full fire and brimstone of one Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA-8).



Gotta love my congressman's enthusiasm. I like around 4:40 when he screams about getting the money "out on the street." Sounds like a capo threatening his loansharks.

"In the new world that you created and we have to clean up."

(Please note that not all of his constituents are incarcerated.)

Whoa and he's a fellow alumnus. Big Green '73! Go figure. Amazing what you can learn about the people who legislate on your behalf if you do a little homework.

Tweet Tweet

I decided I couldn't let the geriatrics in Congress* one-up me on the social media front, so I finally signed up for Twitter. I will be "twittering" as mrhe25. You can follow the twittering here: www.twitter.com/mrhe25

This is sure to be a big waste of time for everyone involved!

*As Seth would say: Really? You, a member of the body running this country during a time of national crisis, are twittering during a joint session speech from the President. REALLY!?!

Blogging Blagojevich et al.

I've been meaning to write something about this Blagojevich scandal for the past few days, but I've had a hard time coming up with words to appropriately convey my disgust. The violation of public trust, the greed, the ego, the blatant disregard for even a nod to ethical conduct in what amounted to auctioning off a seat in the United States Senate to the highest bidder borders on the incredible.

But what is more incredible to me is not the extent of this alleged crime - although Blagojevich's unethical conduct is proven already by the content of the released tape recordings beyond any legal ruling - nor its particular unsavory character, but rather that behavior such as this - unethical, shameful, criminal behavior - is so prevalent, unsurprising, and almost expected of our elected representatives in the highest of public offices.

Spitzer, Stevens, Jefferson, Blagojevich - the list of recent disgraces goes on and on.

While the so-called "Blagola" scandal highlights the potential corruption associated with executive appointment to an otherwise elected legislative office, it helps raise the issue of these appointments in general. Even absent any intent of wrongdoing, for the responsibility of selecting a seat in the U.S. Senator to fall upon one individual seems to run counter to our democratic ideals. Several states have worked around the Constitutional amendment allowing for state governors to appoint senators to fill vacancies, but others - Illinois obviously included - do not have any such legislation on the books (although happily it appears that Illinois is pursuing this as well as other options to foil an appointment by Blago, who refuses to resign).

This election season presents additional thorny appointment questions:

• Delaware: An elderly Biden aide appointed in what cynics say is a clear placeholder for Beau Biden upon his return from Iraq
• New York: Hullabaloo galore over Caroline Kennedy's apparent front-runner status in the Empire State Senate Sweepstakes.
  
• Colorado: The departure of Salazar to join Obama's Cabinet leaves another Senate vacancy.
  
• Illinois: Blagola, but also the coming House vacancy of one Rahm Emanuel.
  

These are not decisions for one man to make. Let the people decide. I can appreciate the need for expediency, and temporary appointments may make sense within certain restrictions, but special elections should be required within 90 days or some similar variation. There is too much at stake to entrust this to executive fiat. It's up to the individual states to enact legislation to protect their citizens - and their seats in Congress - from such potential abuses of power. (Luckily the Commonwealth enacted such legislation in 2004.)

Its history-making aspects aside, there are a lot of crazy and interesting things going on from a Constitutional/legal/political standpoint with the fallout from this presidential election.

I mean, check out what's going on up in Minnesota!