Not Enough Balls Among Them To Shoot Pool

I should have known Harry Reid couldn't keep it up.

Republicans have handed Democrats what could be a key to maintaining control of the Senate and House in the upcoming election: their steadfast support for keeping all of the Bush tax cuts in effect, including those for people making over $250,000. Imagine the sound bites to be obtained by forcing these guys to give floor speeches to support this porition just a few weeks before the election, especially since many of those same Republicans are willing to let the cuts expire for the poorest American if they can't get their way.

All it would have taken was for Reid and the Senate leadership to stand up and call their bluff. As the title of this post implies, that was its downfall; Reid has postponed debate and the vote until after the election, which shows he's as stupid as he is cowardly.

The upcoming voting includes three elections to fill Senate seats that are currently interim positions. By law, whoever wins these elections on November 2 must be seated immediately, which could well cost Democrats three seats they may desperately need for the lame duck session.

Now watch these chickenshit bastards whine about voter turnout if they lose in November.

The United States Joins the Industrial World

President Obama signed the health insurance reform bill today. My friend Charlie Stella will disagree with me, but I think this is the most significant piece of legislation to be enacted during my adult life. (I was none when Medicare passed.)

The bill doesn't go far enough, but it's a start. History has shown what was enacted today is more likely to be added to than to be repealed. (Good luck trying to take its beneficial provisions away from people once they actually get to experience those benefits.) The public option was lost, but that was a big step for a country as polarized as we are right now. I truly believe we will have a single payer system--or exchanges that closely mimic one--possibly in my lifetime.

There are key provisions we must not forget when lamenting what could have been accomplished. Once it's fully implemented, people should no longer have to worry about losing their homes or forfeiting their children's education because they got sick. They won't have to worry about an insurance provider arbitrarily denying them coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They won't have to worry about losing their coverage because it looks like their care is going to get expensive, or because they lost their job and can't afford the COBRA payments.

Systemically, this law should start to put the brakes on the unchecked growth of health care spending. Rather than Republicans crying doom because the government is taking over 1/6 of the economy--which it isn't--they should be happy that this bill may help to make health care only 1/7 of the economy some day. Payments will be made on the efficacy of care, not the frequency.

A flawed bill? Of course; in someone's eyes, every bill is flawed. The perfect legislation has yet to be conceived. Still, it's a good start, and it's only fair for critics such as I to give due credit to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and, maybe most, Nancy Pelosi for getting it done.

Give 'em Hell, Harry

I have been (justifiably) harsh in my comments about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his unwillingness to stand up to Republicans and use the authority vested in the majority by the Constitution and voters. Therefore, it is only fair and right to give credit when Harry gets one right.

Today he sent a letter to Minority leader Mitch McConnell. The jist of it is below, taken from Ezra Klein's blog on the Washington Post website:

Though we have tried to engage in a serious discussion, our efforts have been met by repeatedly debunked myths and outright lies. At the same time, Republicans have resorted to extraordinary legislative maneuvers in an effort not to improve the bill, but to delay and kill it. After watching these tactics for nearly a year, there is only one conclusion an objective observer could make: these Republican maneuvers are rooted less in substantive policy concerns and more in a partisan desire to discredit Democrats, bolster Republicans, and protect the status quo on behalf of the insurance industry.[...]

60 Senators voted to pass historic reform that will make health insurance more affordable, make health insurance companies more accountable and reduce our deficit by roughly a trillion dollars. The House passed a similar bill. However, many Republicans now are demanding that we simply ignore the progress we’ve made, the extensive debate and negotiations we’ve held, the amendments we’ve added (including more than 100 from Republicans) and the votes of a supermajority in favor of a bill whose contents the American people unambiguously support. We will not. We will finish the job. We will do so by revising individual elements of the bills both Houses of Congress passed last year, and we plan to use the regular budget reconciliation process that the Republican caucus has used many times.

I know that many Republicans have expressed concerns with our use of the existing Senate rules, but their argument is unjustified. There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the use of reconciliation. As one of the most senior Senators in your caucus, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said in explaining the use of this very same option, “Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don’t think so.” Similarly, as non-partisan congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein said in this Sunday’s New York Times, our proposal is “compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent.”

Reconciliation is designed to deal with budget-related matters, and some have expressed doubt that it could be used for comprehensive health care reform that includes many policies with no budget implications. But the reconciliation bill now under consideration would not be the vehicle for comprehensive reform – that bill already passed outside of reconciliation with 60 votes. Instead, reconciliation would be used to make a modest number of changes to the original legislation, all of which would be budget-related. There is nothing inappropriate about this. Reconciliation has been used many times for a variety of health-related matters, including the establishment of the Children’s Health Insurance Program and COBRA benefits, and many changes to Medicare and Medicaid.

As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires. Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class. Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority. Either way, we disagree. Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process. You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation. In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote. If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug “donut hole” for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so.

That's about as close to "We're going to shove this bill up your ass if we have to" as any letter between senators is likely to get.

Never Thought I’d Do This

I have been critical of Harry Reid in the past. (Here. And here. And then here and here. Wait, here's another. One more. No, two more. Ooh, a stray.) It is with no small amount of confusion and irony I find myself supporting him today.

Harry got himself into a jackpot this week for something he said a couple of years ago, when he mentioned—in what he thought were off-the-record comments—that Barack Obama could win the presidential election because he was "light skinned" and had "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." The controversy is reminiscent of one Obama himself created two years ago, when he referred to some Pennsylvania voters as "bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

I grew up on the cusp of the part of Pennsylvania Obama was talking about, and thought nothing of it; he was right. I know people like those he described. I was around in the 70s when the mills closed, and saw firsthand how the economic changes were received. I can't quibble with his assessment.

The same is true of Reid's comment. He didn't say it as a slur toward Obama; he was talking about a group of people—who could be from anywhere, but Obama's bitter Pennsylvanians certainly qualified—who might be willing to overlook Obama's race because he's not all that black, and he doesn't speak like he's auditioning for The Wire. You know it's true. Maybe it doesn't apply to you personally, but I defy anyone to argue the point with a straight face. There were people out there for whom that mattered, even if they wouldn't admit it in so many words.

Harry Reid has earned every shred of criticism I've given him over the years, but fair's fair. He shouldn't be pilloried for telling the truth.

Stuck in the Middle

Senate Majority Leader (their term, not mine) Harry Reid (D-NV) has a dilemma. His job as Majority Leader requires him to promote a political agenda more liberal than his constituents in Nevada are comfortable with. This is causing him trouble in his 2010 re-election campaign, and Republicans would like nothing better than to see a Majority Leader’s pelt hanging from their rafters come January 2011.

Reid’s problem is easy to see, and one we’ve probably all had from time to time. He’s trying to serve two masters, and succeeding with neither. The obvious thing to do would be to resign the majority leader position so he can “better serve his constituents in Nevada.” The Democrats could then name someone from a more liberal state who would not face such a quandary, allowing Harry to keep the Nevada seat warm.

Of course, this would call for leadership and a willingness to self-sacrifice, so it’s not likely to happen.

Where the Problem Lays

I haven't pounded on Harry Reid lately, so here's a brief snippet of today's Public Affairs chat in the Washington Post.

Seattle: Ezra, What tools does Reid have at his disposal to really force the "centrist" Democrats in line?

Ezra Klein: If the Senate leadership doesn't like you and the president doesn’t like you your ability to achieve legislative priorities effectively ends. But none of the centrist believe that will actually happen to them. (Emphasis added.)

There you have it. The "moderate" Democrats who helped to weaken the stimulus will get to work their magic on health care because Harry Reid still hasn't grown a pair. Say what you want about Bill Frist and Mitch McConnell, they kept their boys in lne.

Just to be equal opportunity about it, Obama appears to me more interested in being post-partisan than in being effective. Things will be better than if the Republicans had remained in charge--being hit with an asteroid would be better than that, at least it would be quick--but it still ain't going to be pretty.

Be Careful What You Ask For

For years Democrats in Congress refused to deny George W. Bush the finding to do anything he anted. For the last two years of his administration they had the votes; prior to that they have parliamentary procedure to stop any programs they truly objected to, of which they claimed there were many.

Now they have a Democratic president who wants to do something most of them have been claiming they want to do—close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist holding facility—and they’re denying him the funds to do it.

What it comes down to is fear. Which are they more afraid of? Is it the chance one of these 241 alleged terrorists will be too much for the American prison system to handle? That these terrorists, who will be dispersed all over the country to dilute the effects of their less than one-in-a-million status here, will somehow be able to defeat out best efforts to neutralize them? Are these terrorists from Krypton, with superhuman powers that would make them invincible to our military?

Or is their fear of Republicans greater? That one of these guys will do something—run a red light, shoplift a CD—and the Republicans will scream, “See?! We told you it wasn’t safe!”

What scares me most is Harry Reid. Nothing new; I’ve been after Reid’s ass for years. (Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Oh, and here.)The Senate majority leader was rolled on a daily basis when he was the minority leader. Now he has 59 votes, and they still roll him. Here are Reid’s comments on why the Guantanamo detainees can’t be placed into the federal prison system:

REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …

REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.

This is someone who could hire James Harrison as his press secretary. Harry’s not just incompetent; he’s senile.

One Small Step for Democracy

The Democrats finally found someone with some stones. Democrats being Democrats, of course it was a woman.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi not only didn’t bring the Senate’s version of the Protect America Act up for a vote before the House went on recess, she had the House cite two members of the Bush Administration – John Bolton and Harriet Miers – for contempt. (Republicans responded to this second action by storming out of the Capitol to denounce the Democrats’ “political theater” at a microphone-strewn podium serendipitously found on the building’s steps just in time for their “spontaneous” act..)

Bush responded, of course, by crying we’ll be dead by the time the House gets back if he doesn’t have the authority to listen to every phone call and read every email in the world, warrants be damned. Like the law has ever stopped him before. The Protect America Act is nothing more than a transparent attempt to legalize actions the Bush Administration has routinely taken for years. Immunity for the previously cooperating telecommunication companies – who would be the still cooperating telecommunications companies had their illegal collaboration not come to light – is amnesty by another name. Republicans are happy to grant amnesty to moneyed interests with the legal firepower to know they were violating not just laws, but the entire Fourth Amendment, but if your mother carried you across the Mexican border in her arms fifteen years ago, you’re SOL.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who sent to the House a bill complete with immunity and no amendments the White House didn’t sign off on, wrote to Bush, "I regret your reckless attempt to manufacture a crisis over the reauthorization of foreign surveillance laws. . . . Your suggestion that the law's expiration would prevent intelligence agents from listening to the conversations of terrorists is utterly false."

The most temperate response I can come up with is: Fuck you, Harry, and the horse you rode in on. Bush has rolled you over so many times you can join the Greek hookers’ union. You’re not from Texas, but “big hat, no cattle” was written with you in mind. You sold out Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy, so your big talk now, while Speaker Pelosi has to carry your weight, impresses no one. You want to claim to be a Democrat while acting as Bush’s mole in Congress, fine. Just don’t be upset when people call you on it, as just about everyone has started to do. Let’s hope Senate Democrats can find a few onions of their own and elect a majority leader next year who actually believes in the co-equal branches of government.

I haven’t written this in a while, but it’s time again. For all of you who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and see what has happened to Iraq, the deficit, the environment, the economy, and civil liberties, keep this in mind: It’s your fault.

Who's in Charge Here?

It’s been a while since I bashed Hapless Harry Reid. This week’s excuse was another defeat in the Senate. Not that I’ll post something to rip Harry every time he gets rolled by the Republicans. I have a full-time job already.

Harry finds himself, and the party that has lashed its ambitions to his incompetence, stuck in what may be a unique situation in American politics: he can’t do anything worth doing without sixty votes. The Republicans threaten to filibuster anything he might try, so the usual “majority rules” principle doesn’t apply.

While the Republicans may be superior parliamentarians, they’re still fascists. This week they quashed a bill that would have restored habeas corpus, a right that had withstood all manner of threats from 1215 till last year’s passage of the Military Commission Act.

Before my Republican friends get their glands on their shoulders over the term “fascists,” let’s examine the evidence. Habeas isn’t one of those “penumbra” rights they claim were invented by the Warren Court and its heirs, like Miranda or abortions. It’s a fundamental right of a free society. Latin for, “produce the body,” it’s the principle through which someone held by the government can demand to hear the charges against him, or be set free. To say anyone can be held indefinitely, without charge, is patently anti-American. It’s the kind of thing the Nazis would have done, and did. Ergo, fascists.

Here’s the question I can’t answer: if the Republicans can hold up the restoration of habeas corpus with the threat of a debate, why didn’t Harry save it that way in the first place? Walk up to then-Majority Leader Bill Frist and say, “Habeas stays, or we’ll shut the whole operation down.” Probably because he was afraid Frist would invoke the dreaded “nuclear option,” thus rendering filibuster obsolete. Mitch McConnell, the current Minority Leader, doesn’t have that fear. He’s already bluffed Harry into a ghost filibuster with every bill.

Here’s a suggestion: let them filibuster. Shut down the whole operation. It’s not like the Senate is accomplishing anything, anyway. If you’re going to get nothing done because the Republicans are being obstructionist, let the world see how obstructionist they really are. Losing votes is the quickest way to make a majority look like a minority with a big mouth, while allowing the minority with a big mouth govern as though they were the majority.

Enough should have been enough a long time ago.