An outgoing paean

By Carl 

Y'know, we bitch and moan about Democrats, but compared to Republicans, they can actually get shit done: 

The outgoing 111th Congress is among the most productive in history, in spite of its reputation for gridlock and 13 percent approval rating. Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, and used their large majorities to push through landmark legislation with barely any GOP support.

The post-election lame-duck session – typically a mopping-up operation to get out of town – also made history, passing key pieces of legislation, often with greater input from Republicans than had earlier been the case. People can argue the merits of what Congress did, but it’s hard to quibble with the scope of the undertaking. 

Granted, much of the legislation runs antithetical to the interests and values of liberals, and we should note that too. But a lot of what was done was good for a progressive agenda. Let's take a look, in chronological order:

1) The American Recovery and Re-Investment Act -- Everyone points to the "stimulus" portion of the bill, but the largest part of the bill was a tax cut for you and me. 98% of Americans saw a tax break out of this bill, incremental and therefore obscured by just sloppy minimalism. Too, the roll-out of the spending portion of this bill, which favored pet liberal projects like education, came down the road a bit and the agenda had already been co-opted by Teabaggers. But we ought to make note of the true progressive nature of the stimulus package.

2) Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act -- Health-care reform. It was nasty, it was ugly, and the ultimate law was a shamble of progressive and conservative philosophies, but it got done and it's a first step in a highly charged and volatile conservative atmosphere.

3) Financial Regulatory Reform -- Want to know how progressive this bill is? It's been priority targeted for budget cuts in the new Republican Congress.

4) Tax Cut Extension Plus Stimulus Spending -- Sadly, when liberals want spending, we usually force ourselves to raise taxes. Here was an instance where the evil of Republicanism, tax cutting, forced liberals to actually borrow to spend. I know, odious, right? But we got the ok to spend to try to get some jobs created, and that's good. It's all about jobs, this economy. We have to get to work on that.

5) DADT -- Nuff said.

6) START Treaty -- This is a great achievement in ratcheting down the threat of mutual annihilation. I don't think anyone... well, after 1962, at any rate... seriously believed any nuclear power would use nukes in any capacity. Until those weapons started to spread to countries who will be less than scrupulous in their use. With both Russia and the U.S. in accord on this issue, we can now turn to those nations and start asking them to dismantle them, with the full authority of speaking on behalf of the rest of the world. What happens then is a different story, but we accomplished a step towards world peace.

Could there have been more? Oh, hell yes, and that's where I think most liberals get upset. It took so long to get the modest healthcare reform we did get and that vote alone probably took the wind out of the sails for a true energy policy, for carbon trading, and for any number of other progressive items that we could have easily obtained with supermajorities in both houses.

I blame Obama for not taking the lead on his initiatives, but I also blame Harry Reid for having little stomach for beating up his constituency.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Geithner opposes Warren

By Creature

This is why I'm having trouble blogging. Like the public option, having Elizabeth Warren head the soon-to-be consumer protection agency was/is something tangible, some real change a liberal could hang on to. And now it's being slapped away by a White House too enamored with Wall Street to see clearly.

Well, check that, I'm sure they see clearly, they simply don't see it from the "small people's" perspective.

Once again, this will be a test for Obama himself. He got the bill he and Wall Street wanted. Now will he fight for what his base wants? I'm not holding my breath.

Update: Well, it seems the Treasury Department is paying attention and it looks like good news on the Warren front. Here's their response via a direct email to Michael:

“Elizabeth Warren has been a driving force behind the creation of the consumer financial protection bureau, and we have worked very closely with her over the past year and a half to make that idea a reality.

“Given her strong leadership on consumer protection, Secretary Geithner believes that Elizabeth Warren is exceptionally well qualified to lead the new bureau, and, ultimately, that’s a decision the President will have to make.” -- Andrew Williams, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.

Things are looking up

By Greg Prince

It's the day after several primaries, plus a bonus election, and for the first time in a while thoughtful Democrats should have a spring in their step looking to November.

The media narratives will remain focused on the Republican't noise machine, according to which anything and everything is representative of "liberal" failure and is bad for Democrats and Obama, but the facts speak for themselves. Democrats had a good night, a very good night. And it was a particularly rewarding night for the Netroots, who saw their preferred candidates perform well against establishment candidates.

In fact, we see something at Politico that is seldom seen these days: "Republicans failed spectacularly." We'll come back to that.

First off, Arkansas is the gift that keeps on giving. Blanche Lincoln needed to come in over 50% to avoid a run off. She didn't make it. Lincoln is among the more brazen of the DINO conservadems and is owned by special interests. She's not particularly popular in Arkansas and re-election would be a challenge even without a primary. In other words, she's a prime target, and Bill Halter forced her to speak to Democrats for a change. Adele Stan observes:

When, during an appearance on "The Rachel Maddow Show" in the midst of the health-care debate, FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher threatened Sen. Blanche Lincoln with a primary challenge, people thought Hamsher was either full of bluster, nuts, or both. Tonight, nobody's laughing.

How you feeling about that public option now, Blanche?

Just having a primary challenger made a meaningful difference. Trying to bolster her progressive credentials, she went gung-ho in the Senate on derivatives reform under the current financial legislation. Thing is, Lincoln never was serious about derivatives reform. It was all for show, and amendments to weaken the proposals were to have been introduced as soon as polls closed in Arkansas. Inconveniently, Lincoln's problems didn't end when the polls closed, and the tougher language will have to be retained, for now. TPM reports:

A far-reaching proposal to regulate derivative trading will not be scaled back in Wall Street reform legislation, at least for now, multiple Senate aides confirm. The development comes as welcome news to an unusual mix of progressives, financial officials, and at least one conservative Democrat: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR).

Lincoln is the author of the derivatives title in the Senate's financial regulation bill, and for weeks has faced opposition from Wall Street, the White House, and members of her own party over a provision to force financial firms to spin off their derivatives trading desks into stand-alone entities.

It will be interesting to see what happens in two weeks, but typically supporters of the incumbent are less motivated to come out yet again for a special election. Stay tuned.

Pennsylvania gave us a twofer. Joe Sestak's victory over GOP defector Arlen Specter is something of a surprise given Specter's support from the Democratic machine, but he simply ran a better campaign and benefits from being a real Democrat instead of an opportunistic moderate who was caught on camera being very honest about changing parties primarily to avoid a spanking in the GOP primary.

The real news, of course, is PA-12. The GOP was hell-bent on winning this seat, and it seemed very doable for them. This district is not Obama-friendly, and economic stimulus and health-care reform don't poll well. In short, the race looked to be a very good opportunity for the GOP to nationalize the race, create a referendum on Obama's term, and establish momentum going into the midterms. Except for one pesky detail. Matthew Yglesias:

Mark Critz's win in the PA-12 House election is just straight-up embarrassing for Republicans. The Democratic strategy was straight out of the 2006/2008 playbook. Find a moderately conservative House district and run a somewhat heterodox Democrat. You don't win every race, but you win a bunch. You can't count on those guys' votes on all the key issues, but each of them is with you sometimes. Add up a shifting coalition of such members to the big block of solid House liberals, and Nancy Pelosi can put an effective governing agenda together.

This was supposed to stop working in 2010. The end of the Bush backlash and the rise of anti-Obama sentiment, combined with the reality of the legislation coming out of the Pelosi-era House is supposed to get Republicans back to baseline at least. To see a Democrat win an open seat in a district that went for John McCain will be a welcome sign to a large number of House Democrat incumbents from red districts.

Critz isn't a liberal, but a Democratic win here is great news for Democratic prospects nationwide and major egg on the face of the GOP establishment.

Kentucky also deserves some mention. Jack Conway will be fine as a candidate, but the real story is the victory of Rand Paul, the teabagging son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Spend some time listening to the son and you'll think the father is sane. Thing is, Paul ran on a platform that is pretty standard GOP fare, so it's hard to know just how strong the tea will brew for the general. But this is a best-case scenario for the Democrats. Paul can be beaten, and Conway is the strongest candidate on the Democratic side.

All in all, a very respectable evening for Democrats.

Still, there is a lot of voter anger. How will that translate into anti-incumbent, anti-establishment sentiment at the polls? That remains to be seen. The votes against Specter and Lincoln, as well as against Kentucky's GOP-favored candidate Trey Grayson, can be seen as defeats for the party machinery and traditionalists, but with the exception of Lincoln, the anti incumbent spirit is less clear. There is no incumbent in Kentucky, and Specter was not elected to his seat as a Democrat.

Similarly, wishes for a viable third party ring hollow. Being "not Democrat and not Republican" is not the same thing as a vision for governance and a platform to campaign on. The Independence Party of Minnesota is facing this challenge. A leftover from the Jesse Ventura days, they manage to attract a hardcore following but never reach critical mass to elect anyone to office – other than stealing enough DFL votes to keep sending Michele Bachmann to Congress, alas. But all they have going for them is being "other." Sometimes its candidates are liberal, sometimes conservative. There's no cohesive vision for voters to support. Even among the various incarnations of the Tea Party, there are few common threads around which to build a platform.

Minnesota primaries are in August. Then onward to November.

(Cross-posted from Greg Prince's Blog.)

Cantwell and Feingold make FinReg stand

By Creature

No bill yet, and that's a good thing.

FinReg amendments

By Creature

In a fair world the Kaufman-Brown break-up-the-big-banks amendment and the Sanders audit-the-Fed amendment would pass forcing the White House to make a choice the left has had to make since forever: support a bill they don't like in exchange for getting shit done.

I'm an Obama supporter, but watching the White House twist on this would be sweet after all the public-option bitter.

Update: Kaufman-Brown voted down 33-61. Not good. Not good at all. I expected better.

No vote on SAFE Banking Act?

By Creature

Simon Johnson:

With such strong arguments and powerful evidence on its side, you might think that the completely reasonable and responsible proposals in the SAFE Banking Act would get a vote. But you would be wrong.

The Senate leadership – on both sides of the aisle – has apparently decided that they do not want to give senators (and the public) the opportunity to focus their attention on this key issue. Instead, they would prefer to keep the “debate”, in terms of votes, on issues less likely to infuriate powerful banks.

This is the FinReg amendment Senator Kaufman and Senator Brown have been pushing for weeks. It would basically end too-big-to-fail. The amendment is a chance for preening politicians to put their constituents ahead of their big-money donors. If Simon Johnson is right, that it won't get a vote, then this is very bad news.

Phone calls need to be made.

Republicans (heart) Goldman Sachs (and fraud)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Bloomberg:

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission split 3-2 along party lines to approve an enforcement case against Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to two people with knowledge of the vote.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro sided with Democrats Luis Aguilar and Elisse Walter to approve the case, said the people, who declined to be identified because the vote wasn't public. Republican commissioners Kathleen Casey and Troy Paredes voted against suing, the person said.

For the Republicans -- both these two in the Goldman Sachs case as well as the entirety of the Republican caucus in the Seante (that opposes Wall Street reform) -- this is pretty much defending the indefensible. It's defending fraud, and what that means is defending a laissez-faire system in which big players like Goldman, and indeed any player on the inside, can make massive sums of money by blatantly deceiving investors and capitalizing on the misfortune of others in a time of job losses and home foreclosures. 

You want a big campaign issue this year? Here it is. Democrats should be proud of health-care reform and of what they have done to stabilize the economy, but they should also hammer Republicans for being the party of Goldman Sachs and everything it represents.

A bumper-sticker-sized meme

By Creature

And here you have it, financial reform is officially a "permanent bailout bill." From Luntz's page, to Boehner's mouth, to all the media laps. Like the "government take over of health care" scare, this should be fun (in a painful, tooth-pulling sort of way).

Dodd's financial reform proposal

By Creature

Not very far reaching, but it's a "foundation." To say I'm sick of foundations and prefer the whole damn house gets built at once is an understatement.

Luntzing financial reform

By Creature

Democrats be warned. I've seen this play before and it doesn't end well. In an up-is-down, black-is-white world Frank Luntz is an evil genius. Emphasis on the evil.