I’ve never supported a Green before. I’m seriously thinking about it. Left independents in Congress, like Bernie Sanders, have done more to keep the Democratic Party honest than any of the regulars.
Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category
Posted by Charles II on March 26, 2011
Posted by Charles II on February 18, 2011
It’s only 81% identical. And the Republicans, ever willing to split the difference, will settle for 150% of Bush.
Preliminary Analysis of President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget:
Plan Would Make Permanent 81 Percent of the Bush Tax Cuts
The budget outline released by President Obama this week, just like last year’s proposal,
includes about $3.5 trillion in tax cuts over ten years. Most of that cost comes from his $3.1
trillion proposal to make permanent most of the Bush tax cuts, which would cost 81 percent as
much as extending all the Bush tax cuts.
The President’s budget outline does include several laudable provisions to raise revenue, but
not nearly enough to offset the costs of the proposed tax cuts.
The net effect of the tax proposals in the budget plan would be to reduce federal revenue by
$2.8 trillion over ten years, compared to what would happen if the Bush tax cuts simply
expired (as they will under current law if Congress does nothing).
I can’t understand this man. He is killing the Democratic Party. Washington Democrats seem to be cheering him on.
Posted by Charles II on January 26, 2011
To get a sense of how cynical a betrayal this is, I suggest reading Gold and Gupta. Issues related to rules changes have been a problem for almost a hundred years. In 1979, Robert Byrd laid out the reasoning for how filibuster reform could be accomplished. The principle is well known: one Congress may not bind another. Otherwise, the nation could face a danger and be unable to defend itself from it because of obsolete legislation. The original Senate operated by rules that allowed debate to be ended by majority vote on any issue; in 1806, unlimited debate was introduced essentially by accident. And the Senate has itself used the Constitutional option, first–when isolationists attempted to block American ships from defending themselves from U-Boats– to set rules on cloture, then to reduce the number of votes needed for cloture:
Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the Senate to “determine the Rule of its Proceedings.” In 1917 and on many occasions since 1917, the Senate has debated whether this constitutional rulemaking power allows a simple majority to alter the Senate’s Standing Rules at will. At least four times, changes to the Senate Standing Rules were influenced by attempts to use the constitutional option. And throughout Senate history, a simple majority has changed Senate procedures governing debate by setting precedents or adopting Standing Orders that altered the operation of the Standing Rules without amending their actual text. Over two centuries, the Senate’s constitutional rulemaking power has been exercised in a variety of ways to change Senate procedures. As Senate parliamentary process further evolves, this power plainly will be exercised again. At issue is when, how, and to what effect.
So, what was accomplished today? No filibuster reform. We might see the following reforms:
limit the number of executive branch nominations subject to Senate confirmation; make it more difficult for senators to anonymously block legislation or nominees; and end a stall tactic that lets senators force clerks to read aloud the complete text of a bill if the measure has been made public.
That is, if the Republicans are so nice as to let the Senate do these things.
I have rarely been as disgusted with the Democratic Party as I have been today. If there is a renewed financial crisis– or a natural disaster, or any other reason to pass legislation in a hurry– the Democrats have left the Senate Republicans, who represent a clear minority of Americans– in control of their body. This is not an exaggeration: they will let Americans suffer or die rather than confront how corrupt the Senate has become. We know, because tens of thousands of Americans have been dying every year for lack of medical insurance while these sons of b—–s sat on their hands and said there was nothing they could do.
Added: the citation is THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION TO CHANGE SENATE RULES AND PROCEDURES:
A MAJORITARIAN MEANS TO OVER COME THE FILIBUSTER* MARTIN B. GOLD** & DIMPLE GUPTA Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Volume 28 (2004)
Posted by Phoenix Woman on November 17, 2010
The favorite lie of the GOP/Media Complex is that Democrats must always move to the right and be like Republicans. Never mind that the most conservative, Republican-ish Democrats were the ones that took the biggest hit at the ballot box earlier this month, the media arm of the GOP/Media Complex has remained on message and is still blanketing the nation’s TVs and radios with this crapola.
But what do the actual media experts, the advertising professionals, have to say? You won’t find it on the evening news, but you will find it in AdAge — and guess what? The take is not that the Democrats and Obama lost big because they didn’t suck up enough to the far right, but that they lost because they abandoned their liberal and progressive base:
Listenomics dictates that constituencies are not aggregated because you’ve sweet-talked them into the fold. They are there because they care. They feel a proprietary stake in what they’ve signed up for. You ignore them at your peril, not only because they’re a resource, but because they are rendered useless or worse once they feel betrayed — which, very quickly in the Obama administration, they did.
When the health-care bill was facing a GOP stonewall, before logrolling for swing votes with reluctant Senate Democrats, the president should have gone to his peeps explaining his options and asking for guidance. For starters, they would have put political heat on the bill’s opponents. For another, they would not have felt blindsided by his ultimate compromises. Instead, he disappointed a broad swath of his base who wondered if the vision they’d been baited with was switched for standard-issue political expediency.
Posted by Phoenix Woman on November 16, 2010
PatKessler Patrick Kessler
At MN GOP press conf announcing legislature overhaul, more lobbyists in the room than reporters & lawmakers– combined.
Posted by Phoenix Woman on November 7, 2010
One of the darkly amusing things of late has been to hear talk of a “Plato purge” at DFL headquarters. Ironically enough, much of this talk seems to be driven by people who live in abject fear of the lefty purity police. But I digress.
The idea is that since it’s obviously — in their minds — the local party’s fault that the local lege flipped (as did nearly twenty other state leges in this massive GOP wave year, but hey, let’s not look into that), then the local party bigwigs must go (and just maybe, maybe, be replaced, of course by the purge advocates and/or their allies?).
Well, I was reminded the other day by Javier Morillo-Alicea that this talk is all somewhat moot, if not downright silly.
Much as a Democratic president or presidential nominee is considered the de facto head of the national Democratic Party, the person who won the Democratic Farmer-Labor nomination holds a similar position in the DFL. In other words, any decisions about who stays and who goes will be made by that person and his/her close associates. Period.
Whatever happens at Plato Boulevard in the coming weeks and months, it won’t be a glorious purge. Some people will leave, some people will come in to replace them, new-media-savvy people will have higher priority than before, but it won’t be what the purgers (many of whom seemed to have been quite happy with the DFL bigwigs when it was their candidates that were riding high at the time) want or expect. Besides, the GOP’s House majority is broad but very, very shallow: If 700 votes in key races had gone the other way, the DFL would still hold the House. That’s 700 votes out of over 3 million votes cast.
Oh, and as for the lefty purity police? Well, we Professional Lefties don’t need to go around hollering for a purge, locally or nationally, because guess what? The majority of the people we might have targeted have, to our utter non-surprise, managed to purge themselves despite our having warned them for months on the danger they were in thanks to their weak-tea actions and inactions on the weak economy, which was and is most Americans’ main concern. (They still had a chance, one last chance, when they had the unemployment benefits extension bill in front of them — and they blew it.) In the meantime, with the Blue Dogs and other DINOs having taken the brunt of voter disappointment, the House Progressive Caucus is poised to grow and to be a lot stronger than it was a week ago.
And that is that.
Posted by Phoenix Woman on October 25, 2010
I got so busy doing other things that I missed this until today:
McLeod County Chronicle endorses Hal Kimball in SD 18 Open
Good for you!
Posted by Phoenix Woman on October 25, 2010
Remember the tax cut he and the Democrats in Congress pushed through for the 95% of us that aren’t rich?
The NYT’s Michael Cooper does, and is reminding people of it:
What if a president cut Americans’ income taxes by $116 billion and nobody noticed?
In a New York Times/CBS News Poll last month, fewer than one in 10 respondents knew that the Obama administration had lowered taxes for most Americans. Half of those polled said they thought that their taxes had stayed the same, a third thought that their taxes had gone up, and about a tenth said they did not know. As Thom Tillis, a Republican state representative, put it as the dinner wound down here, “This was the tax cut that fell in the woods — nobody heard it.”
Of course, the news media didn’t exactly give it the fawning 24/7 coverage it gives to Jersey Shore cast members or the Tea Party, so it’s not that surprising it fell — or was pushed — into the memory hole.
By the way, Obama cut the deficit, too.
Posted by Charles II on September 30, 2010
These people are not intelligent enough to be in Congress.
Posted by Charles II on September 26, 2010
The second route [to reform of the Senate; as opposed to getting 67 votes] is championed by New Mexico Senator Tom Udall, who calls it “the Constitutional option.” Normally every odd-year January when Congress reconvenes, the House of Representatives declares itself a new body and must vote to readopt its rules; the Senate, however, declares itself a “continuing body,” simply rolling its rules over to the current term (not without justification, since two thirds of senators in any new Congress are not new). Udall wants the Senate to declare itself a new body next January. As such a body, it could change its rules by simple majority vote. Senate scholars appear to believe this is within the rules.
This is all the Senate needs to do to become functional again. Yes, it means that when Republicans gain control, they will be able to tamper with the rules. But as a nation we need to get through the next two years, and it’s not entirely clear we will if the abuse of the filibuster is allowed to continue.
The alternative may well be that the People put an end to this nonsense by declaring the Second Republic. This is, like the People, messy. But this country is heading toward insolvency. In that day, a lot of things that look ridiculous now will suddenly seem very practical. Let’s hope that the Democrats understand just how close to the brink to which they have let the Republicans push this nation.