CT Progressive

Another reason why we’ll miss Senator Dodd.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) announced today that he will be introducing a constitutional amendment in the coming days to reverse the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision overturned 100 years of precedents to come to the unjustified conclusion that corporations deserve the same free speech protections as individual Americans.

“Money is not speech,” said Dodd. “Corporations are not people. And in the wake of one of the most radical decisions in the Supreme Court’s history of campaign finance jurisprudence, a constitutional amendment is necessary to fully restore the trust and voice of the American people. If corporations – foreign as well as domestic – are allowed even greater and more direct influence over our elections, our democracy as we know it will cease to exist. I won’t stand for that. I urge my colleagues, and the American people, to join me in defense of democracy by supporting this amendment and other interim steps to mitigate the damage done by this decision.”

Amending the Constitution — turns out it’s good for something other than right-wing fundraising after all.

I thought I was bummed out about the public option getting stripped out of the healthcare bill.

But that’s nothing compared to the glimpse offered over at this site into the correspondence being received by our legislators.

Holy crap.

Has anyone read Bysiewicz’ Ella Grasso book?

Not to give a platform to a lame duck, but Rell’s outrage over the healthcare reform bill is ridiculous on two fronts:

A provision written into the massive bill will allow the federal government to pick up 100 percent of the cost of Medicaid expansion in Nebraska to court U.S. Senator Ben Nelson’s vote.

“The inequity of this provision is astonishing,“ Rell wrote in her letter to Blumenthal. “The doling out of favors for senators is appalling. The cost of this federal health care bill is beyond comprehension because of all the special provisions included to garner the 60 votes for passage.” [...]

“While everyone has received something, Nebraska’s “gift” is particularly galling,” Rell wrote in her letter. “In this time of extraordinary fiscal challenge, when states are facing record budget deficits and are seeing HUSKY and Medicaid case loads growing, all could use 100 percent reimbursement.”

First, while Nelson secured an additional grant of $45 billion for Nebraska’s Medicaid expenses over the next decade, our own Senator Dodd laid claim to more than twice that for the UConn Health Center. So it’s not obvious that Connecticut got the short end of the deal by any measure.

But more to the point, that Rell is jumping aboard a conservative protest to see 100% Federal Medicaid funding in all 50 states is bizarre, since liberals inside of Congress and out would love to see Medicaid become a fully Federal program. As it stands, with Medicaid structured as a matching-funds programs, benefits are significantly less generous in states with a smaller tax base – arguably, the states that have the greatest need for Federal support for low-income healthcare coverage. As Tom Harkin says (c/o Ezra Klein):

“When you look at it, I thought well, God, good, it is going to be the impetus for all the states to stay at 100 percent [federal funding],” Harkin told reporters. “So he might have done all of us a favor.”

While Connecticut is not short on poverty and polarization, we’re also not one of the states that’s unable to afford our share of the matching dollars. While funding services for the poor apparently has less electoral upside in the state than cutting taxes for the wealthy, Rell’s demand to federalize Medicaid nationwide would not, I imagine, do very much to cut the taxes of the state’s top-income-bracket residents. But I’m sure someone sent Senator Harkin of Iowa her letter, and that he’s got a little smile on his face thinking of the day when he’ll be able to pull her protest out of the file as evidence that even wealthy Connecticut’s Republican Governor supports this massive expansion of Federal spending.

When that day comes, even Rell’s harshest critics will have to acknowledge that she’s done some good for the country, however tangentially.

I’ve been following the debate over Himes’ vote against the House “Jobs Bill” with some interest. The measure, according to Himes, is “a $75 billion Democratic spending plan which largely expanded programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

The first interesting debate is one over whether the vote was principled or politically opportunistic. I lean towards the latter, but have to admit that the technocratic argument against Himes’ position comes off a lot better in print than the political one, as you can see in this CT Post article. And once a consensus starts to gel that constituents can’t really “reach” their elected representative with their concerns (this quote from the Post article – “While I think of everybody I represent, I don’t cast votes according to what any particular small minority agitates for” – gets at what a lot of activists and DTC people are perceiving), then you may as well design your criticisms to sound good when they’re picked up in local media instead of targeting them to what you might perceive that electeds’ perspective and priorities to be. And it’s certainly better to make a Congressman argue with Paul Krugman than My Left Nutmeg.

But that characterization of the spending package kept ringing out in my mind – the idea that the bill was an extension of the early 2009 stimulus measure. If you remember, the House passed a package heavily tilted towards the more effective spending measures, which were then shifted dramatically towards less-effective tax cuts by the Senate. (A comparison of differences between the two bills can be seen here – definitely worth checking out).

In a way, redirecting TARP money towards local governments, direct aid to the unemployed (extended healthcare and unemployment), housing, and transit (as NYC commuter rail faces service cuts due to budget shortfalls) asserts that the House was correct in its original proposal, which Himes seems to acknowledge when he complains that too large a part of the original stimulus has yet to be spent. A more detailed list of the supplemental bill’s programs (which actually add up to a little over $150 billion) can be seen at Pelosi’s legislation blog, and, minus the highway spending, sounds relatively fast-acting.

These institutions being what they are, I understand that “The House Was Right” is not going to be at the top of any Pelosi press releases on the subject. Still, as both a policy and politics matter, it seems a tragic mistake for Representatives of any stripe (and Democrats in particular) to advance the notion that our government has done all it can or should to restore stability at all levels of the economy.

“My fellow Americans, it’s true that we bailed out the banks, hedge funds, and insurance companies that made such serious errors in recent years. We did it because we had to – our livelihood depends on a healthy financial services industry. But their livelihood depends on the health and well-being of the American people, and that’s why we will be introducing a financial speculation tax to provide healthcare to every uninsured American starting next year.”

Or, we could just give them the money and not ask for anything back. Whatever.

Discussion has been ramping up this week over the Federal Reserve, as Ben Bernanke’s confirmation for another term as Chair begins. Progressive superhero Bernie Sanders has put a hold on the nomination, while our own Senator Dodd is apparently the point man for ensuring the confirmation goes smoothly.

Bernanke and many supporters appear to be claiming that politicizing the Fed’s policies in the context of the confirmation would undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve; Dodd seems to be leaning on the idea that the Fed has done a great job, and that it’s simply the regulatory system that needs updating.

I’m torn on the subject – while there’s been some fascinating left-right alliances forming, I can’t help but think there’s a tension between the differing philosophies, and I’ve seen progressives burnt by one or two of our own acting as “beards” for extreme conservative interests enough times to hesitate before jumping in.

It’s absolutely true that Bernanke has not done many of the beneficial things that it is in his power to do. The most persuasive criticism is that he has pursued the well-being of banking and trading institutions over the Fed’s stated policy of pursuing full employment. Put another way, we gave the money to the wrong people – stocks are up, and jobs are down. The big-picture critique from the left might be that the actions taken to stabilize the economy have only served to perpetuate the mugging of the poor and middle class by organized wealth, and that the current policy reinforces the offensive “trickle-down” theory of economic well-being at the same time that it illustrates “trickle-down’s” ultimate failure.

However, it seems to me that hanging some bureaucrat lets the people that really screwed the economy off the hook, and would serve those who want to eliminate government regulation entirely. Remember the argument from last fall that promoting minority homeownership caused the entire collapse of the American economy? I think the hard right – the Grover Norquists of the world – has understood from the first whisper of the word “collapse” that by the end of the day the public would demand a pound of flesh for all the suffering generated by these financial institutions, and I think they’re right. The thing is, they’ve been casting around for one that lets the traders and the idle billionaires that love them get off unmolested, and Bernanke is just the latest.

Of course, Dodd is right that the regulatory regime isn’t strong enough, but doesn’t seem to get that there’s something that isn’t being satisfied out here in the wilderness of public opinion. That doesn’t mean that he should kick over the podium and strangle Bernanke on the Senate floor – but being nice, being fair, and delivering a speech about how he supports this nominee and their independence without reservation (with some toughness down in the twenty-fourth paragraph) is not doing the job of communicating that our Senator is as unhappy as we are. (If you didn’t read it from the link above, here it is again: Dodd Supports Bernanke’s Confirmation, Calls for Improvements to the Federal Reserve).

It’s frustrating, since all the conditions for an epic shift in national priorities have been in place for a couple of years now: between Iraq, Katrina, and the financial sector meltdown, Americans seem to have gotten exactly how ruinous conservative policies are for our country. With Afghanistan, the ever-shrinking healthcare reform plan, and the sustained practice of treating criminals like princelings so long as they work south of Chambers, the Change We Need is not looking very much like the Change We Wanted in the First Place. When progressive activists start lining up behind initiatives from the Americans for Tax Reform, there’s some real trouble brewing – to me, that says that our ability to believe there’s real reform around the corner is just about exhausted.

From the uncanny metaphor department, a fine quote from an article about a newly-elected Green Party Constable in New Canaan:

Stangler said he was asked by the Green Party to run for constable in June, the same month he graduated from high school.

Now that he’s studying at Georgetown, the 300-mile commute between New Canaan and Washington, D.C. could make it difficult to fulfill his duties. Fortunately, constables are able to decide for themselves just how much or how little they are able to accomplish as an elected official.

“We have had constables who, I believe, have never served papers,” Claudia Weber, Town Clerk, said. “We had a constable who lived in Germany. Out of all the offices, constable is the one where, if you choose to, you don’t have to invest a lot of time into the position.”

Weber added that, in a town with an active police force, like New Canaan, the responsibilities of a constable may be fulfilled by the police force.

“[Constable] is one of these positions that the state of Connecticut holds onto even though it really has no useful purpose,” Mike DeRosa, co-chair of the Connecticut Green Party, said. “It’s sort of like pet rocks: there’s a subjective meaning to something that has no specific meaning.”

No useful purpose, subjective meaning to something that has no specific meaning? Sounds just like the Greens to me.

As a bonus, a description of the campaign:

While Stangler admits that he didn’t campaign very seriously, he and a friend walked around Waveny Park during the annual Family Fourth celebration and tried to shake hands with as many people as possible.

“Many people didn’t want to talk to me. They thought I was delusional,” he said, who also added that he was wearing a straw cowboy hat donning an American flag. “I’d say I shook about 15 to 20 people’s hands. That was basically my only true campaigning, (besides) word of mouth and telling my friends and what not.”

Stangler’s July 4th campaigning efforts were followed by the Green Party’s Independence Day celebration on the steps of the Ferguson Library in Stamford where he joined members in playing music like Bruce Springsteen and the Grateful Dead while 2008 Green Party candidate for Congress Richard Duffee (who Stangler also campaigned for in 2008) read the Declaration of Independence out loud.

Commentary from John Cohn:

The ritual is becoming familiar. Health care reform passes a major political hurdle. And progressives don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Last time, the occasion was a vote in the House of Representatives. Health care reform passed by the slimmest of margins, but not before conservative Democrats had extracted a major concession on abortion rights.

This time, it was a vote in the Senate–not on whether to pass a bill, but whether to begin debating one. This measure, too, passed by the slimmest of margins, but not before conservative Democrats and one notorious independent made clear they were prepared to shut things down later if legislation includes a public insurance option.

It’s no fun to watch this unfold. And yet this is the exactly the sort of drama you should expect for the next few weeks, as the Senate deliberations play out. [...]

For progressives, victories are more likely to come in the form of ground not conceded than ground gained. Every day that legislation doesn’t get worse is a day to cherish.

This was the exact problem that the healthcare advocacy community and bloggers foresaw in July – and why so many people were angry when Congress decided to wait around until after the August recess to schedule their vote. And when our Democratic Representatives lack the grasp of basic politics displayed by some blogger on the internet (all due respect), it’s easy to see why their base of supporters don’t see a good reason to come out and vote next year.

Via Matthew Yglesias:

I wondered yesterday how serious David Obey was about the idea of paying for the Afghanistan war with higher taxes. Today the answer seems to be that he’s pretty darn serious, with Ways & Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel and Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank joining Obey, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, and also picking up Conference Chair John Larson and Jack Murtha who chairs the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. That’s a blockbuster leadership lineup and a clear signal that any House backbencher who feels like jumping on this bandwagon is safe to do so.

The details of the proposal:

Dubbed the “Share the Sacrifice Act,” the six-page bill exempts anyone who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan since the 2001 terrorist attacks as well as families who have lost an immediate relative in the fighting. But middle-class households earning between $30,000 and $150,000 would be asked to pay 1% on top of their tax liability today — a more sweeping approach than many Democrats have been willing to embrace.

Contrary to popular opinion, we actually have to pay for the wars we choose to wage: a dollar spent in Afghanistan costs just as much as a dollar spent improving health care domestically. Congressman Murphy committed some time ago to bringing war funding under PAYGO rules:

I’m obsessive about putting all the war funding under the budget. The fact is, no one is having to sacrifice for this war except the soldiers who fight it, the families they leave behind, and the working men and women in the U.S. who have seen their safety net gutted in order to fund it. Paygo rules don’t apply to emergency funding, but the fact is that this funding can’t be considered “emergency” any longer. You are absolutely right - paygo rules should apply to this bill and all other supplemental requests.

by: Chris Murphy @ Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 19:49:51 PM EST

It’s good news that Congressional leadership has caught on to this idea. Of course, it’s not great news, since it reinforces the expectation that we’re about to see the war in Afghanistan expanded – but getting to a place where we Americans understand the costs of war (in dollar terms, at least) is a huge leap towards returning to sane political debate in this country.