With the bail out bill dominating the news last week for obvious reasons I wanted to make sure everyone caught this important vote in The House. They passed HR 6867 Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008.
The vote was 368-28.
Howie says only a few far right zealots voted against it. Can you name them?
David Gergen excoriates the GOP's "huge failure of leadership" for failing to get more than 1/3 of their caucus to vote for the bailout bill and calls them "poor babies" for using the Nancy-Pelosi-hurt-my-feelings excuse.
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
It's really the house of Republicans whom I think bear it especially tonight. Two-thirds voted against it. You did have - to be fair to the Republicans, it was a Republican president, a republican Treasury Secretary who supported this, who pushed it, but it was House conservative Republican members who derailed it.
Now, they have strong reasons why they voted against it. But let there be no doubt that if we pay a huge price as we paid today, if we basically continue to pay a huge price in the next couple of days, lost a 1$.2 trillion as you said in equity value a day and it may get worse tomorrow and in the days following. Let there be no doubt it was the house Republicans who derailed this. They were against it from the beginning. They made that clear.
This business about Nancy Pelosi making a speech. Yes, she shouldn't have said that and yes that was inappropriate. But the fact that they changed their minds because of that, oh poor babies, she has a few words and the House Speaker, you know, made them run back to their partisan corners. You know, forget that nonsense.
As Barney Frank announces that he's pulled together a deal that will get the votes needed to pass through Congress, economists from some of the top schools in the country ask, "What's the hurry?":
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:
As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:
1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers' expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.
2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.
3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.
For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.
As the Wall Street meltdown causes John McCain to throw in the towel and George Bush attempts to pull off the biggest heist in history, it's becoming clear that pushing any bailout legislation too far, too fast, could be a total disaster for our country. The Democrats need to listen to people who really know economics, keep a tight leash on Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, say no to Disaster Capitalism and take the time to get this right the first time.
The list of economists who signed the letter is below the fold.
At least some countries are getting it: (h/t Orangutan)
Finnish Fortum and the City of Stockholm have been feverishly working to design a pay-to-pump electric car infrastructure. Sweden took a baby step ahead this week when start-up company Sust (Sustainable Innovation AM) declared its intention to quickly make the country a test market for the world's electric hybrid and pure electric car manufacturers. They'll have to beat off Israel abroad.
But Sweden isn't particularly far ahead in building electric infrastructure in Scandinavia. Norway takes that prize - it has longer had THINK and Buddy electric cars tootling around the streets of Oslo and other cities, and has both built 20 and promised 400 more recharging stations. Both Sweden and Norway have a secret weapon compared to most other countries.
It's thousands of old motor-warming posts that are stationed up and down the countries' long, cold and even desolate northern highways, where you may be more likely to meet a moose than a fellow traveler. The advantage of the motor-warmer stations is that they are estimated to cost only about US$ 35 each to upgrade with the grounding and currency requirements to recharge cars. Everything else - freeway exit and entrances, especially - are already in place.
But we're talking about allowing off-shore drilling and tax subsidies to oil companies for alternative energy "exploration".
Not even trying to hide their racism anymore, I see.
Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday.
Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama.
"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”
From the C&L vault: Westmoreland co-sponsors bill on the Ten Commandments and can’t even name them
UPDATE: Listen to the audio and decide for yourself.
Few of the rubber stamp Republican senators are as likely to be defeated in November as Oregon's Gordon Smith, someone who just spent 5 years voting for every single item on the Bush-Cheney agenda followed by 6 months of trying to convince Oregon voters that he's a "moderate," an "independent voice," and-- unbelievably-- kinda almost a Democrat. Back in June he was laughed off the air with a short lived ad that attempted to cash in on Barack Obama's huge popularity in his state.
There's no Republican in the House who has tried this exact same tactic more forcefully than Chris Shays of Connecticut. Shays is the last Republican member of the House from the 6-state New Hampshire region and his Connecticut congressional district has a PVI of D+5, the bluest district in America represented by a Republican.
Like his close ally, Joe Lieberman, Shays has managed to stay in office by persuading Democrats that he isn't really that Republican. His voting record, however, paints a very different picture. When Bush and the Republicans needed his vote-- no matter what the harebrained scheme they were pushing, he was always there for them. Take Iraq, for example. "Mr. Moderate" participated in 63 roll calls regarding Iraq since he voted 4 times on October 10, 2002 to authorize the use of force there. And "Mr. Moderate" voted against the Bush-Cheney agenda in Iraq exactly... 3 times, once to require competitive bidding on oil contracts when Cheney was caught trying to steal all of Iraq's oil, as did more than 4 dozen other Republicans, once to turn an Iraqi reconstruction grant into a loan (which was supported by 84 Republicans), and once on an inconsequential and unsubstantive budgetary matter. This week Shays, who is co-chairman of McCain's pointless Connecticut operation (he is polling just 36% against Obama) released an ad, very much like Gordon Smith's, trying to capitalize on Obama's immense popularity in Connecticut. Take a look-- and then consider donating to Blue America endorsee Jim Himes' campaign to replace him.
And Senator Obama's response? "In this race, the good people of Connecticut should know that Barack Obama supports Jim Himes and believes Himes is the candidate who will bring the change American families need to Washington."
Pelosi came out swinging against Joe Lieberman. She said that if the Democrats win enough seats in the Senate then bye-bye Joe from any leadership position he might have held. That's why he's hooked himself onto McCain's boots.
(h/t Scarce)
It's interesting how bonkers the media and the far right wingers are about our comment sections. Well, in the heavily vetted Malkin site, this one stood out. Claiming the Clintons were responsible for a murder in AR to tell Obama that he would be assassinated if he doesn't fall in line is as sick as it gets. If my resources increase---maybe I'll be able to screen out people as extensively as Michelle. Maybe Howard Kurtz will have us on Reliable Sources to discuss this outrage. I think it merits a little talk.
Gavin has more.
Nancy Pelosi is quickly learning that being a reliable and powerful liberal voice in the House of Representatives doesn't necessarily translate into blind support. During an event in Los Angeles to promote her new book, Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters, a group of protesters started screaming in anger over her unwillingness to open impeachment inquiries against Bush.
She was in Los Angeles to discuss her recently published book "Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters." Instead, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got slammed by protesters screaming that she has been derelict in her duties for not authorizing impeachment hearings against George W. Bush.
The venue: more than 300 people paid $30 each Monday night at the American Jewish University (formerly known as the University of Judaism). The format: a 75-minute interview by the Rabbi Robert Wexler (not to be confused with the Palm Beach, Fla., congressman of the same name). The questions: tough but respectful. Wexler asked Pelosi about a recent Rasmussen Poll that showed a 9% approval rating for Congress.
Update: The Public Record broke the story.
If you've seen the Dennis Kucinich part of this video, start watching at 5:10 or so. A citizen shows Nancy Pelosi a copy of the articles of impeachment at one of her book signings [Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters]. I'm raising my daughters to recognize what an appalling, self-interested, complicit, beltway insider you are, Madame Speaker.
Oh. Cindy Sheehan is running against Pelosi and has a book review here. Heh.
So why don't we impeach Pelosi and show her what that impeachment thing is all about?
In the 1990s, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich helped orchestrate a government shutdown, which helped make him something of a national villain. Soon after, Gingrich forced a second shutdown, and was blamed for that, too.
A few years later, Gingrich was forced from his post and resigned, but he continues to linger in DC, and has managed to convince his former colleagues that his advice has merit.
And as of this week, the former Speaker is talking openly about yet another government shutdown. (thanks to R.S. for the tip)
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) predicted Wednesday during the fourth day of Republican protests at the Capitol that Democrats would lose a potential government shutdown fight over offshore oil drilling.
The offshore drilling ban expires Sept. 30, and some conservatives have urged President Bush to threaten to veto any bill that extends it, including a routine stopgap spending bill keeping the government open.
“Are they really prepared to close the government in order to stop drilling?” Gingrich asked of Democrats. “I think the public would think they’re insane…. I don’t see how the Democrats could possibly sustain a suicidal strategy like that.”
And I really don’t see how the Republicans could listen to such a nut.
We’re well past the point at which congressional Republicans have jumped the shark, but let’s pause to appreciate the fact that at least one leading GOP lawmaker is now looking to a fake ad by a 27-year-old heiress/reality-show star as a serious source of public policy.
The lines between celebrity and politician blurred into a haze Thursday at a Republican news conference, as one congressman began pushing Paris Hilton’s “plan” on energy.
“Let’s bring up the Paris Hilton plan,” goaded Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas. [...] “Even Paris Hilton had an energy plan that she’s talking about,” said Burgess, seizing a chance to make Democrats look lackluster on the issue.
The Texas congressman tried to put Hilton in the Republican camp, claiming her words mirrored current GOP legislation known as the “No More Excuses Energy Act”. But, while that proposal does allow offshore drilling, a congressional summary shows it does not contain tax credits to encourage new automobile technology.
For crying out loud, Paris Hilton is not a policy expert. She wasn’t seriously offering an energy proposal for members of Congress to embrace as an actual solution.
For that matter, Hilton’s fake ad talked about using expanded coastal drilling to “carry us until the new technologies kick in,” which doesn’t make any sense, since even the Bush administration and McCain’s policy aides concede that we’re about a decade away from new coastal drilling having any kind of effect on the marketplace. And even then, we’re talking about pennies on the gallon. There’s nothing to actually “carry us” at all.
And yet, we actually have an elected member of Congress announcing, “Let’s bring up the Paris Hilton plan.”
It’s as if Republicans are going out of their way to appear ridiculous. On purpose.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is one of those politicos that I can't figure out. She was absolutely great taking down Chris Shays, terribly frustrating talking to Ed Schultz about impeachment, and now, she's downright infuriating with her refusal to assist fellow Democrat Annette Taddeo over incumbent Republican Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, an even more heinous betrayal considering that Wasserman Schultz has a leadership position in the DCCC, whose job it is to -- get this -- increase the number of Democratic seats in Congress. AmericaBlog:
DavidNYC reports that leading House Democrat, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS), still won't help Annette Taddeo's campaign. It's ludicrous. Taddeo's opponent is the Bush-loving, right winger Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. It's especially galling considering DWS has a leadership role in the DCCC -- and may even try to run that organization in the next cycle. So, you'd think supporting all Democrats running for Congress, especially those in her home state, wouldn't be a tough call for DWS. But, it is. (Also, it should go without saying that supporting all Democratic House candidates should be THE main criteria for anyone in DCCC leadership.)
It's not like DWS is lacking funds. Besides her own campaign account (where DWS is sitting on over half a million with no real opponent this year), she has a leadership PAC, Democrats Win Seats PAC (DWS PAC, get it?). Check out her list of expenditures here. She's managed to contribute to a lot of House candidates across the country and to groups like the Ohio Democratic Party. But, she can't help Annette? What's up with that? If DWS wants to be a Democratic leader, DWS needs to help all Democrats -- and not put her friendship with a Republican ahead of party loyalty. That's not too complicated, is it?
Since Wasserman Schultz is a no-show on trying to turn this seat for the Democrats, won't you consider donating to Annette Taddeo's campaign through Blue America? At least we're committed to getting more and better Democrats in Congress.
Once again, House Republicans are on Capitol Hill during the August recess, and once again, they are holding something of a sit-in, giving spirited speeches about coastal drilling for tourists and congressional staffers who happen to pass by the charade.
Yesterday, however, there was a bit of a twist in the Republican rhetoric. Far-right lawmakers actually believe they’re affecting the market by talking to each other.
House Republicans on Tuesday said their protest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) decision not to allow a vote on expanded offshore oil drilling has helped lower gas prices.
Heading into a third day of speeches in the near-empty chamber, Republicans acknowledged that the average price of gas and oil has declined in recent weeks. But they claimed credit for part of that reduction.
“I think the market is responding to the fact that we are here talking,” said Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) at a joint press conference with other GOP lawmakers. “I think the market realizes this kind of pressure from Congress may, in fact, lead to a change in policy.”
The Republican members did not answer questions about whether they would take the blame if gas prices go up again.
Yes, House Republicans are hosting a very sad little photo-op on the Hill, and some of them are willing to argue, out loud, in public, that simply by talking to each other about drilling, they’re able to bring the price of fuel down.
If you told me that Speaker Pelosi’s office was paying these clowns money to make House Republicans look ridiculous, I’d be tempted to believe you.
Oh those silly Republicans, trying to show how seriously they take their job to represent their oil lobbyist buddies constituents by repeating the shenanigans of Friday. We've got Roy Blunt castigating the 110th Congress for not passing an appropriations bill, and yet here Congress is, trying to get a veterans' appropriations bill passed and there goes the Republicans, playing games.
The Republicans' unsuccessful attempt to derail the veterans bill comes after President Bush threatened to veto the legislation over excessive spending on veterans and our troops and after Senate Republicans blocked the National Defense Authorization Act in the Senate over the same issue. The House did pass the FY 2009 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill, H.R. 6599 despite the Republican obstruction. This bill provides another much-needed funding increase for veterans' care (11 percent more than last year and $2.9 billion more than the President's request) - building on last year's largest ever increase in the 77-year history of the Veterans' Administration. All of the major veterans groups endorse the measure.
As Chairman Edwards explained, Veterans' organizations also called for its swift passage: "we urge that no impediments are put in its way and that its passage can come quickly and smoothly. The issues in this bill ...are not controversial, and they have broad bipartisan support. Attaching non-germane issues to the veterans funding bill that serve to delay or block passage would truly be wrong." [VFW, 7/25/08] Nonetheless, Republicans attempted to derail the bill by attaching drilling provisions that would destroy some of the nations most pristine areas forever in exchange for savings of only pennies per gallon more than 15 years from now, according to President Bush's own Energy Department. The provisions, however, would provide billions of dollars in profits for the oil industry.
Josh Nelson breaks down exactly how far $2,228,995 goes with some members of Congress.
I don't know how long it will last, but there's a YouTube up of their shenanigans on Friday.
