Things That Piss Me Off

There's a couple of them this morning. First, this:

ACORN offices across Texas are temporarily halting the bulk of their work, following the lead of other chapters nationwide, as they retrain workers and make sure proper policies and procedures are in place to avoid any improper activity.

The Fort Worth office is at least temporarily closed, as the state chapter of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now studies whether to fund reopening the local office, a choice not likely to be made easier by Congress’ move Thursday to halt even more funding for the group.

"We have an obligation to make sure that we take all the precautionary steps to make sure our staff is doing the job right," said Ginny Goldman, statewide head organizer for the Texas ACORN. "Outside consultants who are experts are working to make sure all of our staff is up to par.

"We’re proud of the work that we’ve done, and we will continue the work," she said. "We have no secrets. We are open for business."

That's thanks to a couple of douchebags dressed like clowns who decided it would be their mission in life to catch an ACORN employee doing something stupid, and our typically cowardly Democrats in Congress who are so eager to punish themselves before the Republicans get around to doing it that they might as well be wearing latex suits. From Wikipedia, here's a short description of exactly what ACORN does:

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is a community-based organization in the USA that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues.

As you probably know ACORN was the source of endless attacks by right-wingers during the campaign last year. They saw "voter registration" and "community organizing" and figured both were a handy way to get to Obama, so they had a field day with it. Of course given it's purpose, ACORN works with a lot of minorities, and giving minorities a hand is something that's just plain unacceptable to the right-wing. Fred Clark at Slacktivist has his own opinion about this attitude:

Rep. Wilson attends the First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, S.C., and every time he goes there with his family he has to recite those words: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." How can he possibly reconcile that with his rabid anti-immigrant views? Having those views, how does he even manage to speak the very first word of this prayer?

Think of Wilson and the rest of the "take back America" crowd praying this prayer in tens of thousands of nominally Christian churches across the country. Think of them praying this prayer on behalf of "their" country: "Forgive America its trespasses as America forgives those who trespass against it."

If those are the conditions -- and they are -- then we're screwed. Our own words, our own prayers, condemn us.

Wilson and the tea-baggers have to realize this. They have to hear this every week, to listen to themselves saying it, listen to their own voices inviting and invoking their own damnation. Praying this prayer must be for them like those monks in Monty Python's Holy Grail who carry wooden planks and smack themselves in the face after every phrase of every chanted prayer.

Maybe that explains why these people are so miserably unhappy, why they're so disproportionately angry, so wrong-headedly certain that they deserve to be jealous of those luck-ducky illegal immigrants like Miriam in the story above. Those desperately poor immigrants may have no access to care they can hope to afford, but at least they can hope to be forgiven. Wilson and the tea-baggers know that they, due to their own prayers, never can be.

I'm not much for psychoanalyzing other people's idiotic beliefs and motivations, but Clark may be onto something. Or at least, I can think of no better explanation for why anybody on Earth would be jealous of the poor and downtrodden for all unfair handouts they get from the government.

Also, yesterday the Texas State Board of Education solicited testimony in regards to the planned revision of standards for textbooks that Texas children use in schools:

Neil Armstrong, Daniel Boone, the state capitals – and even Christmas. All are going back into the state curriculum standards for social studies, State Board of Education members decided Thursday.

Meeting with several writing teams for social studies in all grade levels, the board asked for several revisions in the first drafts laying out the new standards for history, government and other social studies courses in Texas schools.

Many of the requested changes were for historical figures who were deleted from the standards by the writing teams because they were no longer considered as relevant or to make room for individuals who were added.

When some board members questioned why former Secretary of State and four-star Gen. Colin Powell was being dropped from the standards for elementary grades, they were told that former President Ronald Reagan was being substituted for Powell. That ended the questions.

Marci Deal, social studies coordinator in the Hurst-Euless-Bedford school district, quickly cooled off one controversy that erupted when the writing team for sixth grade initially recommended that Christmas be dropped from a list of holidays of the major religions in a world cultures and geography course.

"My mother called and asked me, 'What happened to Christmas?' " Deal told the board, referring to the negative reaction to the writing team's proposal.

Indeed, what happened to Christmas? Children only spend about a month each year learning about it in great detail. Peter Marshall, the right-wing hack installed as one of the "expert reviewers" who we've written about before, got his licks in yesterday as well:

He got things started with a rousing 10-minute tour through a Christian-centric version of US history.

"It is obvious beyond contradiction that [the founders] structured American government on the natural rights of mankind, which they firmly believe were the gift of God," he said.

Asked by an African-American board member about his objection to the inclusion of Thurgood Marshall in the textbook standards -- Rev. Marshall called the jurist not "a strong enough example" -- Rev. Marshall responded: "He's known primarily for that one very important Supreme Court decision."

And he seemed to draw a hard distinction between historical figures who are minorities and historical figures who are sufficiently accomplished for inclusion.

"My plea simply is again, with the hundreds of historical American people, I think it's very important to emphasize to children character," he said.

"I'm concerned about the modern trend of just identifying people as members of groups -- whether minority groups or whatever," Marshall said.

Well specifically, minority groups. Because it's axiomatic that the great historical figures are all white. Never mind that that's entirely the result of the fact that until recently, whites wrote the history of our nation. As I'm sure you're aware, none of this is about a "fair" reading of history, of accomplishments and people that are interesting and informative to the kids of all races who attend schools in Texas (many of whom are minorities.) It's about right-wingers shoving the traditions they value down the throats of everybody else's kids, while whining about how the great white men of American history are "maligned" by not being studied in enough detail. Nevermind that those great white men include Rush Limbaugh, or Newt Gingrich. No, it's not about politics at all.

The board won't approve of new recommendations until sometime next year. So, we have that long to slap some sense into them.

As an antidote to all this extreme stupidity, here's the very smart Daniel Larison. I don't always agree with him, but when I do there's little I enjoy more than watching him methodically pick apart atrocious right-wing arguments. Bonus win for Larison, for shooting down a particularly ridiculous sports analogy:

In an otherwise unremarkable column about the instant morality of sports, Henninger made the following preposterous claim:

Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to let a prosecutor investigate CIA interrogations that were ruled inbounds years ago is like a baseball commissioner reversing a hotly disputed World Series home run. Fans everywhere would burn down the stadium.

This is bizarre in a number of ways. Henninger isn’t even using the correct sports analogy. In this case, the analogy would have to be some kind of action that had once been illegal but was permitted under a looser interpretation of the rules. You would then have to have some regulating authority declare later on that the new interpretation of the rules was basically invalid and that the old rules had always applied, opening the door to some kind of retroactive penalties. The closest comparison I can think of is when the NCAA voids the wins of coaches involved in recruiting violations, which is an appropriate disciplinary action for cheating college programs and exactly the kind of strict enforcement of rules that Henninger is implicitly rejecting in his criticism of Holder.

In practice, there are rarely dangerous actions in any sport that were once banned but are now permitted. In American football, the trend has been towards tighter and tighter restrictions on what defensive players can do to receivers and quarterbacks. There really is nothing in the sports world that directly compares to investigating the torture regime, because there is no professional organization that started allowing routine violent abuses during games. You have never heard NFL officials claim that there need to be more crippling tackles on defenseless players to preserve the game of football. Of course, contests premised on fairness cannot reasonably be compared to practices that are by their nature gross injustices against human dignity, but that doesn’t bother Henninger. The very thing that Henninger finds attractive and worthwhile in the instant and mostly reliable morality of sports (which apparently does not apply to teams from Massachusetts) is what he plainly does not want to have applied when it comes to national security, and what is most striking is that he isn’t even aware of the contradiction.

All of which is basically a very articulate way of saying "shove that in your pipe and smoke it."

Legislative Update IV

President Obama signed his first bill into law this week. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act reversed a 2007 Supreme Court decision declaration pay discrimination claims must be filed within 180 days of the first offense. This law triggers a new 180-day window after each discriminatory paycheck. Lilly Ledbetter is an Alabama woman who discovered after 19 years on the job at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co that she was the lowest-paid supervisor at her plant despite having more experience than several male co-workers. President Obama remarked that it seemed fitting that the first bill he would sign into law stood for greater equality.

Despite President Obama personally consulting and making concessions with the GOP, the House of Representatives passed its version of the economic stimulus bill without a single Republican vote. The Senate will take up its version next week, where it will need at least a few Republican votes to pass. Then, changes will need to be worked out between the two chambers and passed again before President Obama can sign it into law.

The Senate passed its bill to expand the SCHIP program. The House will take up the same measure next week, and President Obama will sign it into law. President Bush had vetoed the bill, but now with a Democratic President and greater Democratic majorities in Congress, this version of the bill gives even more of what Democrats wanted.

Also, the Senate for a second time approved a bill that delays the national transition to digital television to June 12th from February 17. The House failed to pass the bill under rules that required a two-thirds majority due to Republican opposition. The House will likely pass it when it takes it up again next week under normal rules that requires only a simply majority to pass. President Obama will sign the bill.

Lastly, Attorney General-designate won a strong 17-2 recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee and should receive bipartisan approval from the full Senate on February 2nd.

Legislative Update I

While Barack Obama won't be inaugurated until next Tuesday, Congress is already hard back at work (or, at least, back at work):

The House of Representatives passed two pay discrimination bills. The first, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, would reverse a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that a worker must file claims of wage discrimination within 180 days of the first decision to pay that worker less, even if the person was unaware of the pay disparity. The second, the Paycheck Fairness Act, would close loopholes that have enabled employers to evade the 1963 law requiring equal pay for equal work. Both were passed essentially on party lines, sadly but unsurprisingly. As long as these get through the Senate, they will of course be signed by the incoming president when he takes office.

Just earlier today, a Senate bill that would boost wildnerness protection across 2 million acres in nine states survived GOP stalling tactics. It should pass later this week.

Lame-Duck Session

Congress returned to business this week, passing an extension of unemployment benefits (thankfully, still-President Bush reversed his opposition) but punting a bailout of the auto industry until the Big 3 can demonstrate how the money would help.

Ever-masochistic, House Republicans elevated strong conservatives to leadership posts. Rep. Henry Waxman successfully toppled Rep. John Dingell as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, likely giving stronger voice to environmentalists just as the Senate prepares to introduce bills after Obama's inauguration to combat global warming.

Economic Stimulus

As you're probably aware, the stock market had another crazy day yesterday, this time picking up instead of losing almost a thousand point. The news that the U.S. government was set to pump billions into faltering banks by buying preferred stock in those banks (a move Europe initiated yesterday) as well as guarantee debt incurred by the banks for the next three years and bolster the commercial paper market has apparently convinced Wall Street that the worst of the credit crisis has passed. For their part, Congressional Democrats are considering a stimulus package for consumers that would probaby entail money for infrastructure improvements, money to cash-strapped state and local governments, and perhaps another tax rebate for Americans along the lines of this year's earlier stimulus package (the White House has vowed to veto any such packages.) Obama is apparently also in on the talks, and is proposing more funds for food stamps, unemployment benefits and health care costs, though Congress is looking to limit the package to $300 billion. 

Fear and Loathing

I think this article pretty well captures the sentiment of people on the left and right about this bailout package. Some combination of fear and anger dominate the public mood at the moment, and rightly so. This crisis appears to the average person to have come from nowhere, and at the same time that people are realizing that their personal livelihoods have been made hostage to rampant profiteering on Wall Street, leaders in Congress and President Bush himself are haranguing us with threats about how dire this crisis is-a crisis they should have seen coming and should have done something about, or what the hell are we sending them up there for-at the same time that economists are telling us that the bailout is either immediately necessary or not really necessary at all. It really should come as no surprise that many people are simply saying to hell with it and are willing to let the whole mess collapse if it'll drag down the bastards that got us into this mess too. Can you blame them? Right now what this country needs is a big apology from Congress and the President, along the lines of "we know we fucked up and we're really sorry but please you've got to let us fix this and we promise to make sure it never happens again." I find that humility and shame goes a long way when you've fucked up, and that lesson applies just as well to people we elect to higher office.

Bailout Plan Defeated

I gotta say, I don't understand how after last week you would bring this to a vote without knowing for sure it's going to pass. The House is 13 votes short of the 218 needed, with only about a 1/3 of House Republicans backing it. Suffice it to say they need to figure out a way to bring some more of those recalcitrant members on board. 

Bailout Plan Crumbles

Reports from this afternoon indicated that the White House and Congress had tentatively agreed to a bailout plan. Eh, not so much:

The day began with an agreement that Washington hoped would end the financial crisis that has gripped the nation. It dissolved into a verbal brawl in the Cabinet Room of the White House, urgent warnings from the president and pleas from a Treasury secretary who knelt before the House speaker and appealed for her support.

“If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down,” President Bush declared Thursday as he watched the $700 billion bailout package fall apart before his eyes, according to one person in the room.

By 10:30 p.m., after another round of talks, Congressional negotiators gave up for the night and said they would try again on Friday. Left uncertain was the fate of the bailout, which the White House says is urgently needed to fix broken financial and credit markets, as well as whether the first presidential debate would go forward as planned Friday night in Mississippi.

When Congressional leaders and Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, the two major party presidential candidates, trooped to the White House Thursday afternoon, all signs pointed toward a bipartisan agreement on a grand compromise that could be accepted by all sides and signed into law by the weekend. It was to have pumped billions of dollars into the financial system and transformed the way Wall Street is regulated.

“We’re in a serious economic crisis,” Mr. Bush told reporters as the meeting began shortly before 4 p.m. in the Cabinet Room, adding, “My hope is we can reach an agreement very shortly.”

But once the doors closed, the smooth-talking House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, surprised many in the room by declaring that his caucus could not support the plan to allow the government to buy distressed mortgage assets from ailing financial companies.

So Boehner and other Republicans killed it. But why? McCain arrived in D.C. either as a stunt for his campaign, or to offer cover to the GOP (depending on who you believe) but it appears he was unable to gather support from his recalcitrant colleagues. In fact, Boehner and other Republicans appear to be proposing a radically different plan altogether:

Early yesterday, Democratic and Republican leaders said they had reached agreement on the "fundamentals" of a deal. But at a meeting later at the White House that included President Bush, top lawmakers and both presidential candidates, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) mentioned a new plan for addressing the crisis that has hobbled global markets.

Under the plan, the government would set up an expanded insurance system, financed by the banks, that would rescue individual home mortgages. The government would not have to buy up the toxic mortgage-backed assets that are weighing down financial institutions.

So you're probably wondering like I am where the hell this idea came from. Democrats are accusing Boehner and other Republicans of torpedoing the deal so McCain could get credit for rescuing it, but that seems strange to me seeing as how McCain is already in D.C. and appeared to accept the defunct proposal. If it is a stunt, then we'll probably see a deal worked out tomorrow as Republicans appear to come back around to the original while praising McCain for his leadership. If it's not a stunt...then I don't know if anybody in D.C. or anywhere else knows what this plan is going to look like, or when it's finally going to get passed.

Incidentally, while Republicans in Congress may or may not be playing games with the bailout package, the Federal government has moved to seize Washington Mutual and is directing an emergency sale of almost all of its assets. It is the largest failure of a bank in American history. Also, the credit crunch has finally worked its way down to consumers; larger bank chains entangled in the subprime mess are finding themselves considerably more reluctant to make not only home loans, but auto and college loans as well. I know haste in passing the bailout package is likely to produce a terrible plan but news like that makes even someone as laid-back as myself a little fidgety.

UPDATE: After reading this article in the Politico on the collapse of talks, I still can't say for sure what's going on. Or if it's any one thing for that matter. Some House Republicans seem to be genuinely opposed to the bailout, but their frustrations somehow got lost in the shuffle. There also appears to be some jockeying to have McCain "save" the deal, though I honestly don't know how McCain is supposed to motivate House Republicans who are not his working colleagues when there is no certainty that he'll be the next President, and it appears that at least one Republican-Mike Pence of Indiana, who is opposed to the bailout-thinks McCain is there to help them get their deal passed. In other words, whatever consensus that appeared to exist as of yesterday afternoon and early evening, is now completely gone. Talks have resumed as of this morning.

UPDATE II: This article in the NY Times states that McCain never laid out explicit support for any plan yesterday. If that's the case...then what the hell is he doing there? Amazingly, there appears to be no discussion about Bush motivating Republicans; it appears to be a foregone conclusion that he cannot.

UPDATE III: I'm listening to NPR, and Renee Montagne and Steve Inskeep are drilling McCain advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin. They asked him why he rushed back to D.C. only to appear to endorse no plan explicitly, and what exactly his role is there now. Holtz-Eaken has nothing to say other than basically, McCain is there to help out and support whatever plan both the parties agree to. Seriously?

UPDATE IV:Laura Rozen, who has a source on the Hill, is worth reading. Apparently, the rank and file were never behind this plan as much as it appeared, and voter anger over the bailout is not getting enough attention. Apparently there are quite a few Senators and House members who have no desire to put their names no a bill that gives billions to Wall Street, and the modified Paulson plan that seemed so close to getting passed may be way deader than we think.

UPDATE V: Maybe the death of this modified Paulson plan is a good thing, since a growing number of economists say it's the wrong way to go. House Republicans appear to agree.

Alternatives

One of the commentators on my post on Bush's speech discussed an alternative proposal to the plan that is currently being heavily modified by Congress. In that vein I thought it would be appropriate to mention some of those proposals, as highlighted by this Washington Post article from yesterday and this NPR report from this morning. The plan as presented by the Bush administration initially involved buying the bad debt from banks and investment firms, and permitting the Treasury Dept. to oversee the disposal of that debt overtime as it's value became certain. There were no provisions for oversight, and no talk of relief for homeowners or punitive actions against the firms who made this mess. It's clear that such a bill never had any chance of making it past Congress, not in the fact of massive skepticism and rising anger among average Americans. The bill presently being discussed before Congress however maintains the basic approach of buying the bad debt, and tentatively provides for greater oversight by Congress, and possibly some relief for homeowners or caps on executive compensation or a smaller purchase of debt at the outset (though things are very fluid at the moment...and there's questions whether such a plan will even work.) So what are some of the alternatives to this basic approach?

1. The federal government lends money to these companies to boost their capital, and accepts the bad debt as collateral. The companies remain the owners of the loan, and would be required at some point in the future to pay the loans back once their value has risen.

2. The federal government operates as an investor in mortgage debt, buying only profitable securities and thus encouraging banks and investment companies to make and buy responsible and valuable loans to other banks, companies and consumers.

3. Another approach that our commentator discusses (and Hillary Clinton proposes in an op-ed in the WJF today) is addressing the problem at it's root, reinforcing these bad mortgages by granting relief to homeowners who presently incapable of paying off the debt they owe on their homes. Relief to homeowners could be granted in a variety of ways, though the most feasible way might be to restructure their debt to make it easier for homeowners to pay, thus increasing the value of the securities that are backed by this debt.

4. Suspending the capital gains tax and relaxing accounting rules to encourage investment.

All of these proposals have their drawbacks. The first two leave the debt on the books of banks and investment firms, hampering their enthusiasm and thus confidence on Wall Street. Restructuring homeowner debt takes time, and it could be months before the effect becomes clear and companies can begin to accurately value the debt they own. As for the last...well, you can probably imagine how we feel about tax cuts being the primary solution to this crisis. I wouldn't count on Congress adopting any proposal that's more creative than simply buying the bad debt from Wall Street, but the best plan would contain parts of various alternative approaches, including relief for homeowners, relaxing accounting rules, a capital gains tax cut or suspension. What Congress will eventually agree to remains a mystery though.

Bush Bailout Plan Dead

President Bush made his appeal to the American people tonight and urged Congress to pass his administration's $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Nonetheless, the plan has experienced a strong pushback from both Republican and Democratic members of Congress and the proposal, at least as envisioned by Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, is effectively dead:

The Treasury's plan to spend up to $700 billion of taxpayers' money to bail out the nation's financial system was recognized as dead Wednesday as lawmakers in Congress made clear that they're going to make significant changes.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who has spent two days urging members to pass legislation quickly and cleanly, conceded Wednesday that any bill will have to have limits on executive pay at troubled firms and hinted he would accept other changes.

"The American people are angry about executive compensation and rightfully so," Paulson told the House Financial Services Committee.

His willingness to publicly agree to the pay provision was another strong sign that Congress and the administration were working toward the same goal — enactment of a major financial bailout package, and soon.

"It means we are closer," said Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass. He predicted that House and Senate Democrats would have an agreement by Thursday to present to Republicans.

Members of Congress talked privately with administration officials throughout the day about changes to the plan. Several provisions sought by lawmakers from both parties were expected to be added, notably strong oversight of any bailout, more aid to homeowners facing foreclosure and possibly trimming back the cost of the package, at least initially.

"Over the last 24 hours, I've seen signs of greater cooperation from my colleagues in Congress," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who's on the Senate Finance Committee. "Despite many of their well-founded reservations, (they) recognize the magnitude of the problems we face and the importance of getting something done."

One measure of Congress's disgust with the original Treasury plan came Wednesday when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Paulson met privately with House Republicans. Afterward, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., said that only four members raised their hands at the end when there was a request for a show of hands for support of the original White House bailout proposal.

It remains unclear though how close Congress is to passing legislation.

FDA Regulation of Nicotine On The Horizon

We here at TWM have in the past called for legislation that would grant the FDA authority to regulate nicotine as a drug, and it appears that Congress is finally close to granting such authority. Such a move is long overdue considering the cigarette manufacturer's well-documented lack of regard for human life. The Bush administration is opposed (you expected otherwise) but the best reason not to enact such legislation that Congressional Republicans can come up with is that the FDA already has enough on it's plate, a flimsy excuse even were it to happen to be true (and one that manufacturers like RJ Reynolds have been quick to include in none-too-convincing ads.) Of course, oversight will hardly begin to make up for the enormous cost in life and public money that decades of illegality produced, but it is a start to bringing an end to an era in which American companies could produce a product that, when it works as intended, kills people.

FISA and the Budget

After a rare close door session, House Dems grew a refreshing backbone and passed a FISA update bill that does not include telecom immunity. Of course, the White House has threatened a veto and it's not clear the Senate will pass the same bill (they earlier passed one with immunity).

Both the House and the Senate passed a budget blueprint that increases domestic spending and eliminates the Bush tax cuts for higher-income earners. President Bush opposes this, and both chambers still must work out differences.

Democrat wins Dennis Hastert's seat!

Democrat Bill Foster won the special election for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's seat tonight. Foster, whom Obama made this ad for, beat Republican Jim Oberweis in the longtime GOP district, increasing the Democratic House majority by one more seat. Another election for the seat will be held in November for a new, full term and it will likely be another tough race, but this is great news for Dems tonight and very bad news for Republicans to lose in what was once such a stronghold for them.

What Congress did this week

Not much attention on them these days with the presidential race, but here's the latest and greatest:

The House passed a long-time-in-the-making mental health party bill on a vote of 268-148. The bill requires health insurers to provide the same level of coverage for mental illness and drug and alcohol addiction as for other ailments. The Senate passed a less extensive measure last year, which the White House favors.

The Senate passed a consumer product safety bill that beefs up the Consumer Product Safety Commission, virtually bans lead content in toys and mandates independent testing of children's products. A compromise must be working out with the House. The White House has not (yet) threatened a veto.

Of course, President Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress that banned the CIA from using waterboarding and other torture techniques on terror suspects by making them have to comply with military guidelines.

Goings-On in Congress This Week

Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides - White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers - to a federal grand jury. As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a civil suit against Bolten and Miers in federal court.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 236-to-182 to repeal $18 billion in tax breaks for big oil companies to help pay for developing renewable energy sources, but Bush has threatened to veto, of course.

In the Senate, Republicans blocked a vote on legislation that would let bankruptcy judges erase some mortgage debt and spend more money on fixing abandoned properties, in an effort to curb rising home foreclosures. They also disallowed a vote on a bill by Sen. Russ Feingold to get most U.S. troops out of Iraq by July and cut off funding for the war, after first allowing discussion on it to play up the "success" of the surge.

The Other Elections Last Night

Aside from the presidential primary voting, two other important primary elections were going in which two House veterans lost their seats to challengers.

Republican Rep. Wayne Gilchrest was one of just a handful that backed Democratic bills to end the war in Iraq, sadly losing his seat to a conservative challenger (Rep. Walter Jones may face a similar fate in North Carolina's primary in May). His defeat brings to 30 the number of GOP House incumbents who won't be returning next year, the others due to resignations and retirements. That brings us to the good news which is Democrats may have a better chance of winning this seat versus a more conservative candidate.

On the Democratic side, Rep. Albert Wynn lost his seat to Donna Edwards - who won with 60% of the vote. Edwards had run against Wynn before due to his initial support of the Iraq war, the bankruptcy bill, etc. but this time her campaign was successfully fueled by progressive champions such as DailyKos. This could be seen as a sign to some entrenched Democrats that their base may rise against them if they vote in a way not to their liking. Establishment beware!

First Legislative Update of '08

Well, the 110th Congress recently returned to start their second session, but it's already not looking too good.

For the umpteenth time, the House of Representatives failed to override President Bush's veto of a bill to expand SCHIP. President Bush plans to sign into law the defense authorization bill, now that both chambers of Congress gave in on a provision he sought that would exempt Iraq from lawsuits dating to the regime of executed former President Saddam Hussein. And the Senate granted at least a temporary victory to the White House when it turned back an attempt to increase court oversight of the government's surveillance of phone calls and e-mails that involve people inside the United States. Here's Russ Feingold's statement on the affair.

As you probably already know, the House and President Bush reached a deal on an economic stimulus package. However, it may face opposition in the Senate as Senators try to push their own add-ons.

Bipartisanship, Schmipartisanship

It's good to see that in the spirit of "bipartisanship", the kumbaya-ish unity of opposing political forces that is so highly touted among political pundits and supposedly craved by the public, both Democrats and Republicans can come together to pander to voters by sending them money. Here's a sample of the cringe-worthy (but bipartisan!) quotes from the article:

President Bush hailed "the kind of cooperation that some predicted was not possible here in Washington." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) used the words "bipartisan" and "bipartisanship" 10 times in a brief appearance. "Many Americans believe that Washington is broken," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "But I think this agreement, and I hope that this agreement, will show the American people that we can fix it."

They're sick and tired of the bickering, and they want to see us get some things done," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.).

See, everyone wins! Only not really, because members of Congress have come together to enact a stimulus package that won't really stimulate the economy but does have the political side-effect of bribing taxpayers into thinking that the government is doing something about the looming recession. And that's what counts for a win in D.C. these days.

The truth is, nobody really wants bipartisanship. What they really want is for the other side to give in to what they want, and each side excoriates the other for "partisanship" when they don't. But the American people want partisanship. They want their side to win, and they want their policies enacted. Only the legendary independent/moderate voter wants "bipartisanship" because supposedly that's the measure of progress in this country; not what policies get enacted, but that any get enacted at all.

Not me though. And not partisans for the other side either. I want the Democrats to stomp down legislation in Congress when the legislation getting passed is atrocious (unlike this example, where in the spirit of bipartisanship they will give President Bush exactly what he wants.) Bipartisanship? Count me out. I want to win.

No Action on Contempt

Time for new Democratic leadership?

Southern/Southwestern states to gain House seats

The 435 seats in the House are divided among the states every 10 years based on the census. State legislatures are charged with drawing new congressional district maps, and reapportionment from the 2010 census will go into effect for the 2012 election. Currently, it appears that fast-growing Southern and Southwestern states (read: red and swing states) could gain the bulk of new congressional seats (Texas is the biggest winner), largely at the expense of blue states.

A list via the AP:

WINNERS:

Texas — up four seats to 36.

Florida — up two seats to 27.

Arizona — up two seats to 10.

North Carolina — up one seat to 14.

South Carolina — up one seat to seven.

Georgia — up one seat to 14.

Utah — up one seat to four.

Nevada — up one seat to four.

Oregon — up one seat to six.

LOSERS:

New York — down two seats to 27.

Ohio — down two seats to 16.

Massachusetts — down one seat to nine.

New Jersey — down one seat to 12.

Pennsylvania — down one seat to 18.

Michigan — down one seat to 14.

Illinois — down one seat to 18.

Minnesota — down one seat to seven.

Iowa — down one seat to four.

Missouri — down one seat to eight.

Louisiana — down one seat to six.

California — down one seat to 52.

Give the Republicans lean of those states, this makes it extremely important for Democrats to win back the state legislatures here in Texas and elsewhere by 2010 so they can control redistricting (if there's not a non-partisan system set up for it, that is). But Democrats have been gaining in the southwest the last few election cycles, so it could definitely yield opportunities.