With his fourth run for Governor failing to get traction, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi yesterday announced his plan to run for Congress in the East Bay's 10th District - in a special election to replace Ellen Tauscher. On name recognition alone, Garamendi will be the front-runner in a crowded field - although State Senator Mark DeSaulnier has key endorsements that will make it competitive. But while running for Congress is a smart move for Garamendi, it would be far better for Democrats - and progressive politics - for him to run in District 3 against Republican incumbent Dan Lungren. Tauscher's seat is safe for Democrats regardless of who runs in the special election, while Garamendi is probably one of the few candidates who can win District 3. He has deep roots in the 3rd District - which includes a large swath of the Sacramento suburbs, along with Garamendi's native Calaveras County. It is traditionally a "red" district, but Barack Obama carried it last November - and Lungren came unexpectedly close to losing to an under-funded Democratic challenger. At a time when Democratic activists are pushing the Party to take back "Red California," Garamendi's choice of districts could not be more disheartening and misguided. Expect this to become an issue at this weekend's State Democratic Convention.
House Democrats reached a compromise yesterday on the cramdown provision of John Conyers' Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, and for a change, it was a decent compromise. Proponents of this legislation pretty much managed to keep the cramdown provision intact, meaning that bankruptcy judges will be able to modify mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure on primary residences. Plus, there were negotiations with Senate Dems and not just New Democrats, who have been acting on behalf of their corporate interests and have made passing cramdown legislation ridiculously and unnecessarily difficult.
If you want to see what I mean, read Dday's excellent post, "Ellen Tauscher's Insatiable Appetite for More Homeless People," which lambastes Rep. Tauscher, head of the New Democrat Coalition and former Wall Street investor, for delaying this much needed legislation and then bragging about it. Then, read the hilarious message Tauscher's office sent to Chris Bowers, which took a defensive tone over the criticism Tauscher has received. Tough shit Tauscher! She's the one who put the interests of banks before her constituents. Not to mention the fact that she has a former bank industry lobbyist working in her office, and is STILL working to restrict the power of bankruptcy judges.
Chances are Conyers' compromised legislation will pass the House tomorrow. And while, as Chris noted, it was a good sign to see Senate staffers participating in yesterday's negotiations, odds are HR1106's counterpart in the Senate will still face a tough battle. That's why it's key to keep Brave New Foundation's petition going that over 17,000 people have signed in the last four days! We have to keep the pressure up on Congress and get these judicial modifications passed.
Here is a message I received today from Ellen Tauscher's office. The asterisks are mine:
Hi Chris,
There's been much written about HR 1106, especially in the blogosphere, and most of it is misinformed.
Congresswoman Tauscher has worked hard during the past few weeks to improve HR 1106 by making it more progressive*, more comprehensive and more effective. Bankruptcy is not a solution to the enormous foreclosure crisis. Congresswoman Tauscher has worked with Speaker Pelosi** and Rep. Zoe Lofgren to include a central tenet of President Obama's housing plan - a loan modification program - in the bill. They agreed.
Instead of passing legislation that would help 30,000 homeowners file for bankruptcy, Congresswoman Tauscher wants a real, accessible loan modification plan in place so that millions of homeowners can work with lenders to rewrite their mortgage payments without declaring bankruptcy, which is ruinous and painful. Earlier this morning, she was on the phone with a few lawmakers who had opposed the rule to HR 1106 to persuade them to support the rule when it comes to a vote on Wednesday.***
She is not taking directions from "the banks"; she has not even met with them.****
It's disappointing to work with so many bloggers who count themselves as progressives, but won't listen when a pragmatic progressive is trying to improve legislation. In the end, it doesn't matter. Congresswoman Tauscher's constituents enjoy her pragmatic style and the results she has delivered in seven terms in Congress; they appreciate what she's doing here.
You're picking the wrong fight with the wrong woman.*****
OK. Explanation of the asterisks in the extended entry.
As Jane Hamsher and Kagro X have already noted, a deal on "cramdown" bankruptcy legislation appears to have been forged. And I am happy to report that, rather than the fake compromises of the last eight years where Democrats and / or progressives get next to nothing while Republicans and / or conservatives get 95% of what they want, this deal seems to be a true compromise where both sides can legitimately claim victory. From CQ:
House Democratic leaders reached an agreement Tuesday on a compromise version of the "cramdown" provision in broad mortgage legislation that is expected to be on the floor this week.
The controversial provision would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the mortgages on the primary residences of homeowners who are in jeopardy of foreclosure, but only as a last resort.(...)
In negotiations that picked up steam Monday and continued throughout much of the day Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., met with representatives of the business-oriented New Democrat Coalition and Senate staff to hash out a deal that would allow a bankruptcy judge to cut the principal on a homeowner's mortgage, lower the interest rate and extend the duration.(...)
Among the changes is a requirement that a homeowner seeking protection in bankruptcy court must convince the judge he or she has made sufficient efforts to complete a loan modification through the Obama administration's voluntary refinancing program. Judges would also be required to consider interest rate reductions lowering the monthly mortgage payment to no more than 31 percent of the borrower's income before considering a principal reduction.
Here are three thought experiments on the bankruptcy fight:
Representative Ellen Tauscher is bragging to Politico that the delay on the Help Families Dave Their Homes Act (for details on the bill, click here) is a show of strength from House moderates:
"It shows we have bench strength, and it shows we can flex," said California Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, who chairs the New Democrat Coalition and played a central role in negotiations over the bankruptcy bill.
First thought experiment: if you are bragging to the Politico that delaying a bill is a show of political strength, then how exactly are we to know that you have good faith policy disagreements with the bill? Seems to me that once you start bragging about delaying legislation as a show of political power, any claim to good faith goes our the window.
The financial services industry and House Republicans are fighting back against a bill pushed by House Democrats that would empower bankruptcy judges to write down mortgage interest rates and principal.
The financial-services industry has vigorously opposed "cramdown" legislation that would let bankruptcy judges write down the principal and interest payments on mortgages for primary residences. The industry says the bill, as written, is too broad and would allow homeowners to head to court before attempting to work out a modified mortgage with their lender.
Second thought experiment: what are the odds that the financial services industry and House Republicans actually have the public's best interests at heart in opposing this bill? What about their behavior over the last few years would lead one to such a conclusion? Given their track record, isn't it far more likely that they are trying to make themselves wealthier at the public's expense?
That prompted lawmakers, like Tauscher, to limit the scope of the bankruptcy bill as much as possible, even though this measure is only loosely related to the president's broader proposal.
Third thought experiment: if you are bragging to the Politco about showing off political power, and if you are aligned with the financial services industry in their attempt to narrow the scope of the bill, then what are the odds that you are working on behalf of the public interest in this fight?
Thought experiment over--now, let's take some action. Firedoglake has a couple of great ways to make a difference on The Help Families Save Their Homes Act:
These are great tools that give you an easy way to make a difference, today. There is still time to sway minds on this one, as President Obama is sending is new Housing Secretary to talk to wayward Democrats on this matter tonight. Before that conversation, let members of Congress know there is popular support behind the President's plan.
Still unclear as to who is pushing the delay: The culprit behind the delay can still be best described as "centrist Democrats" and "the financial services industry." As of this time, there are still few other specifics. I have heard second hand rumors that the New Democrats coordinated the delay in order to "flex some muscle." This would make sense, since the New Democrats have been public about feeling left out of the state of play in the House recently, and have indicated that they are going to target financial services regulations as a means of regaining influence. However, trying to get even more specific than "New Democrats" has been difficult, as the individual names I have heard behind the delay and water down effort are contradicted by my different sources.
On Ellen Tauscher: Two days ago, I asked Open Left readers to contact Representative Ellen Tauscher's office, urging her to stop listening to the financial services industry, and start listening to threatened homeowners. Her communications director contacted me today to point out that she voted in favor of the rule on HR 1106, which implies support. Also, I was told that Tauscher has not met with one member or representative of the financial services industry on this bill, but did work closely with the Judiciary committee which sent the bill to the House floor. In the extended entry, I provide a list of ways that her office indicated she was working to "strengthen" the bill, rather than "water it down."
A more complicated relationship: This week, on a couple of occasions, I have implied a crude, quid pro quo relationship between centrist Democrats and corporate PACs. The actual relationship, of course, is a bit more complicated. In particular, many centrist Dems simply see eye to eye with the corporate lobbyists who funnel PAC money their way, and no real arm twisting is needed. The corporate PACs are simply supporting like-minded individuals, many of whom have a background in the industry (such as Representative Tauscher, who worked on Wall Street). These Representatives are rarely working at the behest of the industries in question, and are instead simply working toward shared, usually pro-corporate goals on their own.
Durbin's slip-up: Yesterday, Senator Durbin , the sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, told a reporter that he was willing to water down the legislation so that it would only apply to sub-prime loans. While he might have been taken out of context, or simply been speaking in error, given the 60 vote threshold in the Senate it is likely that is what will happen to the legislation by the time it is delivered to President Obama's desk. Because of the current political climate, the goal of centrist Democrats and the banking industry is not actually to defeat the bill as they did in the past, but simply to narrow it and water it down. Depressingly, that effort is likely to succeed.
Obama administration to the rescue?: The best chance for keeping the legislation strong and applicable to as wide a range of homeowners as possible comes from the Obama administration itself. On Monday, Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan will speak to House Democrats, and make a direct appeal for not narrowing or otherwise watering down the cram-down legislation. The administration does hold a lot of sway with congressional Democrats right now, and is riding high in the polls, so this appeal might just work. Let's hope so.
This bill is another test of the Obama administration's ability to sway center-right Democrats and Republicans. Unlike the stimulus, let's hope that no concessions are made without an actual promise of votes. Also, this vote should be a great test of whether or not members are voting with corporate interests, or with the interests of their constituents.
One of the key policies needed to solve the housing crisis will be mortgage "cram down" legislation. "Cram down," which is probably poorly named, will allow bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage payments to match current home values, rather than the inflated values of the housing bubble era (read more on "cram down" here). This legislation, introduced by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) in the House (HR 200), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) in the Senate (S 61), will allow hundreds of thousands of people to stay in their homes at this critical juncture in our economy. It is supported by President Obama, andincluded as a principle in the administration's housing plan (see page 4).
Tomorrow, the House will vote on Representative Conyer's bankruptcy cram down. The whip count is unclear right now, but some Blue Dogs and New Democrats, including Melissa Bean (D-IL), Dennis Moore (D-KS), and New Democratic chair Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), are working on behalf of the financial services industry to water down the legislation. Tauscher in particular is problematic, both because of her leadership role in one of the ideological caucuses, and also because rumors are that she has organized up to two dozen members thus far. It is about time that Tauscher, and the Representatives she is organizing, stop listening to industry lobbyists who do not have the public interest in mind.
So, let's make Representative Tauscher listen to someone else right now. Contact Ellen Tauscher, and urge her to stop organizing other Democrats to water down HR 200. She needs to listen to honewoners, not to the financial industry that got us into this economic disaster:
Email form (California residents only)
D.C. office: 202.225.1880
Not only is helping struggling homeowners the right thing to do, but if we don't turn the corner on the mortgage and economic crisis, then Democrats will find themselves in the same bad electoral position Republicans currently face.
Tauscher is key to this vote, and she can be influenced. After she was threatened by a primary challenge during much of 2007, her voting habits distinctly changed for the better. As such, if you are feeling cheeky enough, it might not hurt to mention that when you call.
Contact Representative Ellen Tauscher on HR 200!
Email form (California residents only)
D.C. office: 202.225.1880
Today, a long-overdue bill is being introduced in Congress by Rep. Ellen Tauscher which calls for increasing dwell time for our servicemembers who will serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Current deployment policies and operational tempo, which usually consists of a 1:1 ratio of time deployed and time at home, are compounding the wounds of war for our troops. It is a medical fact confirmed by DoD studies (see Mental Health Advisory Team reports IV and V) that repeated exposure to high-intensity combat with inadequate dwell time greatly increases the incidence of service-connected psychological problems.
It doesn't get much more visionary and ambitious than Al Gore's recent speech on energy and climate change, and this sentence in particular:
Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.
My only quibble with this fantastic speech was that Gore said little about the transportation sector, which is the second largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Changing our transportation policies and funding priorities could greatly help us address the climate change emergency. More on that after the jump.
So now, if you're a Hillary supporter, you're not a real Democrat?
Fuck that noise. There are passionate, hard-working progressive Democrats who support every single one of our candidates, Hillary included.
And I'm sick of diaries that insinuate to the contrary.
Oh, I know, it's primary season. That's just how things are.
Bullshit. We're adults. Let's act like adults.
We're allies. Let's act like allies.
I don't in any way mean to pick on this diarist from Daily Kos that wrote these words. Also, I would state that of course it is possible to be a real Democrat and support Hillary Clinton, and it is also possible to be a "real" progressive and support Clinton. Instead, what I want to take issue with is the notion that all self-identified Democrats are "allies."
The simple fact is that not all self-identified Democrats, including all Democrats in Congress, are our allies. This was made repeatedly clear to me back in 2006, and I am tired of variations on the circular firing squad line being used to defend criticism of Democrats. For starters, the following five Senators are absolutely not our allies, and should not be considered such:
Carper (D-DE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Nelson (D-NE)
Landrieu (D-LA)
In no uncertain terms, these five Senators made it clear that they are not allies of the Democratic Party. This is because all five of them endorsed a candidate who was running against the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Connecticut in 2006. If they were our allies, if we were all on the same team, then they would have endorsed the Democratic nominee in Connecticut. Period. End of story. Since they did not, it is clear that whatever relationship they have with "us" is one of convenience that will be broken whenever it suits their personal interests. And the ten Senators who failed to endorse one way or the other in the primary general, including President Bill Clinton himself, are not much better:
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Sabarnes (D-MD)
This is very simple: if you don't endorse some Democratic nominees, you don't get to say that you are on the same team with those endorse all Democratic nominees. People who undertake those different actions are on different teams. Or, more accurately, those who endorse all Democratic nominees are on a team, while those who selectively endorse are on a team of one.
And it doesn't stop there, either. Even before the 2006 election, I was told by some Democrats that I had already lost:
Representative Ellen O. Tauscher of California, a co-chairwoman of the 47-member New Democrat Coalition, said that 27 of the top 40 contested House seats were being pursued by Democrats who have pledged to become members of the group, which says its chief issues are national security and fiscal responsibility.
"I think there's tremendous agreement and awareness that getting the majority and running over the left cliff is what our Republican opponents would dearly love," Ms. Tauscher said, adding that this was something "we've got to fight."
In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard.
Don't tell me that I lost the election, and then try and tell me that we are all on the same team. Don't tell me that people who endorsed Lieberman are on the same team with me. We are not all on the same team. That much has been made clear.
Are most Democrats on the same team? Sure. In fact, I would estimate that about two-thirds of Democrats are on the same team (which is about the percentage of Democrats at both the leadership and rank and file level who supported Lamont by the end). But for the rest, it is simply a marriage of convenience. They will break off and form their own team if and when it becomes more politically convenient for them to do so.
And sure, there are people on the left who aren't on the team either. Many people consider themselves progressives before they consider themselves Democrats, and as such will sometimes endorse non-Democratic third-party candidates. However, what I am arguing here isn't a left-right division, but rather simply pointing out many of us do not consider ourselves to be on the "same team." We operate in a broad coalition, that for many people is an arrangement of convenience. That is fine. That is politics. Unless you live in an ideological one-party state, there is no way to successfully operate outside of a coalition. All I am asking is that before people start decrying the circular firing squad or internal debate, don't use the lame defense that we are all on the same team. We are not all on the same team, we are just all in the same coalition, which are two different things. This is especially the case in a primary, which is essentially a fight to lead the coalition. It is important we all keep that in mind, because I believe it helps put internal debate in a more accurate perspective.
There seems to be something of a Micawberish instinct at work: postponing proceedings on the FY08 Iraq supplemental bill until October to see what the Petraeus fallout might be.
Murtha has already said he'd do that; now, it seems, Inouye (Senate defense apps subcommittee chairman) has said he's planning to do the same.
Moreover - which I had not cottoned onto -
He and [Murtha] are considering funding the wars in three-month increments, Inouye said.
Jonathan Weisman's account of Democratic approach to national security issues in the Washington Post today is worth reading in its entirety, because it shows the mindset on Capitol Hill and why we aren't making progress. The biggest problem are the Bush Dog Democrats like Allen Boyd (the only Democrat to support Social Security privatization in 2005) and Lincoln Davis, who both believe in warrantless wiretapping and use fear of Republican attacks on the issue to justify their authoritarian impulses.
But conservative Democrats and some party leaders continue to worry that taking on those issues would expose them to Republican charges that they are weak on terrorism...
Conservative Democrats, including Rep. Allen Boyd (Fla.), argued just as vociferously that Democrats dare not leave on vacation without passing the White House bill.
"The most controversial matters are the ones that people use to form their opinions on their members of Congress," said Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), who voted for the administration's bill. "I do know within our caucus, and justifiably so, there are members who have a real distaste for some of the things the president has done. But to let that be the driving force for our actions to block the surveillance of someone and perhaps stop another attack like 9/11 would be unwise."
Davis, in this quote, slips and slides between two different explanations. He argues that voters form their opinions based on controversial votes, and then says that the FISA vote was necessary to block another 9/11. The mixture of fear and reactionary instincts is quite revealing. The political evidence for Davis's position is thin. Bush has net negatives on his handling of terrorism, and the public is overwhelmingly opposed to warrantless wiretapping according to recent polling data. In fact, Rove and Bush made terrorism the centerpiece of their 2006 election strategy, and not one single Democratic incumbent lost.
Remember this ad against Chris Murphy, a so-called 'devastating' ad arguing that Murphy's stance against warrantless wiretapping would enable terrorists? The ad moved numbersagainst his opponent, and Murphy crushed his opponent by 12 points. It is simply ridiculous to think at this point that Republicans have an advantage on this issue. It's empirically untrue. But even if you believe the Republicans do have an advantage here, to assume that the Republicans won't run on this issue simply because you threw away civil liberties entirely ignores modern media. The GOP will run on whatever they want to run on, you can't stop them by voting for their proposals. Did Max Cleland's example mean nothing to these people? Apparently.
But it's not just Bush Dog Democrats that are the problem, it's much more pervasive than that. Here's Ben Cardin, a 'liberal' Senator from Maryland.
"If you just say you're standing up for civil liberties, the American people are with you, but if you say terrorism suspects should have civil liberties, it stretches Americans' tolerance," said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), who along with Hastings represents Congress on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a human rights monitor. "It's a tough issue for us."
Among Bush Dogs, the problem is fear and slavishness to Bush. But among liberals like Cardin, it's a poll-driven adherence to conventional wisdom.
If anything, the habeas corpus and Guantanamo Bay issues will be tougher. In June, nearly 150 House Democrats signed a letter by Moran urging the shuttering of the prison. But Moran said last week that he no longer thinks he could muster the votes to pass the measure, even though the move is supported by former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Republicans appear to have won the argument with their accusation that Democrats want to import terrorists....
"We can do this, but you have to keep in mind Republicans care more about catching Democrats than catching terrorists," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "They have spent years taking Roosevelt's notion that we have nothing to fear but fear itself and given us nothing but fear."
The slavishness to fear and conventional wisdom, the misreading of polls and politics, and the unwillingness to lead are remarkable, among liberals like Cardin, strategists like Emanuel, and Bush Dogs like Davis and Boyd. But there's there's also this.
And advocates of a strong push on the terrorism issues are increasingly skeptical that they can prevail.
"I don't think it's that we're reluctant to take on Bush," said Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), a senior member of the House intelligence committee. "I think it's we are reluctant to take on each other. . . . If I can fast-forward to September, October, November, December and see where we'll be, we'll be nowhere."
Congress is pretty small, with a little over 500 people. They get along with each other, they are 'office-mates' in some sense, they play basketball together, and they are in many cases friends. Public criticism from a Democrat to another Democrat is quite rare, because it ruins these relationships and makes it personally harder and more lonely to be in Congress. That's actually how you can tell that Brian Baird's 'the surge is working' is quite costly to him, because a fellow House member, Ellen Taucsher, is openly scornful of Baird's judgment.
Building a different set of incentives for decision-makers is going to take a lot of work. The problem is a mixture of conventional wisdom, poor judgment, bad values, a lack of coordination with activists by progressive members, and inertia. Fortunately, the ACLU is now getting very aggressive against Democrats, Nancy Pelosi is showing a harder line, Moveon is cracking down on people like Baird, local activists are becoming much less tolerant of flouting our values, and we're starting the criticism necessary to identify and fix the problem.
Todd Beeton pointed me to this interview of Ellen Tauscher by the excellent Think Progress team. I transcribed the relevant bit.
Look I know Brian Baird, he's a friend of mine. And I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I've been to Iraq, this is my fourth trip, my sixth trip to the region. And I will tell you that when you get in the Green Zone, there is a physiological phenomenon I think called Green Zone fog. And there is such a, sense of winning. They will show you, it's, uh, death by powerpoint. Chart after chart after chart after chart where they have sliced like carpaccio the results of what's going on and it's always that their argument is winning. And if you press, after the third of fourth time, what about this, this and this, you start to peel the onion back and see what we all know, that the surge is not sustainable.
UPDATE: I just got off the phone with Ciaran Clayton, Brian Baird's press secretary. I asked her if he's going to support the $50B supplemental request, and she said 'he probably will'.
Here is the number of deaths Iraqi security and non-Iraqi occupational forces in Iraq have suffered according to various time periods since the war began. From Iraq Coalition Causality Count:
Military and Security Fatalities in Iraq
Time Period
Days
American
Iraqi
Other
Total
Per Day
2/01/2007—today
202
636
1348
43
2027
10.03
12/15/2005—1/31/2007
412
933
2288
52
3273
7.94
1/31/2005—12/14/2005
318
715
2334
31
3080
9.69
6/29/2004—1/30/2005
216
580
544*
52
1176
5.44
5/20/2003—6/28/2004
423
718
861*
86
1665
3.93
3/20/2003—5/01/2003
43
140
NA
33
173
4.02
* = It is estimated that 1,300 Iraqi security personnel were killed before January 1st, 2005, but specific month by month dates are not available. As such, t number was divided evenly over time periods two and three.
Period 6: February 1 , 2007 through today's date. The surge or troop escalation.
Period 5: December 15, 2005 (the day after Iraq general elections) through January 31, 2007.
Period 4: January 31, 2005 (the day after Iraq Elections) through December 14, 2005
Period 3: June 29, 2004 (the day after the official turnover of sovereignty to Iraq) through January 30, 2005 (Iraq Elections).
Period 2: May 2, 2003 through June 28, 2004 (the day of the official turnover of sovereignty to Iraq).
Period 1: March 20, 2003 through May 1, 2003 (the end of major combat).
So, during the escalation, Iraqi Security forces and non-Iraqi coalition forces have suffered just over ten fatalities per day, the worst average of the entire war. And yet, it would appear that Pollack and O’Hanlon are writing the talking points for our frontrunners in 2008. John Edwards (emphasis mine):
I kind of like the sound of that one. We may have bungled a primary challenge to Ellen Tauscher, but we accomplished a lot of our goals. She is now generally acting and talking a lot better, especially on the war. The big bonus is that the media is tracking how we interact with her, which increases the pressure on her. Check out this blog post on the new LAT presidential blog Top of The Ticket. It titled "Controversial California congresswoman backs Clinton:
STATE BLOGS
