Here in Kentucky Progressives have gotten quite used to the hypocrisy of the Senator who represents Communist China for the state of Kentucky, Mitch McConnell. However, even as hypocritical as he has always been in fighting against working men and women all over the world, sometimes his stunning hypocrisy actually manages to surprise. Like on the banking bailout and new regulations. Of all folks in Washington it seems McConnell would be the one that would just want to keep his mouth shut. I guess when you have gotten away with flat-out lies and rank hypocrisy for so long however, you just expect to keep doing it.
Today, Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning hard some harsh words for himself over his leadership role in the Republican filibuster of unemployment benefits:
I am disappointed that the I continue to play political games to avoid extending unemployment benefits to struggling families across our nation who rely on them to make ends meet while they search for work. Clearly, I don't want to help the unemployed.
OK, this isn't what Bunning said. Actually, he blamed Democrats for not agreeing to fund the unemployment benefits by taking money from the stimulus:
I am disappointed that the Democrats continue to play political games to avoid paying for these benefits that are so important to the many struggling families across our nation who rely on them to make ends meet while they search for work. Clearly, the Democrats don't want to help the unemployed unless they can increase the deficit while they're doing it.
Of course Bunning is blaming Democrats for the failure to pass unemployment benefits. And really, most of the country will blame Democrats, too, because Democrats are in charge of the Senate.
People don't understand Senate process. A recent Pew poll showed that only 26% of the country even knows that 60 votes are required to break a filibuster. As such, the idea that Republicans are going to be blamed for denying unanimous consent on a motion to proceed, thus forcing a week-long process that requires three cloture votes each with a 60-vote threshold, is laughable.
The party in charge has to either get the benefit extensions passed, or end up with the blame. You can't spin this stuff. People face economic issues as objective conditions of their lives. No matter what you tell them, they already know if they have a good job or not, if they are receiving their unemployment checks or not, if they can pay their bills or not, if they are saving for retirement or not.
Spin and communications cannot convince someone that their economic situation is somehow different from what their experience indicates. Either most Americans are experiencing an improvement to their economic condition, or they are not. The party in charge will get the blame or the credit either way. As such, Democrats have to improve the objective economic conditions most Americans experience, by an procedural means necessary, or they will lose the 2010 elections. Jim Bunning, and other Republicans, are not just going to tell the rest of the country that they are using obscure Senate procedure to block much needed unemployment benefit extensions.
Today, President Barack Obama will deliver a speech to Congress outlining his plan to move forward on health care reform. The president is expected to advocate the use of budget reconciliation.
Art Levine of Working In These Times warns that some centrist Democrats are already getting cold feet on reconciliation. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, went on TV to declare reconciliation impossible. These guys just don't get it. It's reconciliation or defeat. There is no other way. Without reconciliation, the bill dies. Without a bill, the Democrats get massacred in the mid-term elections.
Health care reform to date
Quick recap: The House and the Senate have both passed health care reform bills. The original plan was to merge those two bills in a conference committee and send the final version back to both houses of Congress for a vote. However, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate when Republican Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley in the special election in Massachusetts.
Once they recovered from their shell shock, Democrats reluctantly converged around Plan B: Let the House re-pass the Senate version of the bill, thereby skipping the step where the Senate votes on the conference report. However, the Senate bill could not pass the House in its current form. So, the Senate needs to tweak the bill to make it acceptable to the House-either before or after the House re-passes the Senate bill. In order to make those changes without getting filibustered, the Senate Democrats will have to insert the modifications through budget reconciliation, where measures pass by a simple majority. Whew!
Of course, the Republicans trying to paint Democrats as tyrants for using reconciliation. Nevermind that 16 of the 22 reconciliation bills passed since reconciliation was invented in 1974 were passed by Republican majorities.
Whither the Public Option?
Reconciliation would appear to give the public health insurance option a new lease on life. The House bill has a public option, but the Senate bill doesn't. The public option was traded away on the Senate side to forge the original filibuster-proof majority. As a procedural matter, the public option could easily be reinserted during reconciliation because it has such a direct impact on the federal budget, i.e., it would save the taxpayer a lot of money. The White House claims to support a public option. Yet Obama didn't propose one in his health care plan last week.
Some observers take that as a sign that the White House doesn't think the votes are there. (Cynics say it's proof the White House never cared about the public option in the first place.) Even Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) told radio host Ed Schultz that he can't support a public option for fear of killing the health care bill, according to Jason Hancock of the Iowa Independent. Harkin has been taking a lot of heat from progressives for refusing to join with other senators in signing a letter calling for a public option.
Abortion Storm Clouds
Speaker Nancy Pelosi had little to say about how she plans to overcome resistance within her own caucus on abortion and immigration issues within health reform, as Brian Beutler reports for TPMDC. Pelosi needs 216 votes to pass a bill. The original House bill only passed by 5 votes. Rabid anti-choice Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) claims to have assembled a coalition of like-minded Dems who consider the Senate's slightly less restrictive rules for abortion funding "unacceptable." There is no reliable public vote count on how many of these representatives, if any, would vote to kill health care over abortion. If they do, it would be purely out of spite. Abortion language can't be tweaked in reconciliation because it doesn't directly affect the budget.
Stupak and the myth of federal funding for abortions
In The Nation, Jessica Arons takes a closer look at Stupak's radical and misleading anti-choice rhetoric. The federal government is already legally barred from funding elective abortions, and nothing in the Senate bill would change that. Arons explains that the Senate bill would allow plans that participate in the federally-subsidized exchanges to offer abortion coverage provided that customers buy that coverage with their own money, not with subsidized federal dollars. If the government pays 30% of the cost of the policy and the consumer pays 60%, the money for abortion coverage comes out of the consumer's end.
There's a long tradition of segregating government money. Both Planned Parenthood and Catholic hospitals get federal funds. By law, Planned Parenthood can't use that money to perform abortions, but it can use it to do pap smears and offer other health care. By the same token, a Catholic hospital can take federal money to provide medical care, but not to proselytize to patients. Arons ably satirizes Stupak's extreme position:
If everyone thought like Bart Stupak, a woman seeking an abortion:
(1) would not be able to take a public bus or commuter train to an abortion clinic, even if she paid her own fare;
(2) would not be able to drive on public roads to a clinic, even if she drove her own car and paid for her own gas;
(3) would not be able to walk on public sidewalks to the clinic, even though she paid property taxes;
(4) would not be able to put her child in childcare while she was at the clinic if she received a tax credit that offset the cost of childcare;
(5) would not be able to take medicine at the clinic that was researched or developed by the government, even if she paid for the medicine herself.
Bunning backs down
In other health care news, AlterNet reports that yesterday Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) ended his one-man filibuster of the extension of a bill that would have prevented a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursement rates and extended unemployment benefits while the Senate finalizes the jobs bill. Bunning caved under pressure from his own party. Even Republicans realized that there was no political percentage in stiffing doctors and the unemployed.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Yeah, I'm with Red State, Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrisey and Erick Erickson. Where does Roll Call and the rest of the lamestream media get off calling Bunning's persistent use of a procedural tactic to block a vote on legislation, a "filibuster"?
filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.
Clearly this term has a specific, narrow legal meaning and only refers to what happens when between 41 and 49 Senators vote "no" on a cloture motion. That's been Senate tradition since the founders 1975!
Jim Bunning has ended his filibuster of unemployment and COBRA benefits extensions:
Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-Ky.) one-man filibuster ended on Tuesday.
Bunning agreed to stop blocking legislation to extend benefits and COBRA health plan subsidies to the unemployed after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) agreed to allow him a vote on an amendment to pay for the $10 billion bill.
It's the same deal Bunning was offered last week, but Bunning at the time decided to continue his fight. He'd been holding up an extension of the benefits since Thursday.
Andrew Stettner of NELP says that, no matter what, some 205,000 people won't get a check this week, since it takes anywhere from two to six weeks for the states to get their bureaucracies geared up. "We've already crossed the Rubicon. Now, we have to play catch-up," he says.
With that 2-6 week delay, this could be extended pain for hundreds of thousands of Americans.
I'd really like to hear all the principled defenses of the filibuster now. Better yet, I dare someone to defend the filibuster to one of those hundreds of thousands of Americans.
This won't be the last time that a Republican like Bunning, assisted by a handful of true wingnut Senators, does something like this. It is time to end the filibuster.
Update--Senate leadership will use Bunning to combat Republican outcry against using reconciliation to finish health reform: A Senate Democratic leadership aide writes in to say:
Bunning lifted the curtain on the great lengths that Republicans go to drag out every single action taken by the Senate, no matter how routine. This is why we need to return to an era of more up or down votes and fewer filibusters. It's why all options are on the table moving forward, including reconciliation.
Glad to see they are willing to take steps against filibusters in Bunning's wake.
This morning, Democrats used some of their time on the floor of the Senate to plead with Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) to drop his objection to extending unemployment benefits and COBRA assistance, fixing a 21% cut in Medicare payments, and continuing funding for numerous federal transportation projects whose suspension has left 2,000 workers on furlough. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) put the number of unemployed workers affected at around 400,000 nationwide and said the COBRA assistance would affect 500,000.
Through inaction and timid legislative negotiations, Congress just keeps letting the U.S. sink deeper and deeper into the economic abyss. Last week, Congress denied relief to the jobless and is currently poised to undercut a proposal that would rein in predatory lending. With unemployment out of control and banks pillaging citizens' pocketbooks at every turn, the economy is in dire need of serious financial reform and a major jobs package.
More than one million have lost unemployment benefits
As James Ridgeway emphasizes for Mother Jones, over a million people receiving unemployment benefits ran out of financial rope on March 1 thanks to Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-KY) self-righteousness. As a result of bizarre Senate procedural rules, Bunning's sole "no" vote was enough to stop a bill that would have extended unemployment benefits for those who are out of work. Of course, Bunning had plenty of moral support from his fellow Republicans. Ridgeway highlights a Think Progress post on Rep. Dean Heller's (R-NV) preposterous argument that it is time for the government to cut off unemployment benefits, since there are so many bums.
"What makes Heller's statement really stupid, of course, is that people could become hobos if Congress doesn't extend unemployment benefits, rather than if they do," Ridgeway writes. "Modest as they are, these weekly benefits are what's keeping thousands-and perhaps millions-of families out of poverty."
As Brian Beutler notes for Talking Points Memo, Bunning's economic insanity also triggered a 21% cut in the fees doctors receive for treating Medicare patients. That's a big "Screw you!" to seniors.
What happens when unemployment benefits dry up?
The degree of personal crisis attached to unemployment is also important. We're talking about access to basic necessities. As Roger Bybee notes for Working In These Times, when a family runs out of unemployment benefits, the result is an absolute personal catastrophe in which there is simply no money left to buy food, pay rent, or meet electricity bills.
Yet when a major financial institution finds itself on the verge of collapse, the government is quick to come to the rescue. In addition to the one million people ran out of benefits on March 1, four million more are slated to run out by June-that's roughly the combined populations of Los Angeles and Dallas. This is a tremendous national crisis. Here's Bybee:
"There is plenty of bipartisan compassion in Congress when it comes to bailing out the wealthy and their banks. But when it comes to spending federal money to bail out folks ... with unemployment compensation and a major jobs program, a bi-partisan consensus forms among conservatives in both parties eager to show 'fiscal discipline.'"
As Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz emphasizes in an interview at AlterNet, the jobs crisis is so severe that the government needs to go much further than simply extending existing unemployment benefits. At minimum, it also needs to send a major package of fiscal aid to states on the order of $200 billion to allow states to hire teachers and cops, as well as prevent further layoffs.
Making the jobs bill accessible to all
While a new jobs bill is critical, it's important to make sure everyone has access to its efforts, as Aaron Glantz explains for The Progressive. The economic stimulus bill that President Barack Obama signed into law last year has helped keep the economy from falling off a cliff, but it's overwhelmingly neglected communities of color. The unemployment rate for blacks is 16.5%, nearly the double the 8.7% rate for whites, while Latinos face an unemployment rate 50% higher than whites. Not all of that disparity can be blamed on the stimulus, but the federal contracts awarded for new jobs projects overwhelmingly went to white-owned firms. We have to make sure that the funds Congress dedicates to unemployment relief are distributed fairly.
Save the Consumer Financial Protection Agency
After watching the government hurl trillions of dollars at faltering banks, it's obvious that major financial reform is urgently needed. And one of the most important aspects of that reform is a new regulatory agency that defends consumers, not just bank balance sheets. As Tim Fernholz argues for The American Prospect:
"Shoring up our financial system to avoid new disasters remains popular with the public but only if it represents real reform. ...That means closing loopholes and making clear that this bill has what it takes to protect average citizens as well as restricting banks' bad behavior."
And yet astoundingly, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the current Democratic leader of financial reform negotiations in the Senate, appears ready to drop Obama's proposal to create an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA).
Instead, Dodd would house the regulator under the Treasury Department, and give the existing, failed bank regulators effective veto power over the CFPA's moves. It's a head-fake: We create a new regulator, but are instead giving that power to the same failed agencies who allowed the banks to pillage our pocketbooks, our retirement savings and our home values.
Failed negotiations with the GOP
This is supposedly all part of a set of negotiations with Republicans, but they aren't really negotiating in any clear sense. Negotiating means going through some process of give-and-take. Right now, Republicans are just seeing how far Democrats will bend, and so far, there has been no limit. Ferhnolz is right. Voting for the banks and against taxpayers and consumers will be a very bitter pill for Republicans to swallow. Dodd and the Democrats need to make them do it instead of caving to pressure and allowing Republicans to vote for a weak bill that doesn't protect the public from banker excess. Make the Republicans vote for real reform, or face the consequences at the polls for voting against it.
The public shame that is currently being heaped upon Bunning should prove that point. The American public wants jobs and financial reform. They want to go back to work and make sure that the bankers who tanked the economy can't keep getting rich by hijacking their savings. Woe unto the politician who opposes that.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Jim Bunning is continuing to filibuster legislation that would extend unemployment and COBRA benefits for 1.2 million people. The filibuster has now gone to 11:
Sen. Durbin asked for unanimous consent for the 11th time to extend unemployment benefits. #Bunning objected
In addition to ending unemployment and COBRA benefits for 1.2 million Americans, this filibuster has also resulted in "a 21 percent fee reduction to doctors seeing Medicare patients starting today."
Politically speaking, Bunning is not going to be hurt by this, as he is leaving the Senate. Further, Republicans, even the ones assisting Bunning, are not going to be hurt by this either, because no one friggin' understands Senate procedure.
Democrats are in charge, and so they are going to be hurt by this. Let me pull out my flow chart again:
As this continues, worries about the appearance of hypocrisy or the need for a "deliberative" legislative body ring increasingly hollow. A lot of people are getting really hurt by Senate procedure.
Update--more specifics on the damage being caused: The White House emails more specifics on the damage this filibuster is causing:
If Emergency Unemployment Compensation and full federal funding for the Extended Benefit program are not extended, 400,000 Americans will lose unemployment benefits during the first weeks in March. By May, nearly 3 million people could be left without these benefits.(...)
If the extension is not approved, an estimated 500,000 workers who lose their jobs will be ineligible for subsidies to cover the cost of health care over this month. Over the rest of 2010, an estimated 5 million workers will be ineligible for the Recovery Act COBRA subsidy that covers 65 percent of the cost of coverage. Without this assistance, many of these families will be forced to join the ranks of the uninsured.
The Senate has adjourned for the weekend without passing an extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits. The immediate reason for this is Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning:
Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, is single-handedly blocking Senate action needed to prevent an estimated 1.2 million American workers from prematurely losing their unemployment benefits next month.
As Democratic senators asked again and again for unanimous consent for a vote on a 30-day extension Thursday night, Bunning refused to go along.
And when Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) begged him to drop his objection, Politico reports, Bunning replied: "Tough shit."
This is horrifying. 1.2 million people are about to lose their unemployment benefits because of Senate rules.
Democrats can blame Bunning, but why did they adjourn? Further, why do so many continue to defend procedural rules that make something like this possible?
Democrats are going to get blamed for this, too. People who lose their unemployment benefits are not going to think "oh, this happened because one Senator refused to agree to a unanimous consent on a motion to proceed, so I'll blame that Senator." No. That isn't going to happen.
Democrats are in charge, and they are going to get blamed for this. Democratic attempts to blame this on Senate procedure will ring utterly hollow. Not only do people not understand, or care about, those rules, but it simply sounds wimpy and pathetic for the people running the United States Government to throw their hands up in the air and say "our procedural rules prevented us from doing anything to solve this huge problem. Sorry."
Democrats did not have to adjourn. They could have kept fighting Bunning. Further, they all agreed to the rules under which the Senate operates, and most of them are still defending those rules. Blaming Senate procedure is not going to extend anyone's unemployment or COBRA benefits, and its not going to win many hearts around the country.
Sure, Jim Bunning is currently the biggest asshole in the country right now. However, if you think that procedure is a problem, then start working to change the procedure. If you think that unemployment benefits need to be extended, then don't adjourn for the weekend when those benefits are slated to run out.
So sometimes in the background I put on audio snippets, music, conversations, whatnot. Last week, I was listening to Senator Jim Bunning's conference call with reporters from his website, and I suddenly heard this crazy rant. A reporter asked him if he would be at Fancy Farm, which is a large and raucus political festival in Kentucky, and he complained about security. Here's what the reporter wrote.
Bunning said Tuesday that he might never again attend the annual political event at the Saint Jerome Catholic parish picnic in Fancy Farm, which signals the traditional start of the fall campaign in Kentucky.
The Fort Thomas Republican told reporters during his weekly teleconference that the event, scheduled for Aug. 4, is totally out of control...
But Bunning complained about a lack of security and heckling endured by politicians, echoing concerns he voiced during his 2004 re-election campaign against Democrat Daniel Mongiardo.
Bunning's campaign accused Mongiardo of sending supporters carrying video cameras to provoke a reaction from the senator.
Bunning recalled that while trying to give an interview to a Bowling Green TV station, he and his wife, Mary, were roughed up by people dressed as doctors. His opponent in that race - state Sen. Dan Mongiardo - is a physician.
"I had little green doctors pounding on my back," Bunning said. "It is not a question of being safe. I can defend myself.
STATE BLOGS
