With summer nearly over, the nation's college campuses are bustling once again.
For many students however, the rites of passage associated with higher education won't be rushing a sorority, winning the big game or planning a spring break trip to Florida.
No, looking back, a growing number of students will regale their children with horror stories about being ripped off by a for-profit college.
Of late, the U.S. Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee has beeninvestigating the booming multi-billion dollar for-profit college industry -- think Kaplan University or DeVry for example. What it has found thus far is not pretty.
Blessed is he who expects nothing; for he is seldom disappointed.
That's my favorite Beatitude - for being so widely applicable. Never more so than as observer of the Obama first (and only?) term.
We have come to know (as if we doubted it going in) that Washington Dems are corporate to their fingertips - and not because they're dumb or cowardly, but because they figure that's how it suits them best.
The idea that a Howard Beale moment is a-bubbling does, to put it mildly, lack supporting evidence. Chances have come and gone (cutting off folks' unemployment?).
Since the amendment is already in the bill, it will take only a simple majority to defeat any amendments (via a motion to table). Apparently, McCain is threatening a filibuster if such amendments fail.
The bill is, of course, full of goodies for the MIC - CRS report and the pressure to pass the bill therefore considerable.
(Defense is the only main area of spending which gets an annual authorization bill - I'm not clear whether passing the bill in the 111th is essential, but I can't see the proposition as attractive to Dem mods; and, if it were postponed, in the 112th, with a much closer Dem-GOP situation, Burris would stand no chance.)
I just got word for an aide to the Senate leadership that Democrats will, in fact, hold an all-night session to make Republicans continue voting on Wall Street reform. This confirms a story from The Hill:
Senate Democratic leaders are planning for an all-night session to put more pressure on Republicans to allow a debate on Wall Street reform.
Republican senators voted for the third time in three days on Wednesday to block an effort to bring a reform bill to the floor.
Democratic aides said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to keep the Senate in session overnight to force Republicans to reconsider their opposition to the Democratic legislation.
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said leaders had decided to hold a nighttime session to highlight GOP opposition to the Wall Street reform bill.
Here are some details on how this will work:
In a couple hours, Senate Democrats will hold a press conference announcing this plan. At this time, they will literally roll out cots for members of the media, so they can stay and report on the all-nighter.
Starting this afternoon, after the press confernece, Democrats will begin holding quorum calls to bring the Senate in order. Republicans could, in theory, not show up, and deny a quorum, thus denying the all-nighter. So, these quorum calls will be the first test of this plan.
Starting at around 11 pm or midnight, once the Senate is in order, Democrats will be asking unanimous consent on the motion to proceed with the Wall Street reform every hour.
At around 7am or 8am, there will be a fourth cloture vote on the motion to proceed with debate and amendments on the Wall Street bill.
The freshman Senators will take the lead on all of this. They are the driving force behind Senate Democrats recent, more aggressive use of procedure.
The leadership is aiming both for more press coverage of Republicans blocking Wall Street reform, and that some Republican Senators, such as Voinovich (OH), will break and the cloture vote will pass tomorrow morning. Voinovich has been making public noise about possible breaking ranks, and right now he seems to be the leadership's top target.
Just received word over email from a source: the Senate will hold the second vote on the motion to proceed with the Wall Street reform bill today, at 4:30 p.m., eastern.
Not much of a reason to expect a different result. However, this will continue to draw badly needed public attention to the issue. It will also put pressure on those opposing reform, because blocking "Wall Street reform" or "bank reform" just sounds really bad in the news.
Also, just to reiterate what Adam says below, it is exciting to watch Senate Democrats get aggressive like this. They certainly seem to have come to the conclusion that they have nothing to fear, and everything to gain, by following a much more assertive path on Senate procedure:
Used reconciliation to "fix" the health care bill, and to pass good student loan reform;
Democrats seem to have finally learned this. Count me as one progressive activist excited by the new, aggressive use of Senate procedure by Democrats.
Update--more aggression: In another positive sign of increasing aggressiveness, Carl Levin just said "shitty deal" on financial reform about a dozen times on the floor of the Senate. Hilarious, and an awesome sign Democrats are not just going to cave in order to make any deal at all.
One question raised by yesterday's financial regulation cloture vote, which as Chris wrote was intended to draw contrasts between Democrats and Republicans, is why not hold these types of votes more often. Many remember the Republicans, at least in the House, holding "dare them to vote against it" types of votes on taxes, balanced budget amendments, social issues etc. that make Democrats uncomfortable and simultaneously dog-whistle to their base.
I think there is more difficulty than it seems to have those kinds of votes in the Senate. There would need to be:
1. Finding an issue that is politically popular among the electorate.
2. And, more often than not, an issue that is at least somewhat popular among Democratic base voters, activists, allies constituency groups, etc. (or at least not strongly opposed by a powerful issue constituency). E.g., it is hard to imagine the Democratic leadership voluntarily holding a vote on a medical malpractice cap.
3. Unanimity in the Democratic caucus on the issue, meaning, making sure your caucus members don't cross the aisle- as Ben Nelson did yesterday- to ruin the political headlines.
4. Unanimity in the Republican caucus in opposition to the Democratic position. If what you were going for is to actually enact public policy, it would be helpful to have opposition support, but if you're trying to draw contrasts for political reasons, there is not much use in picking up six Republicans along with the entire Democratic caucus.
5. Making sure holding the vote just for the sake of holding a vote doesn't damage the overall effort. In the New York State Senate, a vote was held on marriage equality, and while that was in part because lots of Senators refused to state a public position and advocates wanted to know who was an ally and who was not, the vote failed abysmally, 24-38. While there is much backstory to the vote-counting on that, the political optics of public perception, headlines, etc. on it led many to argue the vote should not have been held at all unless it were much closer. This is a bit different in the U.S. Senate, where a 51-49 vote, despite falling nine whole votes short of cloture, may look different to the public than a 24-38 defeat, but the point remains the same.
6. Making sure members don't have opportunities to amend the bill to ruin the effect you were going for. While this wasn't an example of holding votes for political reasons, the Ensign amendment eliminating DC gun control laws from the books, added at the last minute, caused many activists, including Eleanor Holmes Norton, the bill's sponsor, to pull support from the DC Voting Rights Act. In this vein, a member could get a vote on a germane pet clause and screw up the bill, those in support and opposition to it, and the intended effect.
7. Getting floor time to hold these kinds of votes with a crowded agenda and multiple issue constituencies clamoring for action on a range of bills.
For these reasons, while there are likely a number of issues out there that fit characteristics #1-5, in reality, doing all that and successfully navigating the floor process of #6 and #7 is likely to not be as easy as it would seem, at least in the Senate.
On Christmas Eve morning, Senate Democrats followed through on their promise to pass their version of a health insurance reform bill before the Christmas Holiday, delivering what has been hailed by many liberal commentators in major media outlets as an "early Christmas gift." However, American workers concerned about the rising costs of health care, the poor quality of service provided by private insurance for those who can even afford it, and the millions of people left behind by for-profit, market based health care ought not get too excited about the Affordable Health Care for America Act. This "early gift" is more like a lump of coal!
Health care workers, activists, and patients, as well as labor leaders and rank workers in general -- many of whom voted the Democrats back into power in the "hope" they'd deliver a Universal, National Health Service -- have been left feeling confused, frustrated, and downright betrayed. The Senate bill, like the House version, cedes even more power to the already influential private, for-profit insurance industry: the same industry that financed the Democratic Party and President Obama's victorious electoral campaigns in 2008 while simultaneously padding the war chest of the Republican Party. They also bankrolled the fear-mongering and reactionary tea party "movement," which turned the longstanding American tradition of town hall meetings into an "at your own risk" excursion in 2009. That is to say, the health care industry funded both "sides" of the "debate," and now stands to reap a tremendous profit from their investment; all at the expense of the American working class.
The Senate bill differs little from the version passed in the House back in November. For the first time, individuals will be required by law to purchase insurance policies and maintain coverage, or pay punitive tax fines for non-compliance. Much of the language of the regressive Stupak Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," is included in the Senate bill. A tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans will hit unionized workers especially hard and undermine generations of struggle by workers for a decent standard of living. The insurance industry will receive billions of dollars in additional profits, guaranteed by the personal mandate, fine scheme and taxpayer funded subsidies, and gain access to new markets as the privatization of Medicare/Medicaid continues unabated and Medicare faces upwards of $400 billion in cuts. The industry also gets to keep its decades-old anti-trust exemption.
This scheme will cost American taxpayers over $800 billion dollars over the next decade and will do next to nothing to control costs; handing the great bulk of that money to the same private, for-profit insurers who have made a killing (literally!) denying Americans coverage or providing extremely limited and unreliable coverage, driving up costs and forcing many working class individuals and families into bankruptcy and poverty. Even more despicable is the 12 year market protection extended to Big Pharma for name-brand and high-tech prescription drugs, effectively a government guarantee of private corporate profits. Over 20 million people will still be left uninsured by the Senate bill, and countless more will be left without access to the health care they really need because, as many people have learned in the recent economic crisis, insurance does not guarantee access to actual care, especially not "affordable" care.
Of course, the only health care guaranteed to be "affordable" to all is universal, FREE health care and we can only have this by demanding, organizing for and winning a "Medicare for all" reform that includes everyone and leaves no one out, along the lines of the now-defunct HR 676 or SB 703. Public opinion polling has consistently shown for nearly a decade that Americans prefer such a national universal program over market-based proposals, and back in 2005/06 many leading Democrats paid lip service to such legislation, even promising to pass it if only American voters would deliver Democrats a "super majority" in the House and Senate. Well, the Democrats got their wish, and all American workers got was this lousy bill for $800 billion, which we get the "gift" of paying for over the next decade.
As many Americans crowd the post-holiday lines at our local department stores, seeking to return or exchange unwanted gifts, we ought to remember that the party-line vote to approve the Senate Democrats' bill was 39-60, with the Republicans favoring doing nothing and the Democrats supporting what amounts to a multi-billion dollar handout to the industry which is directly responsible for the death of 60 people in the US each and every day and the bankruptcy of thousands. Neither of these corporate, capitalist political parties represents the interests of the American working class, who make up the vast majority. America needs a working class party, an independent, mass party of labor based on the unions to fight uncompromisingly for the real interests of the majority. Only thus can we end the rationing of health care services based on economic privilege and win FREE, QUALITY health care for all as a human right!
Each painful step, this health care keeps moving forward. As I've written, it is destined given the nature of this issue that every single step will be difficult as hell. Somehow, though, we keep making our way toward getting a bill done.
Harry Reid deserves the lion's share of the credit on getting this step completed. Say what you will about the messiness of the process, the ridiculous Senate rules, the deal-cutting at the end, but Harry Reid figured out how to make it work and get over one more hurdle. One of my very favorite sayings in the world, which comes from my dear friend Paul Tully (who were he alive today be involved in all this every step of the way, and loving every minute of it) is that you can't take the politics out of politics. It's especially true on a crazy quilt, complicated issue like health care.
Given the stubborn logjam between progressives and conservatives on the public option and other issues, I can see about half a dozen different scenarios for what happens next:
Reid pans liberal groups' budget campaigns By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 03/27/09 11:58 AM [ET]
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is telling MoveOn.org and other liberal groups to relax and stop pressuring conservative Democrats leery about President Obama's budget plan....
"These groups should leave them alone. It's not helpful to me, it's not helpful to the Democratic caucus," Reid said at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.
"He Lied To Me!" Harry Reid Goes All Jim Cramer On Chief Justice Roberts
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that John Roberts misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings by pretending to be a moderate - and that the United States is now "stuck" with him as chief justice.
"Roberts didn't tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was," Reid said.
Reid: "Elections? We Don't Need To Win No Stinkin' Elections!"
In the 2010 elections, "We are in a position to pick up a number of seats," Reid said. "And I think that our success is tied to Obama's success....I would love to have 60, I would be happy with 59 [Senate seats]," he said, adding, "I think we focus a little too much on numbers."
"There's a commonly held hope that he's [Lieberman] not going to be transformed into an attack dog for Republicans," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., an Obama supporter.(...)
There is speculation that if Democrats bolster their Senate majority this fall, they could seek payback by stripping Lieberman of his Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairmanship.
While there's no serious talk afoot about punishing Lieberman, Kerry said, "I can't tell you what happens next year."
While his remarks are cryptic, I think Kerry actually lets quite a lot slip through in this piece. First, Kerry notes that Senate Democrats are indeed watching Lieberman during this campaign, but describing a "commonly held hope." Second, Kerry does not guarantee that Obama Lieberman maintains his chairmanship in 2009. Given how rarely Senate Democrats make promises to stand up to anyone, that is actually a huge admission.
Remember when, back during the Iraq supplemental fight in early 2007, Pelosi and Reid repeatedly said that they would fund the troops no matter what, making it clear that all Bush had to do in order to receive a blank check was uphold his veto of a supplemental with timelines? Well, there is actually no similar promise for Lieberman coming from the Senate caucus now. Clearly, he is being watched, and there are no guarantees.
So, I say, if Senate Democrats are waiting to see how much Lieberman attacks Obama in order to determine whether or not to give him his chairmanship in the next Congress, I say we give Senate Democrats a helping hand. What if, every week, we compile a list of negative attacks Lieberman has made about Obama, and send it to every Senate Democrat? We can also compile all of Lieberman's attacks on a single webpage, making for easy viewing for anyone who is interested.
The basic idea is that Senators are busy people, and they probably are not entirely aware of just how often Lieberman has attacked Obama during this campaign. If they are willing to take away Lieberman's chairmanship in 2009, if he attacks Obama too much, we might be able end Lieberman's chairmanship simply by compiling all of the attacks he has made on Obama.
What do you think? Is this a worthwhile idea? Also, feel free to use the comments to this thread to start compiling Lieberman's attacks on Obama. If this works, it will be a very simple action with a pretty big return.
ProgressivePunch.org is announcing a dramatic software patch to its ?Chips are Down? progressive ranking system of key votes enabling citizens to hold members of Congress accountable for their voting records starting with keeping sophisticated tabs on their behavior.
Due to an earlier programming error, "Chips Are Down '07-'08" scores for Democrats displayed on Progressive Punch prior to February 13, 2008 were previously inflated. Corrected Chips Are Down scores now demonstrate more clearly than ever how some Democrats vote with Republicans on key votes. For example, on the corrected ranking of Chips Are Down scores, Democrat Jim Marshall of Georgia ranks below two Republicans, Ron Paul & Wayne Gilchrest (recently defeated in a primary by a right-winger). While Republicans are pretty uniformly terrible, Democrats now range from Tammy Baldwin's 97+% down to Marshall's 28%.
Progressive Punch's statement continues on the flip...
Progressive Punch has just announced the addition of a new tool for rating members of Congress, which should prove especially useful in getting a fix on different Democrats. It's called a "Chips Are Down" score and has just been calculated for the current congressional session.
The votes used to calculate the scores in the "Chips Are Down '07-'08" column are a subset of the overall votes that qualify according to the Progressive Punch algorithm described above. They show the impact that even a small number of Democrats have when they defect from the progressive position. These are votes where either progressives lost or where the progressive victory was narrow and could have been changed by a small group of Democrats voting differently. The definition of a vote where progressives lost is one where a majority of the progressive cohort (see list below) was on the losing side of the vote. Narrow progressive victories are defined as votes in which progressives won by 20 votes or fewer in the House (so a shift of 10 votes from one side to the other would have changed the result) or by 6 votes or fewer in the Senate (so a shift of 3 votes from one side to the other would have changed the result).
STATE BLOGS
