The state of play with the estate tax break seems to be as follows: it passed the Senate 51-48, with nine Democrats joining the Republicans -- Bayh, Baucus, Cantwell, Landrieu, Lincoln, Murray, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, and Tester -- and taking the pro-deficit position. Fortunately, it's pretty sure to get stripped out in conference committee, since Kent Conrad and the House negotiators are against it.
How should I regard the Democrats who do this kind of thing? I'm assuming that it doesn't make it into the final bill. If they've found a way to score some campaign contributions from plutocrat Frank Blethen or defend themselves from him without generating any bad policy consequences, good for them and I won't criticize. On the other hand, he's doing a pretty bad job as a plutocratic villain if he's letting himself get scammed by Senators who vote for his legislation and then run off giggling with fistfuls of his money while it gets killed in conference committee. So is he getting what he's paying for? If so, what is it, and how mad should I be at his nine servants?
Neil Sinhababu and Nicholas Beaudrot's political blog
Monday, April 6, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Chavez Wants To "Reset" Relations With The US
You catch more flies with Obama than with vinegar.
US-Venezuela tensions always seemed a lot more smoke than fire to me. Chavez may want to become a dictator, but he's not one at present, and on the whole he hasn't done anything as horrible as any number of villains we backed during our long and brutal history in Latin America. His real beef, as I understand it, is just that America has always opposed him, and that we weren't very nice to Venezuela when oil was cheap in the 1990s and they were hurting. Right now, it's relatively cheap again, and that plus a president who cares about good international relations is making Chavez talk sense. If he's open to a deal where we send them some foreign aid or something in exchange for long-term oil price security, I'd be for it.
Let's hope Obama seizes this opportunity.
US-Venezuela tensions always seemed a lot more smoke than fire to me. Chavez may want to become a dictator, but he's not one at present, and on the whole he hasn't done anything as horrible as any number of villains we backed during our long and brutal history in Latin America. His real beef, as I understand it, is just that America has always opposed him, and that we weren't very nice to Venezuela when oil was cheap in the 1990s and they were hurting. Right now, it's relatively cheap again, and that plus a president who cares about good international relations is making Chavez talk sense. If he's open to a deal where we send them some foreign aid or something in exchange for long-term oil price security, I'd be for it.
Let's hope Obama seizes this opportunity.
Reconciliation: The New Sensation That's Sweeping The Nation
Ezra lists the "three serious possibilities" for how to set up budget reconciliation, which allows you to pass health care reform with the standard 50 votes. He hears that the real choice is "between the second and third options" of reconciliation being written to automatically kick in if no bill passes by September, and the budget committee chairmen standing up and saying that budget will be revised to include reconciliation if the process breaks down because Republicans refuse to play ball.
If correct, this sounds like good news, just because Ezra hasn't listed an idiot option 4 that goes like: "Democratic leaders come out and announce that they're not going to use reconciliation, in deference to Republicans who are subsequently going to get up from the table, moon them, and run away."
I guess the reason for this is something like what he says here: "no one is sure of what health reform would look like if Democrats use reconciliation. But everyone is sure of what it looks like if Democrats fail to pass a bill. Democrats are much more afraid of total failure than they are of reconciliation." And that makes sense. Now that we're finally over the hump and there's going to be a major drive for health care reform, it's not touching the issue, but failing to deliver on it, that raises thoughts of everything ending like 1994 where you don't pass a bill and everyone gets executed by Newt Gingrich's firing squads.
Also, Ezra shouldn't listen to commenters who find the reconciliation discussion boring. I find it absolutely thrilling because if you get to use reconciliation, it's basically the equivalent of getting 10 Democratic Senators elected. Okay, 10 Senators who only get to vote once, but it's a more important vote than many Senators will ever cast in their careers. And you can pass an awesome lefty health care bill, not only without Republican obstructionism, but without having to write something Ben Nelson will vote for! I guess that's why people like Nelson are anti-reconciliation -- it's not, or not just, his love of bipartisan comity in the Senate. It's that reconciliation makes him a lot less relevant.
If correct, this sounds like good news, just because Ezra hasn't listed an idiot option 4 that goes like: "Democratic leaders come out and announce that they're not going to use reconciliation, in deference to Republicans who are subsequently going to get up from the table, moon them, and run away."
I guess the reason for this is something like what he says here: "no one is sure of what health reform would look like if Democrats use reconciliation. But everyone is sure of what it looks like if Democrats fail to pass a bill. Democrats are much more afraid of total failure than they are of reconciliation." And that makes sense. Now that we're finally over the hump and there's going to be a major drive for health care reform, it's not touching the issue, but failing to deliver on it, that raises thoughts of everything ending like 1994 where you don't pass a bill and everyone gets executed by Newt Gingrich's firing squads.
Also, Ezra shouldn't listen to commenters who find the reconciliation discussion boring. I find it absolutely thrilling because if you get to use reconciliation, it's basically the equivalent of getting 10 Democratic Senators elected. Okay, 10 Senators who only get to vote once, but it's a more important vote than many Senators will ever cast in their careers. And you can pass an awesome lefty health care bill, not only without Republican obstructionism, but without having to write something Ben Nelson will vote for! I guess that's why people like Nelson are anti-reconciliation -- it's not, or not just, his love of bipartisan comity in the Senate. It's that reconciliation makes him a lot less relevant.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Two-Faced Pol Of The Day
Ron Sparks.
Sparks, you may recall, attracted Chuck Schumer's attention after denizens of Daily Kos suggested he might be a good Senate candidate after two terms as Agriculture Commissioner. He's popular, he's run on a platform that includes a lot of stuff that progressive like, so why not give it a shot, right?
Sparks declined to run, because State Senator Vivian Figures, who is African-American, also ran, and Sparks, who is white, didn't want to get into a primary that might have racial overtones (news reports suggested that had the primary field been cleared, he would have run). Fair enough.. The Republican who ran against Harold Washington wasn't a racist, but once he got close enough to winning, he let an awful lot of racist folks get close to him. Bill and Hillary Clinton have incredibly good records on race relations—Stan Greenberg thinks that Clinton viewed overcoming racial divisions as the underlying mission of his Presidency—and yet they were accused of playing the race card repeatedly during the primary. I can see not wanting tohug that particular tar baby wade into that particular swamp.
But now Sparks is running for Governor. After Artur Davis, who like Figures is African-American, has already entered the primary. At first blush, it looks like Sparks was just looking for an excuse to avoid running for Senate. Which, let's face it, is a much more grueling and risky process in exchange for a much smaller reward. The governor gets to go to the Auburn-Bama game every year and live in a nice mansion in Montgomery gratis, spending relatively little time raising money for a reelection he's very likely to win. Senators have to shuttle back and forth to DC every week and spend an absurd amount of time fundraising, especially when they represent a Red state and fear their reelection prospects (compare the reelect rates of first-term governors to first-term Senators). Between Sebelius, Napolitano, and now Sparks, Democrats have lost three of their better candidates for upcoming Senate elections. Not good.
Sparks, you may recall, attracted Chuck Schumer's attention after denizens of Daily Kos suggested he might be a good Senate candidate after two terms as Agriculture Commissioner. He's popular, he's run on a platform that includes a lot of stuff that progressive like, so why not give it a shot, right?
Sparks declined to run, because State Senator Vivian Figures, who is African-American, also ran, and Sparks, who is white, didn't want to get into a primary that might have racial overtones (news reports suggested that had the primary field been cleared, he would have run). Fair enough.. The Republican who ran against Harold Washington wasn't a racist, but once he got close enough to winning, he let an awful lot of racist folks get close to him. Bill and Hillary Clinton have incredibly good records on race relations—Stan Greenberg thinks that Clinton viewed overcoming racial divisions as the underlying mission of his Presidency—and yet they were accused of playing the race card repeatedly during the primary. I can see not wanting to
But now Sparks is running for Governor. After Artur Davis, who like Figures is African-American, has already entered the primary. At first blush, it looks like Sparks was just looking for an excuse to avoid running for Senate. Which, let's face it, is a much more grueling and risky process in exchange for a much smaller reward. The governor gets to go to the Auburn-Bama game every year and live in a nice mansion in Montgomery gratis, spending relatively little time raising money for a reelection he's very likely to win. Senators have to shuttle back and forth to DC every week and spend an absurd amount of time fundraising, especially when they represent a Red state and fear their reelection prospects (compare the reelect rates of first-term governors to first-term Senators). Between Sebelius, Napolitano, and now Sparks, Democrats have lost three of their better candidates for upcoming Senate elections. Not good.
The Future of Voice Mail
It's not the end of voice mail; it's that the voice mail message will show up as an mp3 attachment in your Inbox, which will text your phone "voice mail message from 202-555-XYZW". At that point, you'll at least know who contacted you at which point you can call them back, ask what it is they wanted, and have them repeat what they already told you on their voice mail.
Of course, this is a totally ineffecient use of the world's time and we would be better off if (a) the default posture was for no one to leave voice mail, and (b) everyone therefore understood that someone leaving a message probably has something very important to ask/tell you, and thus (c) everyone listens to the relatively small number of voice mail messages they receive. Failing that, people should check their darn messages.
Of course, this is a totally ineffecient use of the world's time and we would be better off if (a) the default posture was for no one to leave voice mail, and (b) everyone therefore understood that someone leaving a message probably has something very important to ask/tell you, and thus (c) everyone listens to the relatively small number of voice mail messages they receive. Failing that, people should check their darn messages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)