Where are They Now?

by: Jana Avtor

Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:32 PM EDT

More Congressional Fights

by: Isaac Smith

Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:03 AM EST

In addition to the controversy over Joe Lieberman in the Senate, House Democrats are also divided over who will be chairing the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee in the next Congress. John Dingell of Michigan, one of the longest-serving Congressmen in history and a major advocate for the US auto industry, is the current Chair, but Henry Waxman of California is mounting an effort to have Dingell ousted. This is a big deal because work on any climate change legislation will likely be conducted through E&C, and Dingell, in keeping with the industry he represents, has tried to block, delay, or water down climate change legislation; Waxman, by contrast, has been a leader on environmental issues, including climate change, for decades.

So far, it looks like Dingell has the upper hand, but there may be some kind of arrangement made -- perhaps brokered by, of all people, Steny Hoyer -- that could push Dingell to keep Chairmanship, but adopt a more progressive stance on climate change. In either case, we should hope that the newly expanded Democratic majority in Congress will make the most of the mandate they have been given.

Dealing With Joe Lieberman: Where Do Cardin and Mikulski Stand?

by: Isaac Smith

Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:11 PM EST

While Barack Obama is working on his transition to the White House, there's a new conflict brewing in the Senate, over whether to oust Joe Lieberman as Chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. As you know, Lieberman's record of hard right-wing stances on critical issues like Iraq and Iran led to his defeat by Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary in Connecticut in 2006; he then left the Democratic Party and won the general election, largely with Republican support.

Since then, he has acted mostly as a thorn in the Democrats' side: From failing to conduct proper oversight of the Bush administration to campaigning for John McCain and impugning Barack Obama's patriotism, Lieberman's sole use to the Democrats in the last two years has been to provide the 51st vote for Democratic control of the Senate. With last week's election boosting the Democratic caucus to at least 57 (Lieberman included), however, Democrats have far less incentive to treat him as a member in good standing. Thus, Majority Leader Harry Reid has been openly discussing the possibility of removing Lieberman from Homeland Security and giving him another, less prestigious, committee assignment; a vote on the matter is scheduled for next week.

The question for us is, where do our Senators, Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski, stand on Lieberman's status? On the one hand, turning against a Senate colleague is not easy, given the tradition of that body; on the other, it's clear that Lieberman, despite some liberal leanings on domestic issues, is a Republican in all but name, and it would be foolish to have someone like that, who also has a history of attacking his party's leadership, in charge of conducting oversight on an Obama administration. So far, I've seen nothing that indicates where either Senator would go; Mikulski, as far as I know, stayed neutral during the Lieberman-Lamont battle, and Cardin wasn't in the Senate at the time. Do any readers have any information in this regard?

Thoughts on the Bailout, Take Two

by: Isaac Smith

Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:12 PM EDT

The House bill that was voted down Monday wasn't great, by any means. Although it included a number of things that I thought were necessary to keep the bailout package from being simply, well, a bailout for Wall Street, the basic premise of the plan -- that the Treasury should buy up all the mortgage-backed securities that went sour, then sell them if and when the housing market recovers -- was intact. It's a flawed premise, especially with $700 billion on the line, but with the concessions made to congressional Democrats, I thought it was better than nothing. But, of course, the House voted it down, thanks, in large part, to a revolt from Republicans. Although many Democrats, including Donna Edwards and Elijah Cummings, also voted no, the divisions within the GOP have been much more significant, with the ostensible leadership of the Republicans, from George W. Bush to John McCain to John Boehner, unable to persuade enough of their rank and file that simpleminded free-market rhetoric won't get us out of this mess.

As for the "No Bailouts" plan put out by Edwards and other House progressives, I'm actually a little underwhelmed. For starters, it's less an alternative proposal than a list of things they would like to include in a financial rescue package. Second, most of the agenda items aim at speculation in financial markets, which I think has had little to do with the financial crisis. (Short explanation: short-selling and other speculative attacks may seem bad, but they only work if there are underlying weaknesses in the institutions under attack.) Third, I'm surprised that these progressives didn't propose outright nationalization of the financial sector, as was done in Sweden during its financial crisis in the early 1990s, and which has been endorsed by such worthies as Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman.

In the end, I don't think we're likely to see anything like an optimal solution emerge this week, as the looming credit crunch is likely to scare enough Congressmen into voting for a revised bailout plan. What we should hope for is that the final product can be revisited by the next administration and the next Congress; since it seems pretty likely at this point that we're going to have a Democratic trifecta next year, the important thing is that this bailout plan not permanently tie our hands.

From The New Guy - The Convention and the Platform Committee

by: luke21230

Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:16 PM EDT

“The health of our planet is at risk.  We believe all citizens of our planet require us as Americans to make real changes in the way we consume our planet’s limited resources, produce energy and use energy.”  

This language is part of the section that lays out the Democratic plan for establishing energy security.  The platform sets as a goal that we will reduce our oil consumption by at least 35%, or 10 million barrels a day, by 2030 – more than offsetting the equivalent of oil our nation is expected to import from OPEC nations in 2030.  

Immigration was one of the issues discussed in Laurel, with the highly complex issue described as “a seven layer salad with bacon bits.”  The participants at this conversation, hosted by Crystal Thompson, talked about a number of different aspects to the debate surrounding our immigration laws and agreed that there needed to be a comprehensive solution.  

While the Platform didn’t refer to bacon bits, the Democratic Platform did state “our current immigration system has been broken for far too long.  We need comprehensive immigration reform, not just piecemeal efforts.”   The Platform identifies a number of priorities for a Democratic administration including securing our borders, improving the legal immigration system, and addressing those people who have come to our nation illegally, but who are otherwise playing by the rules.

In Frederick participants supported a vision for education that “embraces accountability and rejects No Child Left Behind as a method of allocating federal dollars,” with an ultimate goal of  “ensuring all students are competitive both in the information age” and the global economy.  The plank crafted at the C. Burr Artz library is very similar to the language adopted in the Democratic platform that advocates we, as Democrats

 “will fix the failures and broken promises of No Child Left Behind while holding to the goal of providing every child access to a world–class education, raising standards and ensuring accountability for closing the achievement gap.”

The organizers of the community meetings across both Maryland and the country sent their suggested campaign planks to the Platform Drafting committee.  The Drafting Committee assembled and refined the document that the Platform Committee considered and revised, page by page and paragraph by paragraph, in Pittsburgh on August 9.  We approved the document at that meeting, and have sent it here to Denver for approval by the convention on Tuesday night.  

I believe that what was approved is a great statement of what we as Democrats believe and what we want our country to aspire to over the next four years and beyond.   Over this week, I’m looking forward to meeting Democrats from across the country as we prepare to take our campaign – and our platform - to the streets over the next ten short weeks.

Everyone Knows the Economy Is Sinking Fast, Except Congress

by: Nate W

Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:28 PM EDT

Tuesday’s data suggested a nation struggling with expensive gas and devalued homes, where people are fearful for their jobs and wary about where the economy is headed.

Any positive signs that economists and forecasters may have cited need to be thrown out the window. Even with the consumer confidence index at 50.4%, down a whopping 7.7% from May, the worst may still be yet to come. This report should be a wake up call to legislators across the country on behalf of a nation in desperate need of more help.

As the economy worsens, more and more key players are getting on board with the idea of a second economic recovery package. But not everyone's where we need them to be to get something done in time to matter. For example Rep. David Obey (D-WI), powerful chairman of the Appropriations Committee free associated to Congress Daily (subscription only) and revealed that he doesn't quite get how urgent doing something to stave off this recession is:

"People use all kinds of terminology; I don't care if you call it a second supplemental or a second economic [stimulus] package -- to me there are all kinds of things that we need domestically -- but we need finish this job [war supplemental] before we can start thinking about the next one"

This pains me. Not only are House Democrats punting on telecom immunity, they're putting war spending ahead of domestic spending.

As I wrote on myDD, Bush's first economic stimulus package just didn't work. We didn't get the big sweeping surge of economic growth we were promised. Even what good news we've gotten was drowned out by a chorus of  story after story of bad economic news. The costs of living are growing rapidly as employment becomes harder to find. Food is getting more expensive as food bank lines grow longer. The longer Congress waits to act, the worse things will get.

And the states can't wait for the aid that Democratic leaders say must be included in a second stimulus package either. State spending is the last prop holding up the economy and is at a tipping point. More than half of the states are facing crippling budget shortfalls that total $48 billion for the upcoming fiscal year. In the absence of aid from the federal government, states have been forced to cut vital services for many of our most vulnerable citiznes. The Center on Budget and Policy Prioritiesgives outlines the chopping block:

At least 12 states have implemented or are considering cuts that will affect low-income children's or families' eligibility for health insurance or reduce their access to health care services.

At least 10 states are cutting or proposing to cut K-12 education; three of them are proposing cuts that would affect access to child care.

At least 11 states have proposed or implemented reductions their state workforce. Workforce reductions often result in reduced access to services residents need.

And when states are forced to do things like cut their state workforce, the economy suffers even more. According to CNN/Money:

With falling revenue from sales and income taxes, and property-tax declines looming, states, cities and towns have already laid off tens of thousands of government employees. Many expect more job cuts ahead as public officials struggle to balance their budgets.

Economists say that cutbacks in jobs and spending by local governments could be a major drag on the overall economy.

It's cool that Obey recognizes the need for a  second stimulus package. But he also needs to understand that each day he lets pass without doing something means the economic hole we're in is that much deeper and is going to require that much more federal spending to help us get out of.

Is Hoyer Worth a Primary Challenge?

by: Isaac Smith

Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:38 AM EDT

After Steny Hoyer's shameful performance in pushing the FISA bill through the House [which just sailed through the cloture vote in the Senate --IS], there's been talk about putting up a primary challenge to him in 2010. Even if it's only a protest candidacy, it might at least register the outrage many Democrats feel about their party's leadership giving in to Republicans' demands to let telecom companies break the law, and then turning around and portraying it as a victory for Democrats. It was infuriating enough when Democrats were in the minority, but to see Hoyer, et al, do the same thing as the majority party is almost inexplicable.

But is a primary challenge the best way to hold Hoyer accountable? I see three things to consider here:

1. Is FISA a big enough deal that Hoyer ought to be taken out because of it? Certainly for many Democrats, it is: Not only is Hoyer abetting the Bush administration's erosion of the Fourth Amendment, but by implicitly conceding that the Republican position is right, he is giving them an unearned victory in the national security debate. On the other hand, while rank and file Democrats are exercised over it, it's less clear that the broader public feels the same way. Yet again, FISA capitulation could be the issue that leads to a broader discontent with Hoyer, much as Al Wynn's attempts to quash net neutrality led to the discovery of a whole set of issues where he was serving his constituents poorly.
2. If we answer yes to the above, could you find a candidate wiling and able to run against Hoyer? That's tricky. Hoyer's got connections to just about everybody in the Maryland Democratic Party; unlike Wynn, Hoyer has been pretty successful in making more friends than enemies during his career. Moreover, the Fourth District was extremely lucky that someone as smart and talented as Donna Edwards decided to run for office when she did. It's possible that someone of similar caliber is willing to risk it (Populista mentions Paul Pinsky, my state senator, for example), but even then, it would be very much a long shot candidacy.
3. And lastly, does a primary challenge potentially put Hoyer's seat at risk of being scooped up by Republicans? The Fifth District has a Partisan Voting Index of D+9, and Hoyer hasn't faced a viable Republican opponent in years. At the same time, the Fifth District has a fairly high proportion of rural and conservative voters compared to neighboring districts; if and when Hoyer decides to leave Congress, the GOP will likely make a strong play for the seat.

So while it's possible that someone could mount a successful primary challenge to Hoyer, the stars would have to align in a very precise manner for that to happen. Besides, I suspect that, for better or worse, FISA, warrantless surveillance, telecom immunity could well be old news by 2010: The Bush administration's obsession with secrecy and unaccountable power is sui generis, and while the FISA "compromise" sets a bad precedent, I doubt it will survive a Barack Obama presidency. If John McCain is elected, on the other hand, we may still have a problem.

UPDATE: The Great Orange Satan's discussion of primary challenges in 2010 is worth a read.

Congressional Democrats Forget Key Part of Obama's Relief Package?

by: Nate W

Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:08 AM EDT

CQ Politics is reporting on the Democratic leadership's desire for a second package to strengthen the economy that largely lines up with Barack Obama's plans. But are Congressional Dems omitting aid to state governments, one of the key planks of Obama's plan?

Democrats have been contemplating a second effort to inject money this year into the faltering economy. The idea appears to have gained traction, particularly among congressional leaders, since Monday when presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois outlined a $50 billion stimulus proposal that will serve as the centerpiece of a two-week economic tour of battleground states.

Though the prospects for a second stimulus package are slim, the debate gives congressional Democrats an opportunity to rally around Obama.

The massive economic stimulus package enacted in February focused on tax breaks for businesses and rebates for individuals and families.

Obama has proposed a second round of rebate checks, an extension of unemployment insurance, aid to state governments and a new $10 billion fund to help stem the tide of home foreclosures.

He also proposed increasing investment in infrastructure such as roads, schools and bridges.

"There's a need for additional targeted stimulus," said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad , D-N.D.

Schumer said infrastructure investment and a second round of rebate checks could be part of the new package, which Democrats are likely to unveil after the July Fourth recess

State government spending is a key prop holding up the economy during a recession. Dem leaders might want to check out the NYT, which pointed out earlier this week:

At $1.8 trillion annually in a $14 trillion economy, the states and municipalities spend almost twice as much as the federal government, including the cost of the Iraq war. When librarians, lifeguards, teachers, transit workers, road repair crews and health care workers disappear, or airport and school construction is halted, the economy trembles.

Maryland's Superdelegates and the Popular Vote

by: Eric Luedtke

Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:05 PM EST

Donna Edwards - a bellwether for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party

by: lhfang

Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:29 PM EST

From The Nation:

Maryland Congressional candidate Donna Edwards did not need a memo from a pollster to tell her the subprime mortgage crisis would be an issue in her 2008 race. Campaigning on the doorsteps and at Metro stops of her racially and economically diverse suburban Washington district, she heard women talking last summer about how a credit crunch might cost them their homes. Edwards, one of a new breed of savvy policy wonks and strategists who are leaving the public-interest community to bid for major elected office, knew how to respond. Months before Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama began promising to fight to keep middle-class families in their homes--and with an urgency that is still missing from the response of House and Senate Democratic leaders--Edwards called for radically revising the 2005 bankruptcy bill as part of a plan to protect homeowners from financial ruin.

It didn't hurt that the incumbent Democrat she's challenging in Maryland's February 12 primary, eight-term Congressman Albert Wynn, voted for the bankruptcy bill, favored by commercial banks, which have contributed $185,917 to his campaign. But for Edwards, this was about more than political positioning. "Prince Georges County has the highest rate of foreclosures in Maryland, and my ZIP code has the highest rate of foreclosures in the county," says Edwards, a veteran activist on issues of concern to women and working families. "When I talk about why we need a different kind of Democrat in Congress--someone who sides with consumers, not corporate interests--people understand exactly what I'm talking about."

Score another point for Edwards. With support from the Service Employees International Union and other key unions, environmental groups and liberal activists with Democracy for America and Progressive Democrats of America, she is given a fair chance of upsetting Wynn, a corporate-friendly Democrat who voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq, pass Vice President Cheney's energy bill and protect pharmaceutical companies from consumer-friendly reforms.

The Edwards-Wynn race is a bellwether contest in the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. That fight is at least as likely to be determined in this year's Congressional primaries as in a stilted race for the presidency, where both Clinton and Obama are eyeing the middle ground they expect to occupy in the fall. These local primaries have national importance, as they could answer an essential question: will a Democratic Party that muddled its message after gaining control of Congress in 2006 advance a progressive brief in the post-Bush era?

Great article from one of my favorite journalists. Any thoughts?