The 111th Lame Duck [CONGRESS]

enlightenedbum

So we just had an election, and the thread about it veered off topic into union bashing/defending and Jeffe locked it. Don't do that here.

The results of said election were pretty depressing for most of us on this here forum, with the Republicans gaining six seats in the Senate and all the House seats. Slight exaggeration, but only slight. With the new Republican majority we get delightful people in committee chairman roles. Like Darrell Issa on oversight, who is vowing to have hearings 7 days a week for 40 weeks! Or this guy who thinks global warming is no biggie because God promised Noah not to flood the planet again and is seeking the energy and commerce chairmanship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E&feature=player_embedded

Fortunately, he's not likely to win. Instead Joe "We Should Apologize to BP" Barton probabily will.

So that's all going to be fun, and there won't be much governing going on. However!

Starting on Monday the 111th Congress will re-convene and there are still some outstanding issues to resolve before the 112th Congress is sworn in. The two most noteworthy are:

1) The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are scheduled to expire on December 31. There is quite a lot of debate about what to do with them, specifically the tax cuts on the highest bracket. Largely speaking, Republicans are for extending the whole shebang, while Democrats and the President would like to extend all of the tax cuts except those on the top bracket, which they feel can and should be allowed to expire. You would think the Democrats could win the argument on this particular issue, what with the general rage at the wealthy in this country right now, but if you think that you don't know the Democratic Party.

Most likely outcome: All tax cuts extended for two years, so the Republicans can say the Democrats scheduled a tax increase for everyone just before the 2012 election.

2) The Congress has yet to pass the Defense Authorization Bill for this year. This is largely due to two things. First, The White House and Pentagon were trying to cut funding for one of the various Air Force boondoggles (I think the F-35 order, but it could have been the F-22) and there were threats of vetos if Congress put it back in and general wrangling. Congress of course won the fight and added some extra orders just as a fuck you. Secondly, and considerably more difficult, is the Republican filibuster over the inclusion of a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell that is considerably in the bill. Led by John McCain in particular, they're being assholes. And they're fracturing the Democratic base in the process. Well played, Republicans.

Latest reports are that Sen. Levin and Sen. McCain are in negotiations where the DADT repeal may be removed from the bill, though that has not actually happened as of the last time I checked. You would hope that the Log Cabin Republicans take time out from their successful lawsuit to get it ruled unconstitutional and push a few of the more moderate Republican Senators into voting "aye" because it's the right thing to do (specifically Sen. Voinovich, Collins, Snowe should be embarrassed; and Lindsey Graham probably but that's just a rumor). Regardless, the policy will be struck down by the courts within a few years (considering Kennedy's historical stance on gay rights, anyway) so hopefully the Congress will do the right thing now.

Here we can discuss the goings on in the Lame Duck session, and if we can stay on topic, discuss the staffing decisions (committee chairmanships/Pelosi's run at minority leader/Bachmann's run at caucus chair) of the 112th.

Magus`

Why hasn't McCain died yet? I mean, by now his blood has to had to have been completely replaced by some sort of black sludge.

ahava

Both snowe and Collins should be ashamed of themselves. The gay and Tolerant population up in Maine (yes, I know it seems bizarre, but really most of the people are very tolerant up there) should be pounding their doorsteps.

Voinivich is retiring, so I'm sure he might be convinced to do something right, unless he's retiring in hopes of a better position somewhere later on down the line?

I just don't know about the others. Chris Coons gets sworn in on monday as the senator from Delaware, and as happy as I am that it's not Christine O'Donnell, He makes me nervous. But that could simply be because he's not very liberal or progressive, he just wasn't Christine O'Donnell.

enlightenedbum

Voinovich was the guy who let the financial regulation bill through the Senate finally.

ahava

so maybe he can be talked to about this. Seriously, somebdoy needs to come up with a way to duct tape john McCain to his office chair so he can't be at the vote.

Not that I know if that would help or not, but it's always a possibility.

shryke

The Fiscal Commission has finally produced ... something. Sorta:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/the_fiscal_commission_reports.html

The fiscal commission is not going to manage to get 14 of its 18 members to agree on a plan to balance the budget, as was the original intent. That means, among other things, that it isn't assured a vote in Congress. But it doesn't have any intention of going quietly into the night. Today, the commission's co-chairs, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, are releasing their chairman's mark.

What's the chairman's mark, exactly? In Congress, the chairman's mark is somewhere between a discussion document and a piece of legislation that the chairman of a committee releases to give the members a sense of where his or her thinking is. This seems to be much the same: It's a full plan to balance the budget, but it doesn't have the votes of the commission's members, much less the force of law or congressional process, behind it.

The recommendations are fairly radical: The co-chairs freeze 2012's discretionary spending at 2010's levels -- and then start cutting it back further. By 2015, they project discretionary spending will be more than $200 billion less than the president's budget currently envisions. They raise taxes, but rather unexpectedly, cap the revenues the tax system can generate at 21 percent of GDP. They also offer a number of options for tax reform, including one that eliminates all tax expenditures (including the mortgage-interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-based health care, and more) and brings the top rate down to 26 percent. Social Security comes in for both benefit cuts and tax increases -- though there are substantially more of the former than the latter. There are a number of Medicare reforms.

The co-chairs project that the deficit will fall to 1.6 percent of GDP by 2020 if the recommendations are implemented. The vast majority of those savings come from cuts in spending. Tax increases are a relatively minor contributor

Here's the thing itself: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/news/cochairs-proposal

enlightenedbum

Hey look, something liberals will raise holy hell about and never allow through the Congress!

Shock!

a5ehren

shryke wrote: »

The Fiscal Commission has finally produced ... something. Sorta:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/the_fiscal_commission_reports.html

The fiscal commission is not going to manage to get 14 of its 18 members to agree on a plan to balance the budget, as was the original intent. That means, among other things, that it isn't assured a vote in Congress. But it doesn't have any intention of going quietly into the night. Today, the commission's co-chairs, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, are releasing their chairman's mark.

What's the chairman's mark, exactly? In Congress, the chairman's mark is somewhere between a discussion document and a piece of legislation that the chairman of a committee releases to give the members a sense of where his or her thinking is. This seems to be much the same: It's a full plan to balance the budget, but it doesn't have the votes of the commission's members, much less the force of law or congressional process, behind it.

The recommendations are fairly radical: The co-chairs freeze 2012's discretionary spending at 2010's levels -- and then start cutting it back further. By 2015, they project discretionary spending will be more than $200 billion less than the president's budget currently envisions. They raise taxes, but rather unexpectedly, cap the revenues the tax system can generate at 21 percent of GDP. They also offer a number of options for tax reform, including one that eliminates all tax expenditures (including the mortgage-interest deduction, the exclusion for employer-based health care, and more) and brings the top rate down to 26 percent. Social Security comes in for both benefit cuts and tax increases -- though there are substantially more of the former than the latter. There are a number of Medicare reforms.

The co-chairs project that the deficit will fall to 1.6 percent of GDP by 2020 if the recommendations are implemented. The vast majority of those savings come from cuts in spending. Tax increases are a relatively minor contributor

Here's the thing itself: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/news/cochairs-proposal

So their recommendation is to dramatically increase the middle-class tax burden (by eliminating the mortgage interest deduction and taxing health benefits) and then lower taxes on the rich? Fuck them.

shryke

Flipping through quickly, I'm loving the buzzwords.

Lots of "eliminate waste" and such terms. Also, lots of cuts and freezes for "non-defense agencies" only.

And then the kicker: "Eliminate Earmarks"

ahava

Thank you for that translation. I was afraid I was reading it accurately.

Alright, so here's my question...

When are the democrats going to start running ads or things running parallels to the Rockefellers and the Astors and the Elite Ruling Class? The Aristocrats. The Class that the founders (although i don't have quotes at my fingertips) did not want to become part of the society?

Cause seriously.

Styrofoam Sammich

Voinovich is a classy guy. Regardless of disagreements in policy, the US government could do with more people like him in it.

enlightenedbum

Some TPM highlights:

# The co-chairs suggest capping both government expenditures and revenue at 21% of GDP eventually.
# Freeze federal worker wage increases through 2014; eliminate 200,000 federal jobs by 2020; and eliminate 250,000 federal non-defense contractor jobs by 2015.
# Establish co-pays in the VA medical system and change the co-pays and deductibles for military retirees that remain in that system.
# Eliminate NASA funding for commercial space flight.
# Require the Smithsonian museums to start charging entrance fees and raise fees at the national parks.
# Eliminate funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which many conservatives suggested in the wake of the firing of former NPR contributor Juan Williams.
# Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year.

Though this is possibly deserving of an entire thread as it didn't get the 14 votes required for an auto vote in Congress and thus probably won't be dealt with until the next Congress.

Brian Krakow

shryke wrote: »

<snip>

Oh thank god, this POS is just shitty enough to be DOA.

The inclusion of a revenue cap in a deficit reduction package just highlights what a sham this thing was.

Styrofoam Sammich

Clearly the best thing to do with unemployment this high is to fire more people.

Captain Carrot

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

Voinovich is a classy guy. Regardless of disagreements in policy, the US government could do with more people like him in it.

Except that he almost always knuckled under to McConnell anyway. The Senate needs fewer Waverers in Name Only.

shryke

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Some TPM highlights:

# The co-chairs suggest capping both government expenditures and revenue at 21% of GDP eventually.
# Freeze federal worker wage increases through 2014; eliminate 200,000 federal jobs by 2020; and eliminate 250,000 federal non-defense contractor jobs by 2015.
# Establish co-pays in the VA medical system and change the co-pays and deductibles for military retirees that remain in that system.
# Eliminate NASA funding for commercial space flight.
# Require the Smithsonian museums to start charging entrance fees and raise fees at the national parks.
# Eliminate funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which many conservatives suggested in the wake of the firing of former NPR contributor Juan Williams.
# Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year.

Though this is possibly deserving of an entire thread as it didn't get the 14 votes required for an auto vote in Congress and thus probably won't be dealt with until the next Congress.

I tried to start a new thread about it, but I can't.

And yeah, the whole thing is some bizarre combination of "unrealistic fiscal conservative wet dreams" and "Republican-esque hackery".

nexuscrawler

Lower taxes on the rich MORE

WTF seriously

Captain Carrot

shryke wrote: »

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Some TPM highlights:

# The co-chairs suggest capping both government expenditures and revenue at 21% of GDP eventually.
# Freeze federal worker wage increases through 2014; eliminate 200,000 federal jobs by 2020; and eliminate 250,000 federal non-defense contractor jobs by 2015.
# Establish co-pays in the VA medical system and change the co-pays and deductibles for military retirees that remain in that system.
# Eliminate NASA funding for commercial space flight.
# Require the Smithsonian museums to start charging entrance fees and raise fees at the national parks.
# Eliminate funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which many conservatives suggested in the wake of the firing of former NPR contributor Juan Williams.
# Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year.

Though this is possibly deserving of an entire thread as it didn't get the 14 votes required for an auto vote in Congress and thus probably won't be dealt with until the next Congress.

I tried to start a new thread about it, but I can't.

And yeah, the whole thing is some bizarre combination of "unrealistic fiscal conservative wet dreams" and "Republican-esque hackery".

None of this is fiscally conservative. They're just cutting taxes and eliminating a few programs they don't like. The bloated defense contracting mess was left untouched, but veterans would get screwed over again.

Styrofoam Sammich

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

Voinovich is a classy guy. Regardless of disagreements in policy, the US government could do with more people like him in it.

Except that he almost always knuckled under to McConnell anyway. The Senate needs fewer Waverers in Name Only.

Particularly in his first years in the Senate, Voinovich was opposed to lowering tax rates. He frequently joined Democrats on tax issues and in 2000 was the only Republican in Congress to vote against a bill providing for relief from the "marriage penalty."

On April 7, 2008, Voinovich departed from Republican party platform and stated at a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the war in Iraq: "We've kind of bankrupted this country" through war spending. "We're in a recession...and God knows how long it's going to last."[16]

Voinovich also voted in favor of the Matthew Shepard Act.

So he follows his party leadership alot, what do you expect? The guy himself makes reasonable decisions when he can.

Fencingsax

enlightenedbum wrote: »

# Require the Smithsonian museums to start charging entrance fees and raise fees at the national parks.

Fuck them eternally.

nexuscrawler

Carrot cutting taxes on the rich and spending all our money on defense is pretty much all there is to financial conservatism

Captain Carrot

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

Captain Carrot wrote: »

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

Voinovich is a classy guy. Regardless of disagreements in policy, the US government could do with more people like him in it.

Except that he almost always knuckled under to McConnell anyway. The Senate needs fewer Waverers in Name Only.

Particularly in his first years in the Senate, Voinovich was opposed to lowering tax rates. He frequently joined Democrats on tax issues and in 2000 was the only Republican in Congress to vote against a bill providing for relief from the "marriage penalty."

On April 7, 2008, Voinovich departed from Republican party platform and stated at a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the war in Iraq: "We've kind of bankrupted this country" through war spending. "We're in a recession...and God knows how long it's going to last."[16]

Voinovich also voted in favor of the Matthew Shepard Act.

So he follows his party leadership alot, what do you expect? The guy himself makes reasonable decisions when he can.

No, he doesn't. You'll notice that despite his rhetoric he obediently voted against everything Democrats wanted on the war, except the anti-rape amendment. Voinovich may have good judgment, but he rarely relies on it. That's not what I expect.

Styrofoam Sammich

No, he doesn't. You'll notice that despite his rhetoric he obediently voted against everything Democrats wanted on the war, except the anti-rape amendment. Voinovich may have good judgment, but he rarely relies on it. That's not what I expect.

It really seems like your criteria for good politician is "votes with the democrats".

shryke

Captain Carrot wrote: »

shryke wrote: »

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Some TPM highlights:

# The co-chairs suggest capping both government expenditures and revenue at 21% of GDP eventually.
# Freeze federal worker wage increases through 2014; eliminate 200,000 federal jobs by 2020; and eliminate 250,000 federal non-defense contractor jobs by 2015.
# Establish co-pays in the VA medical system and change the co-pays and deductibles for military retirees that remain in that system.
# Eliminate NASA funding for commercial space flight.
# Require the Smithsonian museums to start charging entrance fees and raise fees at the national parks.
# Eliminate funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which many conservatives suggested in the wake of the firing of former NPR contributor Juan Williams.
# Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year.

Though this is possibly deserving of an entire thread as it didn't get the 14 votes required for an auto vote in Congress and thus probably won't be dealt with until the next Congress.

I tried to start a new thread about it, but I can't.

And yeah, the whole thing is some bizarre combination of "unrealistic fiscal conservative wet dreams" and "Republican-esque hackery".

None of this is fiscally conservative. They're just cutting taxes and eliminating a few programs they don't like. The bloated defense contracting mess was left untouched, but veterans would get screwed over again.

No, that part is the "Republican-esque hackery".

The unrealistic fiscal conservatism is stuff like "eliminate all earmarks".

enlightenedbum

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

No, he doesn't. You'll notice that despite his rhetoric he obediently voted against everything Democrats wanted on the war, except the anti-rape amendment. Voinovich may have good judgment, but he rarely relies on it. That's not what I expect.

It really seems like your criteria for good politician is "votes with the democrats".

I'm shocked that a Democrat would think this.

Styrofoam Sammich

Everyone is America is fiscally conservative. We don't want to spend money recklessly and want government to run as cleanly and cheaply as possible. The parties just have different ideas of how this should work.

Captain Carrot

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

No, he doesn't. You'll notice that despite his rhetoric he obediently voted against everything Democrats wanted on the war, except the anti-rape amendment. Voinovich may have good judgment, but he rarely relies on it. That's not what I expect.

It really seems like your criteria for good politician is "votes with the democrats".

My criterion for a good politician is "don't vote for fucking stupid things". Which is pretty much all Republicans have nowadays.

shryke: that's not particularly fiscally conservative because eliminating earmarks would do approximately dick to the deficit. Most of them are "this is how you should spend money you're already getting".

enlightenedbum

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

Everyone is America is fiscally conservative. We don't want to spend money recklessly and want government to run as cleanly and cheaply as possible. The parties just have different ideas of how this should work.

shryke

Captain Carrot wrote: »

shryke: that's not particularly fiscally conservative because eliminating earmarks would do approximately dick to the deficit. Most of them are "this is how you should spend money you're already getting".

That's what gets called "fiscal conservatism" these days though. And, again, it's a fantasy. It's like saying you should balance the budget with Unicorns and Leprechauns.

ahava

You can be a good Politician and be a Republican.

that's how they keep getting elected. Some of them.

There are good Politicians who aren't Democrats. It does happen.

Unfortunately, they're not good Liberals. or not good Democrats. But they are still good Politicians.

Styrofoam Sammich

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

Everyone is America is fiscally conservative. We don't want to spend money recklessly and want government to run as cleanly and cheaply as possible. The parties just have different ideas of how this should work.

Ok well except the disingenuous ones who use it as a buzz word to get in power and do whatever the fuck they want.

override367

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't doing all of those things combined cost well over a million jobs, all at once, which you know tends to have a ripple effect and then reduce revenues

nexuscrawler

why are they so hard on lowering the number of tax brackets

if anything we need more!

Fencingsax

nexuscrawler wrote: »

why are they so hard on lowering the number of tax brackets

if anything we need more!

Stealth FairTax bullshit, probably.

override367

Obama should counter the crazy with crazy of his own, like threatening to nuke Florida

Of course if he put "Nuke Florida, Y/N?" up as a ballot, it would actually motivate the Democratic base to go out and vote

Styrofoam Sammich

lonelyahava wrote: »

You can be a good Politician and be a Republican.

that's how they keep getting elected. Some of them.

There are good Politicians who aren't Democrats. It does happen.

Unfortunately, they're not good Liberals. or not good Democrats. But they are still good Politicians.

Thank you. Its perfectly possible for someone to just disagree with us on the left. Government needs reasonable conservatives just as much as it needs liberals willing to stand up for their positions.

Problem is we have precious few of either at the moment.

There's opposing aspects of the financial regulation bill because you have legitimate concerns, but then voting for it once you've had your say and part and opposing the bill because your donors want the money, doing all you can to fuck it up, then not voting for it.

nexuscrawler

override367 wrote: »

Obama should counter the crazy with crazy of his own, like threatening to nuke Florida

A constitutional amendment that prevents states from receiving more federal funds than they contribute

wanna cut earmarks thats how ya do it

override367

Styrofoam Sammich wrote: »

lonelyahava wrote: »

You can be a good Politician and be a Republican.

that's how they keep getting elected. Some of them.

There are good Politicians who aren't Democrats. It does happen.

Unfortunately, they're not good Liberals. or not good Democrats. But they are still good Politicians.

Thank you. Its perfectly possible for someone to just disagree with us on the left. Government needs reasonable conservatives just as much as it needs liberals willing to stand up for their positions.

There's opposing aspects of the financial regulation bill because you have legitimate concerns, but then voting for it once you've had your say and part and opposing the bill because your donors want the money, doing all you can to fuck it up, then not voting for it.

Problem is we have precious few of either at the moment.

Reasonable conservatives are one thing, it's important to have people making the case for the status quo, forcing you defend why change in a given area is actually for the better.

What we have now is a fucking cavalcade of howler monkeys though

nexuscrawler wrote: »

override367 wrote: »

Obama should counter the crazy with crazy of his own, like threatening to nuke Florida

A constitutional amendment that prevents states from receiving more federal funds than they contribute

wanna cut earmarks thats how ya do it

This would be delicious, all the sudden the Republicans would be like "Whoa, whoa whoa whoa whoa, lets not be so hasty"

I can see them suddenly switch from meaningless rhetoric to factual criticism, "Obama's going to cut your schools, police, and farms". You know, exactly what they advocate for everyone.

enlightenedbum

I'm gonna go make a debt commission thread with a crappy OP to move that stuff to. This here is for lame ducks.

Debt commission thread!

DevoutlyApathetic

nexuscrawler wrote: »

override367 wrote: »

Obama should counter the crazy with crazy of his own, like threatening to nuke Florida

A constitutional amendment that prevents states from receiving more federal funds than they contribute

wanna cut earmarks thats how ya do it

If this didn't fuck disaster response hardcore I would be all for it.

override367

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

nexuscrawler wrote: »

override367 wrote: »

Obama should counter the crazy with crazy of his own, like threatening to nuke Florida

A constitutional amendment that prevents states from receiving more federal funds than they contribute

wanna cut earmarks thats how ya do it

If this didn't fuck disaster response hardcore I would be all for it.

Oh it would never go anywhere, but the Republican backpedaling would be amusing. The public's acceptance of the hastily thrown together Republicna backpedal would be disheartening.