Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Home Front: Politix
The Rubes' Revenge
2014-09-27
[WEEKLYSTANDARD] It seems that the Democrats have been developing a third model of representation of late: Call it the "sneak it past the rubes" theory. Under this approach, you pre-sent yourself to your constituents as an independent voice, not in hock to the national Democratic party, so as to get elected. Then the national party allows you generally to vote with your constituents, on the understanding that when the chips are down you will vote with the liberal leadership. Then you hope that the "rubes" back home can be sufficiently distracted by the "war on women" or some other phony issue that they'll return you to office. And if they choose not to, there will be a consolation prize: a cushy, well-connected job as a lobbyist (Blanche Lincoln) or law firm adviser (Byron Dorgan) or association CEO (Ben Nelson) or strategic adviser in PR (Kent Conrad) in Washington, where you are more at home anyway, or even a job out of town as an ambassador (Max Baucus).
Link


Home Front: Politix
Ben Nelson (Dem- Nebraska) to retire
2011-12-28
from Politico
Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
infamous for the Cornhusker Kickback
will announce today that he is retiring after two terms, a serious blow to Democratic efforts to hold onto their majority in the chamber next November.

The White House and top Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), had quietly mounted a pressure campaign to keep Nelson from retiring. Nelson has more than $3 million in his campaign war chest
Nelson can probably keep some of this by cycling his own campaign funds into a PAC or two and then forming a consultancy to work for that PAC or having the PAC hire his kin
and his approval rating solidified after falling over the last several years.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Sen. Ben Nelson won’t seek reelection
2011-12-28
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) is set to announce he will not seek reelection, according to sources, leaving his seat as a strong pickup opportunity for the GOP in the 2012 election.

Nelson, 70, could announce his retirement as early as today, according to sources familiar with his plans. The news was first reported by Politico.

The national Democratic Party had spent more than $1 million in advertising this year driving up Nelson’s personal approval rating, perhaps in hopes of convincing him that he could win in a dark red state. But Republican-aligned groups also spent heavily trying to define the moderate Democrats as an enabler of President Obama, particularly because Nelson voted for Obama’s health care bill.
Link


Home Front: Politix
WH pleading with Senate Dems to back jobs bill
2011-09-16
In a further indication just how badly the White House fumbled the jobs bill, The Hill reports that administration officials had to meet with opponents in Congress to convince them to back the plan. Unfortunately for Barack Obama, those opponents weren't House Republicans. They were Senate Democrats -- and so far, it's still no sale:

Senior administration officials met with Senate Democrats for an hour and a half on Thursday to answer their complaints about President Obama's jobs bill.

Democratic lawmakers voiced objections to several of the president's proposals to pay for the $447 billion stimulus package, including an elimination of tax breaks for the oil-and-gas industry.

David Plouffe, a senior adviser to the president, acknowledged after a marathon meeting in the Senate's Mansfield Room that not all Democrats are sold on the plan. ...

"I think the vast majority of them are excited about it," Plouffe said after the meeting.

"The vast majority"? It only takes four of them to keep it from passing on a floor vote, as Democrats only have a 53-47 advantage in the Senate. In the news report itself, there are already enough Democrats objecting to derail it entirely. Mark Begich, Jim Webb, Mary Landrieu, and Barbara Mikulski are all named in this report as opposing the bill. None of them face voters in 2012, having to explain backing tax hikes, massive new spending, and a rerun of the 2009 Porkulus flop. If Mikulski objects to the bill, will Ben Nelson in Nebraska back it? Claire McCaskill in Missouri? Mark Pryor, who has to stand for re-election in Arkansas in 2014? None of the endangered Democrats in the next two cycles will dare vote for $450 billion in new spending to do the exact same thing that didn't work in 2009.

Chuck Schumer hosted the meeting, according to the report, which is curious in itself. Why not Harry Reid? Isn't he the Majority Leader? Why not Dick Durbin, who is Reid's second in command and presumably a backer of the jobs bill from his fellow Illinois politician? Schumer tried to paint a picture of unity on the way out of the meeting:

"There were some disagreements on different parts here and there but the overall feeling was that the administration is open to suggestions from members about different policy issues on jobs and strategic ways to deal with jobs," he added.

"Open to suggestions" means "back to the drawing board." This is why a competent White House would have asked their allies in the one chamber of Congress their party still controls for input before writing the bill. Their failure to engage with their allies had Senate Democrats publicly blasting the plan earlier this week, ruining Obama's strategy of blaming Republicans for stalling on his jobs bill. If the White House can't even convince Democrats to take the plunge with Porkulus II: Economic Boogaloo, Republicans will argue, then why should they?

We can also count Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey as an example of what battleground-state Senators will do when presented with Obama's jobs bill. In an interview with KDKA, Casey says he won't go for the package as presented -- and instead backs the idea from House Republicans to break up the bill into a series of votes on each component:

"I'm afraid if we tried to pass one big bill, I think there's a lot of skepticism about big pieces of legislation with all kinds of different component parts. We should break this up", said Casey. He later stated, "Why not have a series of votes on job creation strategies -- five votes, 10 votes, I don't care if it's 25 votes."

So that's five Senate Democrats on the record as opposing the bill so far, which is why Reid won't schedule it for a vote. The AJA has become a complete debacle for Obama and his team. If the Senate can't move it -- and I doubt it will ever come to the floor -- then Obama will have made himself as irrelevant as he possibly could have on jobs and the economy, and painted himself as a man with no clue as to how to boost the economy ... or even get a bill passed.
Did teh 0ne even talk to the dhimocrats in the Senate before putting this bullshit together? I see more and more his incompetence arrogance of dictating things and expecting everyone to fall in line with him. Then when they don't he looks like a fool.
Why talk to them? The current plan is just like the last one, just half the size. The Democrats voted for the last one, why wouldn't they vote for this one?
Link


Home Front: Politix
White House Quietly Exempts Friends From Obamacare
2011-01-30
If you would like to know what the White House really thinks of Obamacare, there’s an easy way. Look past its press releases. Ignore its promises. Forget its talking points. Instead, simply witness for yourself the outrageous way the White House protects its best friends from Obamacare.

Last year, we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a lucky few from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul. That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733.

Among the fortunate is a who’s who list of unions, businesses and even several cities and four states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee) but none of the friends of Barack feature as prominently as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

How can you get your own free pass from Obamacare? Maybe you can just donate $27 million to President Obama‘s campaign efforts. That’s what Andy Stern did as president of SEIU in 2008. He has been the most frequent guest at Mr. Obama‘s White House.

Backroom deals have become par for the course for proponents of Obamacare. Senators were greased with special favors, like Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and his Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary L. Landrieu and her Louisiana Purchase. Even the American Medical Association was brought in line under threat of losing its exclusive and lucrative medical coding contracts with the government.

Not only are the payoffs an affront to our democracy and an outright assault on our taxpayers, the timing itself of the latest release makes a mockery of this administration’s transparency promises. More than 500 of the 733 waivers, we now know, were granted in December but kept conveniently under wraps until the day after the president’s State of the Union address. HHS is no stranger to covering up bad news; in fact, this is becoming a disturbing pattern. Last year, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hid from Congress until after the Obamacare vote a damning report from the Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary showing Obamacare would cost $311 billion more than promised and would displace 14 million Americans from their current insurance.

For this administration, transparency promises last only until the teleprompter is unplugged.

Backroom deals and cover-ups may be business as usual for Washington, but understanding why the Obama administration protects its friends from Obamacare offers special insight into what the purveyors of the mandate themselves think about their own law. This is key: The waivers aren’t meant to protect victims from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes. Under Section 2711 of the Public Health Service Act, Obamacare increases the annual cap of insurance benefits, which sounds great - as does everything else in big government - until the bill comes due, in this case, in the form of higher insurance premiums.

In short, the administration has decided that you will face increased health insurance premiums, but special friends in the unions will not. Look closely, and you’ll see not only the White House‘s duplicity but also what the Obama administration really thinks of its crown jewel, Obamacare. White House words say that the annual insurance benefit cap is a feature of the program, but its actions say that it’s a bug.

The question remains: If Obamacare is such a great law, why does the White House keep protecting its best friends from it?...
Link


Home Front: Politix
New GOP star on track to defeat Dem legend Russ Feingold
2010-11-01
[Washington Examiner]
Here in Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, a businessman who has never before run for public office, appears poised to pick up a Senate seat for Republicans, defeating Democratic legend Russell Feingold and becoming the first GOP senator elected from the state since 1986.

Johnson has been ahead of Feingold for months; the RealClearPolitics average of polls puts the margin between seven and eight percentage points. In this time of voter unhappiness with Barack B.O. Obama and the Democratic agenda, Johnson is on the leading edge of what Wisconsin state Republican chairman Reince Priebus calls "the biggest D-to-R shift of any state in the country." And he's doing it as a businessman and would-be citizen legislator running on an elegantly simple platform.

"I've got two major items in my platform," Johnson tells a group of Chamber of Commerce members gathered for lunch at the Best Western hotel here in Neenah. "I want to repeal health care [reform], and I want to bring every ounce of my accounting background, my business background, my passion, my dedication, my seriousness of purpose, to do everything I possibly can do to control federal spending and debt, to limit the size and scope of the federal government."

A lifelong Republican, Johnson was appalled by the big-spending measures Obama and Democratic leaders enacted in the spring and summer of 2009. But it was the campaign for national health care that pushed Johnson into action. As he watched Senate Democratic leaders desperately making deals with Ben Cornhusker Kickback Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and others to win support of a health care measure the public opposed, something in Johnson just snapped. "When they passed that bill on Christmas Eve, with the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase, that was the final straw," he tells the Chamber of Commerce.
Link


Home Front: Politix
How do you say I stole your job suckas in Chinese?
2010-09-29
WASHINGTON--Senate Republicans voted to defeat an effort by the Democratic majority to bring up legislation that would take aim at U.S. multi-national corporations moving manufacturing jobs overseas.

The attempt by Democrats to turn to the legislation rather than dealing with the more thorny question of how to deal with the expiring Bush-era tax cuts was largely a political decision heading into the November midterm elections.

Democratic leaders had all but conceded they didn't have the requisite 60 votes to begin debate on the Senate floor on the legislation, but they said they wanted to get Republicans on record voting against an attempt to protect U.S. jobs.

"It's an important political message when the number one issue is jobs," Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) said Monday. "I want to tell you, I think [Republicans'] position on this is indefensible."

Republicans countered that the legislation would raise taxes on the largest U.S. companies, which are responsible for much of the job growth in the country.

In the end, the vote was 53-45 with four Democrats and one Independent senator joining Republicans in voting against proceeding with legislation. These included Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), the powerful chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee. The other Democrats were Sens. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.), Jon Tester (D., Mont.) and Mark Warner (D., Va.), along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.).

The bill would have used a combination of tax penalties and credits to induce large employers to retain manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

It would have ended two tax measures currently available to large corporations that Democrats argue allows firms shipping jobs overseas to benefit from doing so.

One credit that would have been ended currently permits companies that close U.S. facilities in favor of opening a factory overseas to claim the expenses they incur in doing so off their income tax burden.

Another tax break Democrats wanted to close would affect the ability to defer payment of income tax on revenue generated overseas by U.S firms.

Those companies that have moved operations overseas but continue to sell products back into the U.S. would lose the right to defer the taxes on this income. This portion of the bill has been voted on separately by Senate lawmakers before and defeated.

A third prong of the bill would reward firms that have previously shipped jobs overseas by offering a payroll tax holiday on new employees they hire in the U.S.

With the defeat, Democrats will not likely address the issue of offshoring jobs until after the midterm elections to be held on Nov. 2.

The U.S. manufacturing sector has been one of the hardest hit by the severe economic downturn, and states that have a significant manufacturing base are those with the highest jobless rates.
Both parties need to get b^&*( slapped for not doing anything sooner about this.)
But there have been recent of positive growth, with employment growth in the sector outstripping that in the wider economy in recent months.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Tea Party's already won
2010-09-18
The meat of a longer, interesting article...
Last March, Republicans joined Democrats in calling on Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) to end his filibuster against the extension of unemployment benefits paid for by deficit spending, embarrassed he was blocking aid to the jobless. But it took just three months for the grassroots pressure to reach the Capitol -- Bunning was a Tea Party hero. By the time the $30 billion expired on June 2, Senate Republicans had united behind a nearly two-month filibuster of the next round of $34 billion in "emergency spending" for unemployment insurance. They were joined by Sen. Ben Cornhusker Kickback Nelson (D-Neb.), and some House Democrats warned their own leaders at the time that the days of votes on "emergency spending" would soon have to come to an end.

As of last week, before the House and Senate even reconvened, it was clear there were enough Senate Democrats joining Republicans seeking an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest earners that the Democrats don't have the votes to pass President B.O.'s permanent extension of the middle-class tax cuts without passing cuts for the top two tax brackets as well.

When Obama introduced his latest economic proposals earlier this month, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), an ally of the Obama White House, immediately put out a statement not only criticizing Obama's newest infrastructure plan but knocking the original stimulus as well. "I will not support additional spending in a second stimulus package. Any new transportation initiatives can be funded through the Recovery Act, which still contains unused funds," Bennet said.

Obama won't get his infrastructure plan through the Congress, and he knows it. Next year, when he is running for reelection, tax and budget reform will be the only issues he could realistically work on with a GOP majority or a razor-thin Democratic majority. In other words, the Tea Party agenda.

The Tea Party candidates themselves -- like O'Donnell, whom Karl Rove called "nutty," -- matter little. Only a few will actually get elected this fall. Yet the Tea Party has won without them. There are no tea leaves left to read. Democrats have been spooked and Republicans threatened, cajoled or cleansed. The results are already in.
Link


Economy
Senate Dems vote to let tax rates rise
2010-08-06
With these two identical 58-42 votes, all Senate Democrats except Sen. Ben Cornhusker Kickback Nelson, D-Neb., just voted to let rates rise for individuals and small businesses beginning next year. The vote, forced by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., would have extended the current, lower rates for the two categories.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Sen. Nelson rejects switch to GOP, won't become independent
2010-08-04
Saying "I'm very comfortable where I am," Sen. Ben Cornhusker Kickback Nelson (D-Neb.) indicated Tuesday he will not switch to the Republican Party -- or become an independent.

Nelson, a chameleon who's broken with his party on a number of key issues during this Congress, said he enjoys a great deal of flexibility as a Democrat, which wouldn't be the case if he were to join the GOP.

"I don't believe so," Nelson said on KLIN radio in Nebraska when asked if he'd become a Republican.

The GOP, Nelson said, "doesn't seem to be" a party with a very large ideological tent.

"Certainly, if you look at the partisan votes recently," he said, "it's been pretty much lockstep, and I'm not one who's comfortable being that way."
"The chameleons have been getting thrashed everywhere you look!"
Nelson has arguably been the Senate's most slippery Democrat over the past year and a half, having opposed several jobs packages without budget offsets, the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan, and elements of healthcare reform, including the so-called "public option" favored by many in his party's base.
But in the end he was available for the right price...
His voting record led some to think he might bolt to the GOP or follow the path of Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), who ran for reelection as an independent in 2006 after having lost a Democratic primary. Lieberman still caucuses with Democrats but sometimes also breaks with his party's leaders.

Nelson rejected such a move, saying he still feels very comfortable within the Senate Democratic Caucus.

"I'll put it this way: I don't think you leave your party, your party leaves you. And my party hasn't left me," he said. "My party gives me a great deal of latitude to do what I think is right on the basis of policy and interests, rather than just what party philosophy seems to be. So I'm very comfortable where I am."

Nelson is up for reelection in 2012, leading to some suggestions that his voting record may be aimed more at protecting his reelection effort than anything else.

"I'm an independent-minded person, so some folks back in Washington have a difficulty in understanding that you can be independent-minded," he said. "Because this is a partisan town, and when you approach things in a bipartisan way, you don't fit into the mold or the category that they have all set for you."
Link


Home Front: Politix
Nebraska's Nelson Becomes First Democrat to Oppose Kagan for Supreme Court
2010-08-01
Democratic Senator Ben Cornhusker Kickback Nelson of Nebraska said he will vote against confirming Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, becoming the first in his party to announce opposition.

Also today, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire said he will vote for President Barack Obama's nominee, the fifth Republican to do so.

Nelson said he had heard "concerns" from people in Nebraska about Kagan. "Her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded," Nelson said. "Therefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan's nomination."

Still, Nelson said he would oppose any filibuster of Kagan's nomination and favor allowing an "up or down vote." It takes 60 votes to force a final vote. With 59 votes controlled by Democrats and five Republicans in support, Kagan's nomination would have enough to end a Republican filibuster.

In announcing his support for Kagan, Gregg said she "has pledged that she will exercise judicial restraint and decide each case that comes before her based on the law, with objectivity and without regard to her personal views."

"Ms. Kagan and I may have different political philosophies, but I believe that the confirmation process should be based on qualifications, not ideological litmus tests or political affiliation," Gregg said.

Republican Senators Lindsey Endangered South Carolina RINO Graham of South Carolina, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine also have announced their support for Kagan. The Senate plans to vote on confirmation next week.
Link


Home Front: Culture Wars
Congress Set To Vote On DADT
2010-05-27
Congress is headed toward landmark votes on whether to allow gays to serve openly in the military.

The House was expected to vote as early as Thursday on a proposal by Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat who served in the Iraq war, that would repeal the 1993 law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

The legislation -- a compromise struck with the White House and agreed to by the Defense Department -- would give the military as much time as it wants before lifting the ban.

Under the bill, the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must first certify that the new policy won't hurt the military's ability to fight.

"We need to get this done, and we need to get it done now," said Murphy.

Also as early as Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee was expected to take up an identical measure, proposed by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.

As in the House, the Senate provision would be tucked into a broader bill, authorizing hundreds of billions of dollars for the troops, that is expected to win broad support.

Supporters said this week the Senate panel had enough votes to pass the bill after key holdouts, including Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, announced they would swing behind it.

"In a military which values honesty and integrity, this policy encourages deceit," Nelson said.

Nelson said a provision in the bill giving the military the power to decide on the details of implementing the policy was key to his support because it "removes politics from the process" and ensures repeal is "consistent with military readiness and effectiveness."

Advocates hoped the momentum in the Senate would carry over to the House, where several conservative Democrats -- including Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi -- threatened to oppose the massive defense spending bill if it included the repeal provision.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he supports repeal but would prefer that Congress wait to vote until he can talk to the troops and chart a path forward. A study he ordered is due Dec. 1.

"With Congress having indicated that is not possible, the secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

The service chiefs this week urged the Senate panel not to vote until the Pentagon could complete its survey of military personnel.

"The value of surveying the thoughts of Marines and their families is that it signals to my Marines that their opinions matter," Marine Commandant James Conway wrote in a letter to Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the panel's top Republican.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation's top uniformed officer and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told graduating Air Force Academy cadets on Wednesday that they need to support a changing military.

Mullen didn't speak directly about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But the chairman, who has said that the policy unfairly forces troops to lie, said service members should question convention.

"Few things are more important to an organization than people who have the moral courage to question the direction in which the organization is headed and then the strength of character to support whatever final decisions are made," Mullen said.
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More