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


Economy
Congress Talking Grand Plan to Avoid Shutdown
2011-07-17
As part of the deal being discussed to raise the debt ceiling, leaders on Capitol Hill are forming an especially powerful congressional committee that would be charged with drawing up a new "grand bargain," possibly by the end of the year.
Gimme what I want right now, and I'll listen to your needs next year. Maybe even this year!
Key elements for a big deal remain in place. Obama has been clear that he wants one and has started making the case to skeptical factions of his own party that getting the nation's fiscal house in order is in their best interest. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) also remains committed to an ambitious plan, having told his troops that he didn't become speaker to do small things. And, perhaps most critically, the markets are demanding it. The credit rating agency Standard & Poor's says Washington must agree to reduce the debt by $4 trillion over 10 years to avert a downgrade.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)said "Every serious economic analysis tells us we've reached the danger zone. And just kicking the can down the road? That can't be. We're better than that. We've got to be better than that."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who has emerged as the leader of this contingent, has argued against such a deal. But his views may be shifting along with those of some rank-and-file House Republicans whose imaginations have been captivated by the idea of slicing as much as $5 trillion out of the federal budget over the next decade.

In public at least, conservatives are maintaining that the answer is to "cut, cap and balance" -- passing a balanced-budget amendment that would cap federal spending at 18 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, down from its current 24 percent.
There's an idea I could get behind.
The House is expected to vote Tuesday on such an amendment, but it has scant odds of getting the needed supermajority in the Senate. Democrats say an 18 percent cap in a country with an aging population and rising health-care costs would lead to ruinous cuts to their friends, glad-handers and contributors.

Under the stopgap plan that will never be passed, Congress would allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling in three increments totaling $2.5 trillion over the next year. Each time, Congress would vote on a resolution of disapproval, allowing Republicans to blame the increases on Obama. To get backing from House Republicans, McConnell and Reid are adding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. And they are drawing up the committee, with six lawmakers from each party, which would report by the end of the year.

The committee would resemble the fiscal tax raising commission chaired last year by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, minus presidential appointees. But its path would be easier: The panel will require only a simple majority to report a plan to Congress, it would be protected from Senate filibuster and it would not be subject to amendment, similar to the system used for closing military bases.

"We all keep coming back to the same basic parameters. The Bowles-Simpson plan really laid out how you reach $4 trillion. And there aren't a lot of things they didn't consider," Durbin said. "There are only so many moving parts here."
Even if you consider all of the parts, and quit making some inviolable.
The commission recommended saving $3.8 trillion by raising the retirement age for Social Security, slashing spending across government and wiping out more than $100 billion a year in popular tax breaks, including the tax deduction for mortgage interest and the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health insurance. It recommended larger Pentagon cuts and revenue increases than the White House sought this month.
Tax and spend. Whotta concept! Why didn't I think of that?
Reid has been outspoken about the need to protect Social Security benefits. He is also eager to avoid cuts to Medicare that would undermine Democrats' ability to campaign against the House GOP's plan to eventually replace Medicare with a system of subsidies to buy private coverage.

Obama countered last week that Democrats should want a major fiscal deal, because it would make it easier to win approval for spending on their priorities in the next few years.
Is 'Everything I want' a 'priority'?
"If you care about making investments in our kids and making investments in our infrastructure and making investments in basic research," he said, "then you should want our fiscal house in order so that every time we propose a new initiative somebody doesn't just throw up their hands and say, Ah, more big spending, more government."
Actually, I agree with that part. But in this case, it's still part of Obama's scheming - a shifty new direction.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Sen. Kent Conrad (D) to retire
2011-01-18
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) announced his retirement today, leaving his seat up for grabs in 2012. Unlike Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s retirement announcement last week, Conrad’s announcement sets up a strong possibility of a flip from D to R. Republicans crushed Democrats in the state’s 2010 elections.
Link


-Lurid Crime Tales-
Countrywide Dealt With More Lawmakers and Staffers Than Previously Known
2010-07-16
U.S. senators or Senate employees received 30 loans--far more than had previously been known--under a controversial lending program at Countrywide Financial Corp. that provided cut-rate terms to favored borrowers.
Yet more charitable outreach on behalf of the Benevolent Association for the Welfare of Insiders ...
The information is contained in a letter sent to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics by Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), who has been spearheading the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's investigation into Countrywide's so-called VIP mortgage program.

No specific loan recipients were named in the letter. But Mr. Issa's letter said borrowers on a dozen loans listed their place of employment as the office of "Senator Robert Bennett." Available public records don't indicate that Sen. Bennett, a Utah Republican and member of the Senate Banking Committee, received a Countrywide home loan.

Sens. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) and Kent Conrad (D., N.D.), have previously been identified among the high-profile individuals who received such loans. Both senators have denied wrongdoing. Until the Issa letter, no other senators or their staff members had been linked to the VIP loan program.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Bennett didn't respond to questions. Sen. Bennett recently lost his primary election battle and will be leaving the Senate in January after 18 years.

A spokesman for the Senate Ethics panel declined to comment. A spokesman for Bank of America Corp., which in 2008 acquired Countrywide, said the company had cooperated with the investigation by the House committee.

The VIP program operated during the housing boom earlier this decade, often writing mortgages with terms more favorable than those available to the general public. An estimated 28,000 loans were made, mostly to private parties such as Countrywide employees or their friends and relatives.

The House Oversight panel, where Mr. Issa is the ranking Republican member, is probing whether such loans were issued to public officials in an attempt to influence them. Last year, the committee subpoenaed VIP loan records from Bank of America.

In his letter dated July 13, Mr. Issa wrote that on seven loans not tied to Mr. Bennett's office, the borrowers listed their place of employment as "U.S. Senator." Another 11 listed the "U.S. Senate." In response to questions, a spokesman for Mr. Issa said the House committee didn't receive the names of the borrowers from Bank of America.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Dems putting off passing 2011 budget until after elections; too busy passing beer resolutions
2010-05-20
The chance that the majority Democrats will pass a budget this year is "fading," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Tuesday.

He is pessimistic because House Democrats don't know whether they want to pass a resolution that would officially acknowledge the certainty of big deficits. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and other Democrats have indicated that would be a tough vote in an election year.

Conrad said the Senate was getting "mixed signals" from the House and time is running out, not least because the Senate has a packed legislative agenda.
Link


Home Front: Politix
DC Snow Chills Global Warming Votes
2010-02-12
Record snowfall has buried Washington — and along with it, buried the chances of passing global warming legislation this year. Cars are stranded in banks of snow along the streets of the federal capital, and in the corridors of Congress, climate legislation also has been put on ice.

Voters are mostly concerned with jobs and the economy. Global warming is at the bottom of their list. And now, on top of that, the paralyzing snowfalls have made the prospect of winning support for a climate bill this year even less likely.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said the blizzards that have shut down Congress have made it more difficult to argue that global warming is an imminent danger. “It makes it more challenging for folks not taking time to review the scientific arguments,' said Bingaman, who as the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has jurisdiction over energy and climate change issues.

Some Senate Democrats dismiss the role snow has played in the debate, but they acknowledge there is growing consensus that global warming legislation will not pass in the 111th Congress.

“I don't think that the climate change with cap-and-trade is going to pass this year,' said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who as Budget chairman is putting together Congress's annual estimate of how much revenue the government will collect next year and in future years.

Senior White House political adviser David Axelrod said: “If a consensus can be reached, we want to support that, but this is clearly an issue that Republicans and Democrats are going to have to do together. It is not something that one party or the other party can do.'
Whoa, Dave! Cats and dogs, living together?

At the start of 2009, Obama hoped to fund a major middle-class tax cut with the income from a cap-and-trade regulatory program that would have charged companies for pollution permits. But hardly anyone in the Senate is counting on new revenue from a cap-and-trade program anytime soon.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which approved a cap-and-trade proposal last year, acknowledged that there are not yet 60 votes for an energy reform and cap-and-trade proposal.

But even the most ardent proponents of curbing greenhouse gas emissions sense their backs are up against the wall. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who is leading a bipartisan effort to put together a compromise on energy and climate change legislation, has exhorted allies to act with greater urgency.

“You know, if Tea Party folks go out there and get angry because they think their taxes are too high, for God's sakes, a lot of citizens ought to be angry about the fact that they're being killed and our planet is being injured by what is happening on a daily basis by the way we provide our power and our fuel and by the old practices we have,' Kerry told his allies.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has called moving the bill a “headache.'
Link


Economy
Political Risk: The Bernanke Nomination and the Return of American Populism
2010-01-27
"Anybody who says we don't have to do anything, we can just keep on doing what we're doing, has got their head in the sand. Social Security and Medicare are both cash negative today. They are both headed for insolvency. Those who say we don't have to do anything, they are guaranteeing a disaster."

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)

In the last presidential election, the issues before the country were President George Bush and the war in Iraq vs. the promise of change via a young and untested Democratic Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. The Federal Reserve and the banking industry were not even factors in the election.

Today the Federal Reserve and the bailouts for the largest banks are the central issues in American politics. The upset defeats of Democrats John Corzine in New Jersey and Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, following the earlier Democratic loss in Virginia, were driven by the public's growing disgust with the management of the economy.

The 2010 elections promise to be the most contentious and significant since the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828. For those of you who missed that particular episode in American history, Jackson was the first American leader who was actually chosen by popular vote and not selected by the nation's founders or their offspring. And one of the key issues which drove the hero of New Orleans into the presidency was popular anger at the central bank.

The 2010 mid-term elections and the general election in 2012 likewise promise to see the unseating of an entrenched elite and the start of an extended period of political instability in America. Below we discuss why a "yes" vote for Ben Bernanke may doom members of the Senate in both parties who are up for re-election to defeat in November.

The White House is telling members of the Senate that a vote in support of Ben Bernanke will not be a political liability. Indeed, in meetings and telephone calls, President Obama is urging a "yes" vote on Bernanke as a way to support the recovery of the US economy. The White House also claims that the defeat of Bernanke will be bad for the financial markets.


But wait a minute. Fewer than 1 in 5 Americans support the re-nomination of Chairman Bernanke, a remarkable poll statistic since few members of Congress much less most Americans have any idea about the job responsibilities of Bernanke and other Fed governors. More, Chairman Bernanke was a Bush appointee, and then reappointed by Obama, so he is associated with two unpopular political figures. His confirmation is being managed by Linda Robertson, the former chief lobbyist of Enron. Chairman Bernanke is toxic measured in any political terms and is perceived as more friendly to Wall Street than Main Street by a 2 to 1 margin.

A vote for Bernanke is an endorsement of all financial policies undertaken from 2007-2009. These issues are not going away, and will remain salient for the foreseeable future, especially as credit remains tight and the real economy continues to shrink. Indeed, the negative impact of the Bernanke years could doom President Obama and many incumbent members of the House and Senate. And while the markets might initially react negatively to a defeat of Chairman Bernanke's re-nomination, the impact of his continued service at the Fed in the weeks and months ahead may be far more problematic, both for global financial markets and political careers.
Balance at the link.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Departure of ND senator unsettle Senate Democrats
2010-01-06
North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan stunned fellow Democrats when he decided not to seek re-election this fall and swung open a race that Republicans are convinced will help the GOP dent the Democrats' fragile majority in the Senate.

Dorgan's announcement Tuesday means Democrats will have to defend open Senate seats in at least four states in what could be a challenging election year. Anti-incumbent sentiment is brewing among voters, and the party in power typically gets blamed for the county's troubles.

North Dakota Republican Gov. John Hoeven — who has won his last two elections with more than 70 percent of the vote — appeared ready to jump into the 2010 race. The three-term governor had shrugged off questions about challenging Dorgan, but said Tuesday he was considering a run "very seriously."

"I expect we'll announce our intentions here within a couple of weeks," Hoeven, 52, told The Associated Press.

Dorgan, who was first elected to the Senate in 1992 after serving a dozen years in the House, said he reached the decision after discussing his future with his family over the holidays. Dorgan, 67, said he "began to wrestle with the question of whether making a commitment to serve in the Senate seven more years was the right thing to do."

"Although I still have a passion for public service and enjoy my work in the Senate, I have other interests and I have other things I would like to pursue outside of public life," he said in a statement.

North Dakota Republicans were jubilant, saying they were confident Hoeven would run and could overcome any Democratic challenger in the fall.

"I believe this seals the deal," said Kevin Cramer, a Republican state public service commissioner who is considering running for the U.S. House.

Democrats hold an effective 60-40 majority in the Senate — enough to break Republican filibusters — if they and the chamber's two independents, who align themselves with Democrats, stick together.

North Dakota's three-person congressional delegation has been solidly Democratic since Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., defeated incumbent Republican Mark Andrews in 1986. Republicans have held the governorship since 1992 and controlled the state Legislature since 1995.

Dorgan had been preparing for his fourth Senate race for almost two years. He had hired a former aide in 2008 to lay the groundwork for a campaign and raised $3.9 million through last September — a princely sum in North Dakota politics.

Early polling showed Dorgan trailing Hoeven in a hypothetical contest, and Democrats expected a competitive race if the matchup materialized.

Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy is a possible Senate candidate, and Democratic activists believe Heidi Heitkamp, a former Democratic attorney general and tax commissioner, could run. Heitkamp did not respond Tuesday to phone and e-mails seeking comment. She lost to Hoeven in the governor's race in 2000. A Facebook page set up by a Heitkamp supporter collected well over 200 supporters in less than three hours Tuesday night.

Pomeroy issued a statement praising Dorgan's public service but didn't mention whether he planned to run for Senate. A Pomeroy spokeswoman said he was unavailable for comment.

President Barack Obama said in a statement that Dorgan gave "30 years of devoted service to the U.S. Congress" and was a champion for family farmers and praised his work to improve health care on American Indian reservations. Dorgan is chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

Conrad said in a statement that Dorgan "produced important and lasting results for North Dakota" and said he expected Dorgan would be in line for a future Cabinet appointment in Obama's administration.

Many Democratic incumbents could face challenges in 2010 amid high unemployment rates, concerns about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and anger at incumbents.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada was considered in serious trouble, and five-term Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was expected to announce Wednesday that he won't seek re-election, according to officials who would speak only on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement. The other seats vacated by Democrats are in Delaware and Illinois.

Republicans are defending open seats in Ohio, Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Kansas.

Dorgan's decision also could have ramifications for another of Obama's top priorities — climate and energy legislation.

Representing a large oil and coal-producing state, Dorgan opposes the bill backed by the White House and Democratic leaders that would put a limit on heat-trapping pollution and would allow companies to swap valuable emissions permits. Dorgan instead has pushed an energy bill that would boost renewable energy production and oil drilling.

With no re-election race, Dorgan could become even more of a wild card on the issue.
Link


Home Front: Politix
If the Price Is Right
2010-01-06
This health care pork round all started with Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who bragged about receiving a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for her state (what some are calling the Second Louisiana Purchase), though it turned out that it was only $100 million. (Isn't that a relief?)

Then there was the now infamous Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who gained his 15 minutes of yuletide fame when he sold out his critical 60th vote to pass Obamacare by accepting a governmental bribe that covers Nebraska's Medicare expansion costs to the tune of $100 million over the next 10 years.

Obama had told the AARP back on July 28 that he considered Medicare Advantage an example of "wasteful spending," so you could bet Obamacare would reflect his commentary. And in a statement released after the Senate's health care bill passed Dec. 24, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., confessed that he had a sweetheart deal made behind closed doors: "I was able to pass an amendment to the bill that excluded some 800,000 policyholders all across Florida from cuts to Medicare Advantage."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., finagled $600 million in additional Medicaid benefits for his state over 10 years.

Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota secured additional Medicare payments for their rural hospitals.

Referring to the increase in Medicare payments to eight medium-sized hospitals in his state, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa -- chairman of the Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- openly confessed: "I fully admit that I was part of it. I put something in the bill that was particular to the state of Iowa. Yes, I did."

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a primary architect of the legislation, secured extra Medicare benefits for select Montana residents.

The manager's amendment singles out Democratic Sens. Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye's home state of Hawaii as the only state to receive a disproportionate share hospital extension.

At the last minute, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., inserted a $100 million kickback in the bill to construct a new hospital for the University of Connecticut.

Most important is this question Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, posed to his colleagues: Who will pay for these special deals? "The answer," he said, "is simple: every other state in the union."

And all the costs haven't even been calculated yet because the bribery isn't over. The House and Senate leaders will hold private negotiations this month to merge the Senate's $871 billion health care bill and the House's $1 trillion bill.
Link


Home Front: Politix
California's scary sneak preview
2010-01-03
We Californians pride ourselves on the crystal-ball quality of our state. Auto emissions regulations, the tech boom and bust, Ronald Reagan, Hispanic immigration, the anti-tax revolt, the mortgage bubble, the struggle for gay rights, most movies, the popularity of Richard Nixon, the unpopularity of Richard Nixon, plastic surgery, and Tiger Woods's marital problems were all tested in the Golden State before being released to audiences nationwide.

The next likely item on that list is not a happy one, however. California is in a total fiscal crisis. It's had to slash state services to the bone and will have to cut further.
Probably because state services haven't actually been cut anywhere near the bone yet.
It's gutted the University of California and lost its credit rating. David Paterson, the governor of New York, casually mentioned that he thinks California might default on its debt. That's bad enough, as it could drag down the national recovery. But what's worse is that this picture is probably coming to a theater near, well, all of us.

California's fiscal crisis will look sadly familiar to close watchers of the national checkbook. That's because California is not having a fiscal crisis so much as a political crisis. The trigger may have been the recession, but the root cause was written into the state constitution, and it was visible long before the housing boom went bust.

In California, passing a budget or raising taxes requires a two-thirds majority in both the state's Assembly and its Senate. That need not pose a problem, at least in theory. The state has labored under that restriction for a long time, and handled it with fair grace. But as the historian Louis Warren argues, the vicious political polarization that's emerged in modern times has made compromise more difficult.

All of this, however, has been visible for a long time. Polarization isn't a new story, nor were California's budget problems and constitutional handicap. Yet the state let its political dysfunctions go unaddressed. Most assumed that the legislature's bickering would be cast aside in the face of an emergency. But the intransigence of California's legislators has not softened despite the spiraling unemployment, massive deficits and absence of buoyant growth on the horizon. Quite the opposite, in fact. The minority party spied opportunity in fiscal collapse. If the majority failed to govern the state, then the voters would turn on them, or so the theory went.

That raises a troubling question: What happens when one of the two major parties does not see a political upside in solving problems and has the power to keep those problems from being solved?

If all this is sounding familiar, that's because it is. Congress doesn't need a two-thirds majority to get anything done. It needs a three-fifths majority, but that's not usually available, either. Ever since Newt Gingrich partnered with Bob Dole to retake the Congress atop a successful strategy of relentless and effective obstructionism, Congress has been virtually incapable of doing anything difficult because the minority party will either block it or run against it, or both. And make no mistake: Congress will need to do hard things, and soon. In the short term, unemployment is likely to remain high and the economy is likely to remain weak unless Congress can muster another round of serious stimulus spending. The economist Karl Case, co-founder of the famed Case-Shiller housing index, now believes that earlier optimism about our economic recovery -- which he shared -- was misplaced. "The probability is very high of a serious double dip like 1982," he told the New York Times. The housing market seems to be sagging again, and the government's interventions -- not just the stimulus but also relaxed standards at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Authority -- are set to end.

Further out, the long-term deficit problem, which is driven largely by health-care costs, is startling. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that debt will reach 300 percent of gross domestic product come 2050 -- and that estimate might be optimistic. But solutions seem unlikely. No one who watched the health-care bill wind its way through the legislative process believes Congress is ready for the much harder and more controversial cost-cutting that will be necessary in the future.

Similarly, Sens. Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg recently suggested a bipartisan deficit commission that would reach a consensus on the budget and report back to a grateful Congress. On Tuesday, a Wall Street Journal editorial showed the conservative interest in such compromises: Republicans should "agree to a deficit commission only if it takes tax increases off the table," it said, reminding wavering Republicans that "President George H.W. Bush renounced his no-new-taxes pledge and made himself a one-termer."

These two problems get to the essential difficulties confronting the nation: There is no doubt that minority parties generally profit in elections when the unemployment rate is high. But given that reality, what incentive do they have to help the majority party lower the unemployment rate? Further out, there is no doubt that the majority party has an incentive to prevent a fiscal crisis on its watch. But what incentive does the minority party have to sign on to the screamingly painful decisions that will avert crisis? In another system of government, that wouldn't much matter. In our system of government, which requires a supermajority in the Senate for most projects, it matters a lot. On Jan. 20, for instance, the Senate is expected to vote on raising the debt ceiling. Generally, this is a bipartisan vote, as the debt is a bipartisan creation. This year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly told Majority Leader Harry Reid that if he wants an increase in the ceiling, he owns it and needs to find the votes for it. That's the sort of budgetary brinkmanship that brings us back to California.

The lesson of California is that a political system too dysfunctional to avert crisis is also too dysfunctional to respond to it. The difficulty is not economic so much as it is political; solving our fiscal problem is a mixture of easy arithmetic and hard choices, but until we solve our political problem, both are out of reach. And we can't assume that an emergency, or the prospect of one, will solve the political problem for us. If you want to see how that movie ends, just look west, as we have so many times before.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Senate Democrats to W.H.: Drop cap-and-trade
2009-12-28
Bruised by the health care debate and worried about what 2010 will bring, moderate Senate Democrats are urging the White House to give up now on any effort to pass a cap-and-trade bill next year.

"I am communicating that in every way I know how," says Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of at least half a dozen Democrats who've told the White House or their own leaders that it's time to jettison the centerpiece of their party's plan to curb global warming.

The creation of an economy-wide market for greenhouse gas emissions is as the heart of the climate bill that cleared the House earlier this year. But with the health care fight still raging and the economy still hurting, moderate Democrats have little appetite for another sweeping initiative -- especially another one likely to pass with little or no Republican support.

"We need to deal with the phenomena of global warming, but I think it's very difficult in the kind of economic circumstances we have right now," said Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, who called passage of any economy-wide cap and trade "unlikely."

At a meeting about health care last month, moderates pushed to table climate legislation in favor of a jobs bill that would be an easier sell during the 2010 elections, according to Senate Democratic aides.

"I'd just as soon see that set aside until we work through the economy," said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). "What we don't want to do is have anything get in the way of working to resolve the problems with the economy."

"Climate change in an election year has very poor prospects," added Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). "I've told that to the leadership."

At least some in the Democratic leadership appear to be listening. Asked about cap-and-trade last week, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "At this point I'd like to see a complete bill but we have to be realistic."
Link


Home Front: Politix
Sen. Conrad Suggests That People Who Don't Believe in Civilian Trials for Terrorists Should Leave America and 'Go Somewhere Else'
2009-11-26
(CNSNews.com) -- Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told CNSNews.com that civilian courts are well-suited to prosecute al Qaeda terrorists and that "if people don't believe in our system, maybe they ought to go somewhere else."

Conrad also dismissed a question about the rights of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields and the rules of evidence in terms of a civilian court trial as not serious.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Nov. 13 that five suspects in the 9/11 attacks would be tried in a civilian court in New York City instead of facing a military trial.

On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Conrad: "We're going to have a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If our troops--the evidence against him is going to be found in Afghanistan, there on the battlefield--if our troops need to enter a house and they think that there's evidence there, should they have to establish probable cause and get a search warrant from a judge first?"

Conrad said: "You're not being serious about these questions, are you?"
Link



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