1) U+Me=Us (Senate Calculus)
Nate does some interesting analysis on swing voting senators and what it means for passing filibuster-proof legislation with 60 votes. He profiles the 12 most liberal GOPers and the 12 most conservative Dems. What piqued my interest is that some of the machinations that Obama went through right after the election, make a lot of sense in the context of looking at this list.
- Obama solidified Lieberman's vote by signaling to the Senate Dems not strip his chair away. In simple terms this got Obama a vote for most non-national security issues. He probably thinks he can balance that out by having Hagel on his side, who is much more in line with Obama on national security than anywhere else. So combine Hagel and Lieberman and you may get essentially 1 party-line vote.
- I had posited earlier that Obama's meeting with McCain was Obama trying to get McCain to be his point man with the GOPers in the Senate. But Nate brings up an interesting point, that calling up Napolitano to be DHS secretary effectively gives McCain another 6 years in the Senate relatively uncontested, because Napolitano would have run for his spot in 2010 and probably had at least even chances of beating him. Now he has a cakewalk. Nothing in life is free, least of all politics, and add to it that the Napolitano pick doesn't really make sense from a qualifications standpoint, and what we may have here is some quid pro quo. I truly believe that the McCain running for President (and include the past 4 years of legislating in that) does not share the values of the real McCain. In addition, McCain now needs to repair his legacy given his performance in the campaign. I think he could be a very valuable asset in the Senate for an Obama administration. Which makes me think that the gesture to Lieberman, his BFF in the Senate, makes even more sense seen through that lens.
The troubling news today is that 133 votes have gone missing in Minneapolis. Which would mean a net loss of 33 to 47 votes for Franken, especially disappointing considering the net gain of 37 votes for him yesterday after votes were found. There's some confusion over how those votes are missing, and whether or not they were double counted in the first place. Though it seems the late updates think that's not what happened.
3) Obama Cabinet Yogurt: Liberals on the Bottom
Obama's rumored choice for US Trade Representative, an appointed position that is Cabinet level but not technically in the Cabinet (don't ask me what that means exactly) is not being received well by big business but is being well received by the preeminent progressive trade blogger, David Sirota. At issue are some statements he made regretting his vote for NAFTA.
What this makes me wonder is if we're in store for a round of progressive appointments to lower Cabinet positions after the past round of center-center-right picks for the top level positions. Which goes along with the theory that some have been kicking around about Obama putting a centerist face on what would be a progressive legislation push in order to make it easier for the liberal pill to be swallowed. Kind of the equivalent of Bush appointing minorities to the top cabinet positions to keep up appearances, whilst all along pushing policy forward that completetly marginalizes minority issues. What also may be in play is that sequence is a very important part of political strategy. If Obama were to come in and his first 3 appointments were ultra-lefty liberals, the GOP would be up in arms, and no matter how conservative his next appointees were, the first impression would be set. In the current sequence of appointments, he could tact considerably left and not many people would notice because the narrative has already been written about his top 3 picks. While it's a form of triangulation, it's probably the best thing a progressive could hope for absent seeing any policy enaction.
4) Supremely stupid
I can't believe this is true, but it's in the Tribune, so it seems legit: The Supreme Court is considering hearing a case of a lawsuit claiming Obama is not a US citizen and therefore disqualified to be President.
5) There Will Be No Blood
Obama is walking back on a campaign pledge to pursue windfall profit taxes on oil companies, due to low oil prices. An obvious move given the oil markets, but also a lucky break the way I see it, as windfall profit taxes were a campaign ploy and a terrible, terrible idea. They make no sense from a fairness perspective (before this year, the finance sector had profit margins at least double of oil, and the oil sector has pretty average profit margins, it's volume of sales where they top out), have overreaching consequences for capitalism in general, and would waste tremendous political capital in an industry that could be changed with smart, politically-viable policy proposals (e.g. Gore's 1993 revenue-neutral idea of a gas tax offset by an income tax break and EITC expansion). If they were going to attempt to tax profits of corporations, I always thought the best way to propose it would be as an excess-profits tax which is designed to capture profits due to wartime. Since we're in 2 wars, it can be framed as a patriotic duty of corporations, one with historical precdence as it was enacted in WWI, WWII and the Korean War. However, given the state of the economy now, the time for such policy has passed.
Posts
1 comment:
I would like to think that more progressives will show up in next-tier positions. In some ways, they are actually more important as those are the jobs that do much of the actual work, screen info, serve as gatekeepers, etc. I also think that progressive folks in these positions might make a big difference in rebuilding some of the less-prominent agencies like Labor. After all if all the attention is on treasury, foreign affairs and health care, the other folks may be able to work in relative anonymity.
However, I will believe it when I see it.
Post a Comment