Needlenose

Alan K. Ota reports for Congressional Quarterly today:

An early partisan skirmish is likely in the House next week, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to move a rules package that would curb the GOP’s ability to derail legislation through a parliamentary maneuver it used on occasion over the past two years.

. . . A senior House Democratic aide said Pelosi, D-Calif., had not made a final decision on whether to move the two proposed rules changes when the 111th Congress convenes Tuesday, Jan. 6.

But Democratic leaders are definitely taking a hard look at preventing the minority party from scoring easy political points with motions to recommit a bill to committee with instructions to make contentious language changes and then report it back to the House “promptly.” In the outgoing Congress, “promptly’’ has meant an indefinite hold, because committees were not willing to adopt poison-pill amendments sponsored by the minority.

. . . “Republicans will still get a chance to make motions to recommit. But they would not be allowed to just kill bills in a way that was never intended,” said one Democratic aide.

This development was hailed as a breakthrough by behavioral psychologists studying learned helplessness, who look forward to analyzing Pelosi’s recent diet and other environmental influences to see if a similar shift in thinking can be provoked in Senate majority leader Harry Reid.

The coming Congress will be a case where those who pray for bipartisan peace are well advised to prepare for partisan war.  The Republicans clearly remember that they derailed the last Democratic president who had House and Senate majorities of his party simply by using every obstructive technique available to them.  Telling the GOP that this isn’t 1994 will do little good if they see the same weapons lying within reach — as the last two elections have shown, they’re very poor at seeing the downside to staying the course.

At a time when the country desperately needs action, Congress (and the incoming president) would be smart to realize that winning the cooperation of enough Republicans to succeed will be easier if you dismantle in advance the tools they would use to defeat you.

(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)

Over the holiday I was thinking how nice it would be to ‘get over’ the Bush years by having a fitting send-off for him before the inaguration - what about having a big shoe-in on 1/19?  Maybe we could do one in each big city, organize it through meetups?

I’m picturing having some big effigies of Shrubya and Dick.  Everybody could bring some old shoes from their closets and we could all fling our shoes at the effigies.  Sure, it wouldn’t be as gratifying as flinging them at the real guys, but there is a much lower chance of getting shot by an overzealous Secret Service guy.

What do y’all thinK?

To people worried about the seeming centrist tilt (um, wait, can you tilt to the center?) of many of president-elect Barack Obama’s appointees, this morning’s announcement that progressive economist Jared Bernstein has been named as VP Joe Biden’s top economic adviser should be good news.

Yes, I know that folks like Atrios, Matt Yglesias, and others have raised questions about just how much clout Bernstein will have as the vice president’s economic adviser, rather than one of the familiar posts formulating policy for the top guy, but I think that in some ways, this may be more of a feature than a bug.

It seems noteworthy that the Obama-Biden team created this position for Bernstein, apart from the established organizational chart.  The strategy might be to keep Bernstein free of administrative responsibilities and turf battles, able to survey the whole range of economic policymaking and express his views as he sees fit.

Given that he’ll be able to do so not only directly in group sessions but via Biden as the latter meets individually with Obama, that could be a fairly influential role.  Anyone who’s seen Dick Cheney use the VP office’s lack of official duties (or restraints) to informally shape an entire administration should be pleased that it could work in our favor this time around.

Oh, and one last note.  SusanG wrote at Daily Kos that:

Bernstein posted quite a few diaries here, mostly in the summer of 2006, focusing for the most part on the debilitating effects of conservative economic ideology–or what he called “Your [sic] On Your Own” (YOYO) economics.

That phrase turned up in Obama’s campaign rhetoric in the spring (and his nomination acceptance speech) as a retort to Bushites’ pretensions of creating a so-called ownership society (“What it really means is that you’re on your own”).   And Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity cites comments by National Economic Council nominee Larry Summers to claim that Bernstein “seems to have pulled some of the centrist economists towards his point-of-view, rather than vice versa.”

So if you’re writing off Bernstein as a token liberal whose job will consist of being ignored, you might want to think again.  (I hope.)

(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)

I guess we have to credit the genius of the free market — the same entrepreneurial spirit that brought us tranches of collateralized debt obligations, and Enron’s energy derivatives before that — for this innovation, reported yesterday by the New York Times:

For these economically uncertain times, the UnitedHealth Group has a “first of its kind” product: the right to buy an individual health policy at some point in the future even if you become sick.

Called UnitedHealth Continuity, the product is not actual medical insurance, but is aimed at people who may have insurance now but are worried they may lose it — and may not be able to obtain replacement insurance on their own. They may expect to retire early, for example, before they qualify for Medicare. Or they are worried about the possibility of losing their job and their health coverage.

People who are already sick will generally not be eligible for the new product. Those who do pass a medical review, will pay 20 percent each month of the current premium on an individual policy to reserve the right to be insured under the plan at some point in the future.

“What this product is designed to do, for a very modest premium, is to essentially protect your insurability for the future,” said Richard A. Collins, the president of UnitedHealth’s individual insurance unit, who says he is the first policy holder. His monthly fee is $50.

Some health policy experts question whether UnitedHealth Continuity is a good way for consumers to spend their money. . . . if changes to the health insurance system do occur under the Obama administration, they say, UnitedHealth’s new product may become obsolete.

“As an individual, you’re betting against health reform,” said Peter V. Lee, the executive director of national health policy for the Pacific Business Group on Health, a California group of employers who provide health coverage for their workers.

Dr. Don McCanne of Physicians for a National Health Plan snarks:

In a plan that only the innovative private marketplace sector could devise, the UnitedHealth Group, without providing any insurance benefit whatsoever, has created a way of selling us the the right to health care at some time in the future, but a right that you can purchase only if you are healthy and don’t need care.

I suppose that the punch line here is that by buying one of these pseudo-policies, you’re not only “betting against health reform,” as Peter Lee says, you’re helping fund UNH’s ability to fight against it.  Corporate creativity in its highest form, you might say.

Could you imagine King George the Compassionate Conservative doing this?

By ‘change’ the Dem leadership apparently meant a return to Status Quo Ante.  Ante Shrubya, anyway.  Looks like the new cabinet is going to be composed of reheated Clinton Admin left-overs.

Worse, guess who not only stays in the Dem Caucus, but who also gets to keep his plum Homeland Security Chairmanship?  Loserman.

Guess we’ll need to keep the site going, I’m sure there will be plenty to rail about over the next four years!

*Update*  Bad enough he is stuffing the Cabinet with Clintonites, but it keeps getting worse.  Now he’s adding Tom “I *heart* BigAg” Daschle to the Cabinet.  Jeez.  Come on Obama, time to “Move On” and get some change agents there.  I’m starting to lose Hope.

In 2004, when asked about his flight-suit “Victory in Iraq” speech in front of the Mission Accomplished Banner, Shrubya said he had no regrets - “”Absolutely . . . You bet I’d do it again.”  Now a lame duck, apparently the regrets over the banner speech have caught up with him.  I thought Laura was even stoopider than Shrubya, but it turns out she is Marge to his Homer:

“I regret saying some things I shouldn’t have said,” Bush told CNN’s Heidi Collins when asked to reflect on his regrets over his two terms as president. “Like ‘dead or alive’ and ‘bring ‘em on.’ My wife reminded me that, hey, as president of the United States, be careful what you say.”

In one of the Shrubya/Kerry debates, didn’t Shrubya also issue some sort of blanket statement about how he didn’t regret anything he had done up until that point, or something like that?

Short of committing sepukku, there is very little that Shrubya could do that I would consider sufficient attonement for the hell he has unleashed on the world.  Fuck you asshole, I hope you choke on a pretzel or drown in your pool.

Yesterday, Former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote a piece for TPM Cafe titled The Mini Depression and the Maximum-Strength Remedy in which he argued that the only way out of the current mini-depression is a bold government infrastructure program:

So the crucial questions become (1) how much will the government have to spend to get the economy back on track? and (2) what sort of spending will have the biggest impact on jobs and incomes?

The answer to the first question is “a lot.” Given the magnitude of the mess and the amount of underutilized capacity in the economy– people who are or will soon be unemployed, those who are underemployed, factories shuttered, offices empty, trucks and containers idled — government may have to spend $600 or $700 billion next year to reverse the downward cycle we’re in.

The answer to the second question is mostly “infrastructure” — repairing roads and bridges, levees and ports; investing in light rail, electrical grids, new sources of energy, more energy conservation.

…

Government spending that puts people back to work and invests in the future productivity of the nation is exactly what the economy needs right now.

The post triggered a round of thoughtful, meaty commentary from readers (one of the things that makes TPM Cafe a good hangout).

Here were my comments, reposted here so I can check back in four years and see if any of it came true:

We are clearly in an emergency. Where we go with it is largely up to those in charge and whether they have the vision to look ahead 30-40 years and act now. — fubar.

Nope, no legacy peace treaty...just a stinking pile of crap!

A couple of days ago, I was joking about the Shrubya transition plan - wondering if he would leave a trashed WH and pop all the “Os” out of the computer keyboards.  But on seeing Condi’s failure to make even an iota of progress on a ‘legacy’ peace deal in the cis-Jordan, I further reflected on the transition from Clinton to Shrubya, then contrasted it with the current transition.  Clinton left Shrubya with:

* a balanced budget
* $2 billion budget surplus
* under $6 trillion national debt
* fewer Federal employees than his predecessor
* an economic boom
* high levels of unemployment
* the virtual elimination of Big Ag agricultural subsidies
* a 98% agreed-upon peace deal for the cis-Jordan involving S. Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, the occupied territories and Jerusalem with Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians
* an anti-nuke deal with Little Kim in N. Korea

What presents have King George the Witless left for Obama?

* $400+ billion dollar budget deficit (not counting the cost of the Iraq war)
* $12 trillion national debt (doubled in 8 years)
* a surge in the number of federal employees and paid political appointees
* the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression
* 6.5%+ unemployment highest level in 14 years (since his daddy, King George the Clueless)
* unprecedented levels of corporate welfare Big Ag and Big Oil tax breaks and subsidies
* complete breakdown of cis-Jordan peace talks and 2nd intifada, massive unrest and hardship in the occupied territories and regional ‘cold war’
* Nuclear-armed Little Kim
* election of hard-liners in Iran, virtual elimination of moderate faction
* And to top all that off - a failed costly war in Iraq and a failing war in Afghanistan

And to remember King George the Witless and TurdBlossom’s biggest complaint was a few computer keyboards missing “Ws.” I never thought I’d miss Clinton.

Perhaps the first thing we learned from today’s press conference is that the familiar Obama campaign typestyle (with its italicized minor words) has made the leap to the presidential transition.  If it continues past the inauguration, how long until we’re all sick of it?

Given the cautious self-discipline and composure Obama showed throughout nearly two years on the campaign trail, it’s no surprise that he navigated the rocky waters of giving a presidential press conference without being president yet rather easily.  Only a question about Iran seemed to catch him momentarily off-guard, as he weighed what to say without appearing presumptuous.

CNN is up with the transcript what was actually said.  Some excerpts:

This morning, we woke up to more sobering news about the state of our economy. . . .  The news coming out of the auto industry this week reminds us of the hardship it faces, hardship that goes far beyond individual auto companies to the countless suppliers, small businesses and communities throughout our nation who depend on a vibrant American auto industry.

(Um, I think that means get ready for another bailout.)  On a lighter note:

Q: I’m wondering what you’re doing to get ready. Have you spoke to any living ex-presidents, what books you might be reading?

[And] everyone wants to know, what kind of dog are you going to buy for your girls?. . .

Obama: . . . In terms of speaking to former presidents, I’ve spoken to all of them that are living. Obviously, President Clinton — (pause) I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances.

I have re-read some of Lincoln’s writings, who’s always an extraordinary inspiration.  And, by the way, President Carter, President Bush, Sr., as well as the current president have all been very gracious and offered to provide any help that they can in this transition process.

With respect to the dog, this is a major issue. I think it’s generated more interest on our Web site than just about anything.

We have — we have two criteria that have to be reconciled. One is that Malia is allergic, so it has to be hypoallergenic. There are a number of breeds that are hypoallergenic.

On the other hand, our preference would be to get a shelter dog, but, obviously, a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me. So — so whether we’re going to be able to balance those two things I think is a pressing issue on the Obama household.

Your thoughts?

(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)