From PJMedia:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) caused a bit of a stir when he announced he was not seeking re-election. Frank, a high-visibility member of Congress for more than 30 years, is in one of the safest Democratic districts in the nation. Yet he is not alone: there are several other Barney Franks fleeing the 112th Congress. Eight other veteran House Democrats who reside in safe congressional seats are throwing in the towel.

The problem isn’t merely in the House. Just this week, U.S. Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska announced he won’t seek re-election this coming November. Nelson is one of seven Senate Democrats who have decided to “voluntarily” retire ahead of the 2012 elections. This is a repeat of the 2010 elections when a flood of Democrats decided to retire rather than face certain defeat.

The retirement of rank-and-file Democrats is an especially bad sign for the Democrats if they have any hope of retaking the U.S. House. The nine House retirements are even more notable because each ranks high in seniority for key House committees — if the House returned to Democratic rule, they would be in line to assume chairmanships.

(more…)

From Politico:

Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska will announce today that he is retiring after two terms, a serious blow to Democratic efforts to hold on to their majority in the chamber next November.

Nelson is scheduled to hold a press conference back home in Nebraska as early as today to make his decision official, said several Democratic insiders close to the leadership.

The 70-year-old Nelson was considered one of the most endangered Democratic incumbents this cycle. GOP-affiliated outside groups have already dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into TV ads bashing Nelson, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent over $1 million on its own ad blitz to bolster his image.

(more…)

From The Hill:

For the third time in four weeks, Senate Republicans on Thursday voted in unison to block a piece of President Obama’s jobs package.

The GOP senators were joined by one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) in rejecting a procedural motion on legislation that would spend $60 billion on transportation infrastructure programs. The vote was 51-49.

The spending was offset with a new tax on income earned above $1 million that Republicans oppose.

(more…)

With Congress set to return to Washington, D.C. this week, the number one issue on the legislative agenda is tax cuts.  Most Democrats want to extend some, but not all, of the tax cuts initiated by former President George W. Bush.  Republicans, together with a few Democrats notably including Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), meanwhile hope to extend all of them.

The debate thus far has been framed primarily as a fight between those who want tax cuts for the middle class, versus those who want them for everyone (including wealthy Americans).

However, as with the health care debate, there is some prospect, political analysts say, that the debate could morph into a discussion of whether the Obama administration’s preferred policy would hammer one of the nation’s most coveted voting blocs– senior citizens– and in a circumstance in which Democrats have limited options for pushing back on Republican attacks.

According to IRS data analyzed and published in July this year by the Tax Foundation, “taxpayers over age 55 account for 71 percent of all dividend income earned. The lion’s share of dividend income – 48 percent – is earned by those over 65, and dividend income accounts for 6 percent of all the income earned by these taxpayers.”

(more…)

From CNSNews “It is called the Golden Rule,” said Graham. “‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ That is probably one of the most powerful statements ever made. It is divine in its orientation, and it is probably something that would serve us all well if we thought about it at moments such as this.”

Graham also said Kagan “meets the test” the Framers envisioned for a Supreme Court Justice.

“I am going to vote for Elena Kagan because I believe constitutionally she meets the test the Framers envisioned for someone to serve on the Court,” said Graham. “I don’t think the Framers ever envisioned Lindsey Graham from South Carolina voting no because President Obama picked someone who is clearly different than I would have chosen.” (more…)

The liberal tax revolt, as the Wall Street Journal is calling it, is a very important topic — especially for investors and small-business entrepreneurs. And for new jobs.

The so-called revolt is comprised of three Democratic senators: Kent Conrad, Evan Bayh, and Ben Nelson. They want to extend all the Bush tax cuts. That includes taxes on the wealthy, or the top personal tax rate, the investment taxes on capital gains and dividends, and the estate tax.

So is this revolt a game-changer, or merely wishful thinking?

With a strong pushback against the revolt by President Obama, Treasury man Tim Geithner, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, right now it looks like wishful thinking. But with Democrats getting badly paddled in various polls, you never know.

When Tim Geithner told me in a CNBC interview a few weeks ago about his 20-20 rule for the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends, I blogged that this was a good thing — in particular the story for dividend taxes, which could go to 39.6 percent. But no increase at all on investment taxes would be even better.

(more…)

There are many bad things contained in Chris Dodd’s Restoring American Financial Stability Act,” the financial regulatory “reform” bill that after filibustering for three days — with the assistance of Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson — Republicans agreed to let come to the floor for amendment and debate.

Among its horrors are a massive new consumer agency with the power to track virtually every financial transaction to share with other big agencies like the IRS, onerous new restrictions on angel investors and venture capital that greatly delay funding promising startup firms, proxy access provisions that would federalize state incorporation laws and empower unions and other progressive shareholders to wage director campaigns at the company and other shareholders’ expense, and no attempted reform of the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the center of the financial mess.

But the most destructive portions of the bill — the one that would in my judgment go beyond even Obamacare in making the American free enterprise system unrecognizable — has been little discussed even by critics of this bill. To put it bluntly but absolutely accurately, this bill sets up a mechanism for the Treasury Secretary, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to nationalize virtually any business they deem to be a threat to American “financial stability.”

I include myself among these critics not focusing on this issue and I apologize for not informing readers sooner, but I wanted to be sure the bill would do what I suspected it would do. Many of the bill provisions are interconnected, and what can seem like a mild measure by itself becomes lethal when combined with another sections. As Financial Times columnist Gillian Tett recently wrote: “Buried in [the bill’s] pages are numerous clauses and sub-clauses, many of which have been largely ignored until now (partly because they strike most non-financiers as pretty dull). Yet, the fine print could turn out to be crucial in the coming years.”

And after reading and rereading the “fine print” of this 1336-page piece of legislation (which will grow by hundreds more pages when amendments are added), it is clear that the bill’s “orderly liquidation authority” would facilitate outright government seizure of a wide variety of firms with very limited judicial review.

(more…)

The horse trading went long into the night. In the end the House Democrats bought, cajoled, wrangled and bullied enough votes to pass the health care debacle. The battle is far from over and will range into next November and beyond.

As a far right wing nut job I will enjoy the coming downfall of the Democratic Party. I will enjoy the stunned looks on the faces of those who will lose their union and employer health care plans if this legislation stays around long enough to take effect. I will enjoy the coming revolt of the middle and upper class taxpayers. I could of course, be wrong. Maybe the American people are tired of being free and maybe rugged individualism is dead. Maybe the vast majority of my neighbors are looking forward to the never ending growth of the Federal Government. Maybe everyone except we gun owning, SUV driving, meat eating, smaller government, right wing nut job pro lifers want the nanny state.

So now that the first battle of the “health care reform” movement is over we need to ask some questions. Is that it from the left? Will there be no further movement to start a government option? Will there be no push to get to a single payer system? If you believe that you need to get in the line that starts right behind Rep. Bart Stupak.

Rep. Stupak has become the Neville Chamberlain of our time.

(more…)

In the midst of a drive by Washington’s powerful ethanol lobby to expand what critics often deride as an artificially created, and government aided and promoted market for “fuel made from food,” the top administrator from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Wednesday testified before the Senate Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, telling lawmakers the agency will make a final determination late summer on allowing higher levels of ethanol to be blended into gasoline.

The ethanol industry is currently petitioning the EPA for a waiver to increase ethanol blends in gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent, in order to create a larger market–and artificial demand–for the fuel source.

Administrator Lisa Jackson said the agency’s decision awaits completion of Department of Energy (DOE) tests on ethanol—namely, how higher ethanol blends might adversely affect vehicle engines, a long-running concern of automakers and the marine leisure industry, among others—which she expects to receive by May. “We expect that once we get that additional data, and it will be publicly available, the EPA will be in a position to move toward a final decision on the waiver, late summer in the time period,” Jackson said in response to a line of questioning by ethanol booster Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

(more…)

Editors Note: This post is re-printed with permission from The Nation magazine, where it appears as the February 4, 2010 cover story. You can see a video interview with Professor Lessig about the piece here, or take action on issues raised in the piece by visiting FixCongressFirst.org.

We should remember what it felt like one year ago, as the ability to recall it emotionally will pass and it is an emotional memory as much as anything else. It was a moment rare in a democracy’s history. The feeling was palpable–to supporters and opponents alike–that something important had happened. America had elected, the young candidate promised, a transformational president. And wrapped in a campaign that had produced the biggest influx of new voters and small-dollar contributions in a generation, the claim seemed credible, almost intoxicating, and just in time.

Yet a year into the presidency of Barack Obama, it is already clear that this administration is an opportunity missed. Not because it is too conservative. Not because it is too liberal. But because it is too conventional. Obama has given up the rhetoric of his early campaign–a campaign that promised to “challenge the broken system in Washington” and to “fundamentally change the way Washington works.” Indeed, “fundamental change” is no longer even a hint.

Instead, we are now seeing the consequences of a decision made at the most vulnerable point of Obama’s campaign–just when it seemed that he might really have beaten the party’s presumed nominee. For at that moment, Obama handed the architecture of his new administration over to a team that thought what America needed most was another Bill Clinton. A team chosen by the brother of one of DC’s most powerful lobbyists, and a White House headed by the quintessential DC politician. A team that could envision nothing more than the ordinary politics of Washington–the kind of politics Obama had called “small.” A team whose imagination–politically–is tiny.

These tiny minds–brilliant though they may be in the conventional game of DC–have given up what distinguished Obama’s extraordinary campaign. Not the promise of healthcare reform or global warming legislation–Hillary Clinton had embraced both of those ideas, and every other substantive proposal that Obama advanced. Instead, the passion that Obama inspired grew from the recognition that something fundamental had gone wrong in the way our government functions, and his commitment to reform it.

(more…)

Video by Real Clear Politics

Hours before his embattled boss gave his first State of the Union address, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel contradicted President Barack Obama’s claim made just two days before that he had nothing to do with the much maligned deal to get the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) for the Senate’s healthcare bill just before Christmas.

Speaking to ABC News’ World News Tonight anchor Diane Sawyer in an exclusive interview on Monday, Obama denied being involved in what has come to be known as the “Cornhusker Kickback”

SAWYER: A lot of people think you must say at the end of the day, this is not who I was in 2008, these deals with Nebraska, with Florida…

OBAMA: Let’s hold on a second, Diane. I mean, I think that this gets into a big mush. So let’s just clarify. I didn’t make a bunch of deals. There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked. So that’s point number one.

(more…)

Following up on our post yesterday, the Workforce Fairness Institute has this video asking SEIU boss Andy Stern which Senators does he think are terrorists.

(more…)

I believe that Scott Brown will win the senatorial election being held in Massachusetts today and that he will do so not by an eyelash but by a landslide. We are about to witness the Massachusetts Miracle.

I have three reasons for being so confident. First, the polls — with admirable consistency — suggest that he is ahead. Second, the Coakley campaign and the Democratic Party nationally have panicked. Coakley’s minions have sent out a flier accusing Scott Brown of wanting to turn rape victims away from Massachusetts hospitals, and the DC apparatus has sent in Bill Clinton and Barack Obama for last-minute campaigning. Both moves are likely to backfire.

First, the claims in the flier are ridiculous and demonstrably false, and voters in Massachusetts have the wit to recognize that fact. Second, the bloom is off the rose. Clinton is a has-been, and Obama inspires little in the way of adulation these days. Their appearance in Massachusetts under these circumstances is a public confession that Martha Coakley is herself a loser. In special elections, turnout is everything. Scott Brown commands enthusiasm; no one — even within the Democratic establishment — has expressed any genuine excitement regarding his opponent.

(more…)

Beyond a pleasing sight for the heart, what would Ted Kennedy’s seat going Republican really mean?

A lot.

First, there would be the psychological effect.

On Democratic donors — it would discourage them from opening their checkbooks. On Republican donors — the impact would be electric in kindling their interest and generosity. On Democratic incumbents seeking re-election — it would make the beaches and golf courses that await them in their Florida retirement homes (and the lucrative lobbying jobs in Washington) infinitely more attractive. On Republicans considering running for the House and the Senate — it will help them see the truth: That their time is at hand! (It might even help our esteemed Party Chairman Michael Steele, realize that we can capture both houses this year!)

But in the Senate itself, it would really signal the end of Obama’s legislative dominance. He’ll probably be able to pass health care either by Democratic dithering in certifying Brown’s election or by ramming through the bill while he’s en route to Washington on the shuttle.

But, beyond that, the prospects of getting 60 votes on the remaining items in Obama’s legislative agenda: cap and trade, union card check, and immigration reform would slip away with the Massachusetts result.

(more…)

Writing for Forbes, Bruce Bartlett puts forth an interesting hypothesis that healthcare legislation could have been made better (hopefully he meant to write “less destructive”) if the GOP had been willing to compromise with Democrats:

Democrats desperately wanted a bipartisan bill and would have given a lot to get a few Republicans on board. This undoubtedly would have led to enactment of a better health bill than the one we are likely to get. But Republicans never put forward an alternative health proposal. Instead, they took the position that our current health system is perfect just as it is.

Bruce makes several compelling points in the article, especially when he notes that it will be virtually impossible to repeal a bad bill after 2010 or 2012, but there are good reasons to disagree with his analysis. First, he is wrong in stating that Republicans were united against any compromise. Several GOP senators spent months trying to negotiate something less objectionable, but those discussions were futile. Also, I’m not sure it’s correct to assert Republicans took a the-current-system-is-perfect position.

They may not have offered a full alternative (they did have a few good reforms such as allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines), but their main message was that the Democrats were going to make the current system worse. Strikes me as a perfectly reasonable position, one that I imagine Bruce shares. But let’s further explore Bruce’s core hypothesis: Would compromise have generated a better bill? It’s possible, to be sure, but there are also several reasons why that approach may have backfired:

(more…)

Several state attorneys general have been asked, or plan, to investigate the deal struck by Senator Ben Nelson to permanently exempt Nebraska from paying Medicaid expenses in exchange for his voting for Obamacare.

An investigation of the Nelson deal would likely have two focuses. First, is the Nebraska exemption unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which requires “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?” Secondly, did the deal constitute a form of corruption?

Whether the Nebraska exemption constitutes unlawful corruption obviously depends on the facts surrounding how Senator Nelson cut his deal. However, even a pure constitutional challenge would benefit from a clear understanding and presentation of the facts underlying how and why the Nebraska exemption was reached.

(more…)

Across the country, families are gathering to celebrate the holidays. They will reconnect, reflect on the year past and voice their hopes and dreams for the future. At the same time, the United States Senate meets in a rare Christmas Eve session to pass legislation that, if enacted, will forever change the relationship between Americans and their government.

From FoxNews:

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, who has faced a heap of criticism for appearing to trade his vote on health care for millions in federal Medicaid money, said he’s considering asking that the Nebraska deal be stripped from the bill. But he said other senators are looking for special treatment in light of his success.

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, after securing a sweetheart deal for his state as part of the health insurance reform bill, said Tuesday that three other senators have told him they want to bargain for the same kind of special treatment.

(more…)

On Saturday, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Grifter) announced that he would provide the deciding vote in favor of ObamaCare. In exchange–and yes, that is how it was framed–taxpayers in the other 49 states will forever pay the costs of Medicaid expansion in Nebraska. Oh, and non-profit insurance companies in Nebraska will be exempt from a new tax imposed on insurance companies in the rest of the country.

On an unrelated matter, we thought this bit of the U.S. Code was interesting:

Bribery of Public Officials –