News Roundup for 12/14/09

Some asshole addresses the Senate

-Headline of the day-
"81% Of Dems Want Lieberman Punished For Health Care Filibuster."

Wow, there's a surprise, huh?

A poll taken for Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America finds that if Joe Lieberman carries out his threat to filibuster healthcare reform, he ought to be fired from his chair on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. So says 81% of Democrats polled. Only 10% believed he shouldn't be punished, with undecideds making up the difference.

He does better with Independents. 43% of indies think he should get canned, but this is the largest group here too -- only 30% think he should keep his committee. All in all, 47% of the public in general are sick of Joe Lieberman's self-important dicking around, with only 32% supporting him. If we could put it up to a vote, Joe would be out on his ass.

As always, Republicans disagree with the American mainstream; 66% think he shouldn't be punished, with only 10% saying he should.

This all brings up the question; if healthcare reform is so damned unpopular, why do Democrats and Independents want Joe bitchslapped for trying to block it?

I've been on sort of an anti-Lieberman tear today -- it looks like I'm not the only one. Hating Joe Lieberman seems to be the next big thing.

It's like baggy pants or something, all the kids are doing it. (Huffington Post)


-More to despise-
Here's Joe Lieberman on expanding Medicare coverage as a way to achieve broader healthcare coverage:

Yay! He's for it!

Except that was three months ago. He's totally against it now and thinks it's the worst thing ever in the history of worst things. "It’s yet another sign, as if you needed one, that Lieberman’s current opposition to the Senate proposal doesn’t appear to have any roots in a genuine policy disagreement," writes Greg Sargent.

Yeah, kind of looks that way, doesn't it? You've got feel bad for that kid reading the emails -- he's working for the biggest prick in the entire Senate. (Plum Line)


-Bonus HotD-
"22 million missing Bush White House e-mails found."

That sound you just heard was Dick Cheney crapping himself. (Associated Press)

Lieberman the Faithless

There are things we can all agree upon; the sky is blue, water's wet, zero degrees Fahrenheit is cold, etc. I think another thing we should add to that list is that Joe Lieberman is a horse's ass. That seems like a pretty safe one to me. As Lieberman's fourth term as the junior senator from the state of Connecticut goes on, it becomes clearer and clearer that the voters of that state have made a tremendous mistake. If you guys want a Republican, then elect a Republican, not this wishy-washy, fence-straddling pile of "Look at me!"

And that's Sen. Joe Lieberman in a nutshell; he isn't about good governance or reasoned debate, he's all about Joe Lieberman. It's telling that, when he lost the Democratic primary 2006, he founded the "Connecticut for Lieberman Party" to run as a third party candidate. Lieberman is for Lieberman, even though the party he founded no longer is, and anyone who believes otherwise is ignoring the evidence.

When he ran against his party's nominee in 2006, the Democratic Party forgave him. When he campaigned with John McCain and was on McCain's short list for running mate, the Democratic Party forgave him. When his first act under a new Democratic president was to embrace a wingnut meme and announce he'd launch an investigation into Obama "czars," the Democratic Party forgave him. When he declared he'd join a Republican filibuster over the public option, the Democratic Party forgave him.

It's time to stop forgiving Joe Lieberman. He's useless.

Lieberman's only saving grace is that he's part of the sixty seat super-majority that the Democratic caucus holds in the Senate. This is the supposedly "filibuster-proof" majority and that is all that Joe Lieberman is good for. That is the one and only reason why Democrats keep him around. And he's not even that. This "filibuster-proof" majority has proved to be entirely theoretical -- in part because of Harry Reid's inability to play hardball with members of his own caucus and in part because of Joe Lieberman's serial infidelity. For Joe's part, there's no evidence that he ever plans to knock it off. A political Tiger Woods, Lieberman climbs into whatever bed pleases him. And, unlike Woods, he has shown no shame over this, no contrition, and has made no promises to ever stop. You're the long-suffering wife of a perpetual philanderer, Democrats. It's time you stopped enabling him.


[Ezra Klein, Washington Post:]

The Huffington Post and Roll Call are both reporting that Joe Lieberman notified Harry Reid that he will filibuster health-care reform if the final bill includes an expansion of Medicare. Previously, Lieberman had been cool to the idea, saying he wanted to make sure it wouldn't increase the deficit or harm Medicare's solvency (and previously to that, he supported it as part of the Gore/Lieberman health-care plan). That comforted some observers, as the CBO is expected to say it will do neither. Someone must have given Lieberman a heads-up on that, as he's decided to make his move in advance of the CBO score, the better to ensure the facts of the policy couldn't impede his opposition to it.


Lieberman's opposition here is part political payback for not backing him in 2006 and part that "Look at me!" thing I mentioned earlier. Lieberman has become clownish in his desperation for attention and his moves seem calculated to do nothing but gain it for him and get him face time on Meet the Press or Face the Nation. It's all about Joe Lieberman. He thought expanding Medicare was a great idea once, but now that he has a chance to grab some headlines, it's the worst idea anyone ever had. Fickle and faithless, obviously nihilist, Lieberman routinely jumps the ideological divide not because of any deeply held belief, but to demonstrate that he can.

Josh Marshall puts it well:


What's most telling about Lieberman isn't his positions, which are not that much different from Sen. Nelson's and perhaps Sen. Lincoln's. It's more that he seems to keep upping the ante just when the rest of the caucus thinks they've got a deal.

If it happened once, a misunderstanding might be a credible explanation. But it's happened too many times. Sen. Nelson has driven Dems to distraction on this bill. But his demands have been fairly consistent over time. Lieberman just doesn't seem to be negotiating in good faith. He keeps pulling his caucus to some new compromise, waiting a few days and then saying he can't agree to that either.


As a result, Lieberman is -- as I said above -- useless. Democrats need to stop the self-deception that they have a sixty seat majority, because they clearly don't. We can move forward without Joe Lieberman -- strip him of his committees and fire him from the caucus -- or we can do this again and again and again. We keep finding Joe Lieberman in bed with Republicans because Joe Lieberman likes to be caught in bed with Republicans.

It's not getting anyone anywhere and he's not worth the trouble. Let him sleep with all the Republicans he wants, but not while he's pretending to be a Democrat. He's useless, he's faithless, and he's vain.

There is no reason at all to keep him in the caucus.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

News Roundup for 12/11/09

A simple Christmas wish

-Headline of the day-
"All I want for Christmas is reasonable regulation of the financial industry."

Seriously, how can you go wrong with a headline like that?

California Rep. Jackie Speier asks us to think about going to the mall. There are tons of regulations involved with this building; you've got building codes that keep it from falling on your head, store owners aren't allowed to rip you off or horsewhip their employees -- little things like that. "While no merchant is clamoring for more government intrusion," she writes, "most would agree that it is reasonable to impose standards to protect consumers from toasters that explode when plugged in or toys that contain toxic chemicals."

Note to self; exploding toasters = bad. I'm going to have to do more shopping now.

She wants Wall Street to be as regulated as Main Street -- which is a pretty good idea. When the notions store down the street goes belly-up, they don't actually get a bazillion-dollar bailout. I know, I was surprised too. And they don't get to make crazy gambles with other people's money before they finally fail. Maybe AIG or Goldman Sachs shouldn't be allowed to either. Just a thought.

A notion, if you will. (The Hill's Congress Blog)


-Cartoon time with Mark Fiore-
Hey kids, you hear about this "climategate" thing? Turns out that, by the same reasoning, all of science has been disproved!


Click for animation

I'm really going to miss gravity. (MarkFiore.com)


-Bonus HotD-
"Tiger Woods porno spoof, 'Tiger's Wood,' starring Kayden Kross, Tyler Knight, already in production."

Try to act surprised. My prediction; no Oscar nominations.

Just sayin'. (NY Daily News)

Cap and Trade Jobs = Popular

Cap and trade is going to cost you a bazillion dollars annually -- maybe a kajillion. No one really knows. Back in April, House minority leader John Boehner took a wild stab at it and came up with a figure of $3,128 annually for the average household. That's right, people backing cap and trade think that adding three grand to your annual energy bill is a good idea that'll get them reelected. Hahaha! Let's all laugh at them.


How do Republicans arrive at the $3,100 dollar figure? It’s pretty simple. We took MIT’s own estimate of a key “cap-and-trade” bill from the 110th Congress (S. 309) cosponsored by then-Senator Obama that said S. 309 would generate $366 billion in revenues in 2015. S. 309’s emissions targets track the emissions targets outlined in Obama’s budget, which the Congressional Research Service has confirmed. We took MIT’s own number – $366 billion – and divided that by the number of U.S. households (we assumed 300 million people and an average household size of 2.56 people…which is 117 million households). Using this formula, you get roughly $3,000 per household ($3,128 using current Census figures, a little less if you use projected Census figures from 2015). Now, this doesn’t even account for costs resulting from higher prices for food and all other products that will cost more to produce under their program.


Simple! Of course, Boehner had to admit to a little hitch in the GOP reasoning; "An MIT professor has questions about the $3,100 figure but his letter makes assumptions that are factually inaccurate." This was the MIT professor -- John Reilly -- who Boehner got his figures from in the first place. To dig up an old folk-saying, Boehner was trying to teach his grandmother to suck eggs.

What was the real figure? $85 dollars a year -- at it's most expensive point. What Boehner was doing was ignoring a simple fact; rebates. Greg Sargent wrote:


Brad Plumer noted that the GOP's arithmetic "brushes off the fact that most carbon revenue would be rebated back to consumers, and that certain conservation measures could help reduce energy bills. But the actual MIT study implies that the welfare cost would be around $31 per person in 2015, rising to an average of $85 per person per year -- not including the benefits of cleaner air and a habitable planet."


So Boehner was wrong -- completely and totally. In his defense, he wrote, "[W]e all know that Democrats have no intention of using a cap-and-trade system to deliver rebates to consumers; they want the tax revenue to fund more government spending."

When your argument resorts to mindreading, it stops being an argument and starts being BS.

But eighty-five bucks a year is still money; about $7/month. This figure is important when you look at a McClatchy-Ipsos poll on the issue of cap and trade published earlier this week.

This poll shows that the majority aren't falling for the "Climategate" smear, with 70% believing that the world is warming and 61% believing that humans are the cause. But, more to this post's particular point, it shows that a majority support cap and trade -- even if it costs them money.

Asked, "What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month? In that case would you support or oppose it?" 50% supported it. The real cost is below ten dollars at its most expensive.

But add in economic benefits and the support increases dramatically. Asked, "What if a cap and trade program raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month but also created a significant number of 'GREEN' jobs in the United States? In that case would you support or oppose it?" 69% said they'd support it.

And it's impossible to believe that cap and trade wouldn't come with the benefit of new jobs. We're talking about developing a new market, which would in turn create new industries and new technologies. That all means jobs. For seven bucks a month -- on its worst month.

I'm waiting to see how Boehner and the GOP will spin this one off into the realm of fantasy. I have no doubt they will.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

News Roundup for 12/10/09

The only way to tell a good law from a bad law

-Headline of the day-
"Republicans now arguing that the Senate health care bill isn't long enough."

Remember when the healthcare bill was too long and people actually reported on how much it weighed?

Yeah, that was then. This is now. When the House version came down, bronzer addict John Boehner said, "All you need to know is there are 1,990 pages." Too freakin' long. Because healthcare reform is complicated at all.

It's different story in the Senate now, where a slightly longer bill is too short. "And we talk about 2,074 pages, which seem like a lot, and it would be for a normal bill that you could debate in a limited period of time, which is what we’re being asked to do," said Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi. "But 2,074 pages isn’t nearly enough to cover health care for America. So why is it only 2,074 pages?"

I'm guessing it's because that's about the point where you're done, Mike. It's not like it's a novel. Padding it won't get you anything.

I'm guessing that my healthcare reform bill won't make anyone on the right any happier. At just two sentences, it's too short for the Senate. And I doubt John Boehner would like it much. But here it is anyway.

"Everyone gets Medicare.

"The end." (Think Progress, with video)


-Handy tip (of your finger)-
In an article on our big storm of the past two days, the Wisconsin State Journal reports that some people weren't very cautious.


Steve Van Dinter, spokesman for St. Mary's Hospital, said the emergency room had seven amputations already from snowblower accidents.

"It's all guys," he said. "Fingertips are gone or even worse."


If your snowblower jams up, just stop and start the blade a few times. The inertia will probably break things loose. If worse comes to worse, stop the engine and clear it with a broomstick or something. Yeah, it doesn't like to start again once it's warmed up, but deal with it.

For future reference; don't stick your hand in something that works by spinning blades. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you guys? (Wisconsin State Journal)


-Bonus HotD-
"Tennessee Mayor Apologizes For Accusing Obama Of Blocking 'Peanuts' Special."

I wouldn't say "apologizes," though. I'd say "offers lame excuse."

You might remember Arlington, TN Mayor Russell Wiseman, who thought that making a major public policy announcement was less important than airing a Christmas special everyone's seen a bazillion times. You know, the guy who said Obama was a Muslim and that he doesn't love the baby Jesus and that people who don't own property shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Yeah, that guy.

He says the whole thing was a joke. Which is weird, because I'm not seeing any funny in there. You'd think that if you're writing a humor post for your Facebook page, you'd stick a joke or a punchline in there somewhere.

Maybe it's a conceptual thing, where the idea itself is the joke. You know, like, "What if the Mayor of Arlington was an amazingly stupid prick?" (Huffington Post)