As the Senate neared a final vote Thursday evening, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, withdrew an amendment that would have inserted into the Senate bill an exemption for auto dealers similar to the House version.
Mr. Brownback's move had the effect of killing an amendment by Senators Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, and Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. to bar banks from proprietary trading, or playing the markets with their own money - a restriction generally known as the Volcker rule for the former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, who proposed the idea.
The bill already contains a version of the Volcker rule, but the Merkley-Levin amendment would have gone farther in trying to prevent conflicts of interest between banks and their depository customers.
Now, the fight is onto the conference committee. I will work on putting together a complete list of the ways the House bill is better than the Senate bill, and that the Senate bill is better than the House bill. Fighting to get the best of both bills--and removing the worst parts of each bill--is the goal now.
KY-Sen: Rand Paul flips on discrimination in private hiring: A spokesperson for Rand Paul has confirmed to Greg Sargent that Paul thinks the federal government should ban private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race in their hiring practices. This is the exact opposite of what Paul has stated in the past, not what he has said in the past, and just last night he said that the federal government did not have the right to prevent private businesses from refusing to serve people on the basis of race. So much for Rand Paul at least being principled.
Meanwhile, Rasmussen shows Rand Paul ahead by 25%. Their polling in Kentucky has been particularly henke, to the tune of a 14% house effect so far this year. Non-Rasmussen polling in Kentucky current shows Paul ahead by only 1%
NV-Sen: Angle takes the lead among Republicans: A new poll shows wingnut fave Sharron Angle ahead in the Republican primary for Nevada Senate. Tomorrow, a Rasmussen poll will show her beating Harry Reid by 22 points in the general election.
PA-Sen: Sestak takes the lead: The first post-primary poll in Pennsylvania shows Joe Sestak ahead of Pat Toomey, 46%-42%. And its from Rasmussen. Don't get too excited though, because next week Rasmussen will show Toomey ahead by 18%.
Also, according to Rasmussen polling, you trail your Republican neighbor by 37%, even though you have higher name ID in the neighborhood. Other polls show it to be a toss-up. Discuss.
Obviously, I agree with all of today's criticism of Rand Paul about his extremist position on the Civil Rights Act. However, let's be very clear here: Many Democrats (and, of course, most Republicans) support our system of laws that lets employers and private businesses discriminate against employees and customers for all sorts of other, non-racial reasons.
Let's stick for a moment to employment, as just the best example. Today, there is only one state in the nation that is not technically an "at-will employment" state (Montana). But everywhere else, unless you have a private party or union contract that says otherwise, you are an "at-will" employee, which means that your employer can fire you at will for any reason not explicitly protected under state law or in the Civil Rights Act (the federal protected classes are listed here).
So yes as outrageous as it sounds, it's true: right now, many if not most Americans can be fired if their employer doesn't like the sports team they root for. Or if their boss doesn't like their choice of tie on a given day. Or if their boss hates their new glasses. Or, in many states without non-discrimination statutes, if their boss doesn't like their sexual orientation. You get the point.
Obviously, I don't think this reality is a good thing at all - but I am saying that Paul's position*, while offensive and extreme, is merely an extrapolated position of many "mainstream" so-called "pro-business" Democrats and Republicans in Congress who would call "just cause" legislation (ie. mandating that an employer have a "just cause" for firing you) "radical." As just one example, here in Colorado, leading Democrats in 2008 lined up to oppose a "just cause" ballot initiative.
Considering they haven't used their congressional majorities to expand the Civil Rights Act, democrats have basically decided to draw the line in the sand on protected classes at the status quo (race, gender, age and religion - all of which, let me reiterate, should and must remain protected classes). And that's certainly more than you can say for Rand Paul and the libertarian movement he represents. But when you start really looking at employment/discrimination law, you find that by omission, those same Democrats expressing outrage at Paul's position are perfectly fine with a largely deregulated labor market that lets employers fire and discriminate against you for all sorts of preposterous reasons.
This is the unspeakable taboo in the whole discussion about Rand Paul in the Democratic-aligned "progressive" media - taboo because to acknowledge it is to admit just how owned by corporate interests "mainstream" Democrats and Republicans really are. Again, Paul is extreme and offensive in his extremism, but he's just degrees more extreme than so many "centrist"/"pro-business" lawmakers of both parties.
* Oddly enough, while Paul's libertarianism led him to such extreme criticism of the Civil Rights Act, he also said "we did some very important things in the '60s that I'm all in favor of and that was desegregating the schools." This could be construed to be an interventionist position that some Democrats still don't fully embrace, because when they hear language like that, many of them hear "busing." Now, it's true: we can't know whether Paul's reference to "desegregating schools" meant specifically cross-geographical busing. But it is weird to hear him take such an extreme position on the Civil Rights Act, but also using language that raises the prospect of busing.
The Senate has reached cloture on Wall Street reform, 60-40. While Maria Cantwell and Russ Feingold voted against cloture, Arlen specter was around to vote today and Republican Scott Brown changed his "no" vote to "yes." The bill was thus able to achieve exactly 60 votes.
If Cantwell was still a no, that must mean the derivatives loophole she targeted was not fixed to her satisfaction. While there is still hope of fixing it, it would require some difficult procedural maneuvering. Further, Cantwell has lost a lot of leverage, since Scott Brown now a yes, and since from now through the conference committee (if there is one, and the House doesn't just adopt the Senate bill), all votes will only require a simple majority for passage. So, it might not get fixed., which sucks.
Before the final vote on the bill, there will be 30 hours of debate and amendments. There are only a couple of amendments that have been ruled germane: the Brownback amendment to exempt auto loans from new consumer protection laws, and the Merkley-Levin amendment to reinstate the Volcker rule that is attached to that amendment. If there are others, I will report back and list them in this space.
Wall Street reform will pass the Senate, likely tomorrow evening. What form the bill takes before it ends up on President Obama's desk is still to be determined.
There has been a lot of talk about Rand Paul's view on the Civil Right's act today. But, in addition to race, as long as the company in question does not receive any public funds, here are some more reasons that Rand Paul--and his supporters--thinks it should be legal for the owner of a private company to fire you:
Not being the same religion as the boss
Not having sex with the boss
Having children, or not having them
Not liking the same sports teams as the boss
Not voting for different political candidates than the boss
Not eating the same food than the boss
Not liking different colors than the boss.
Basically, any reason at all.
Furthermore, another key point is that Paul's supporters seem to think the problem is not that Paul holds these views, but that he expressed them in public. For example, James Joyner of Outside the Beltway:
Further, in the context of 2010 America, I absolutely think that business owners ought to be able to serve whomever they damned well please - whether it's a bar owner wishing to cater to smokers, a racist wanting to exclude blacks, or a member of a subculture wishing to carve out a place for members of said subculture to freely associate with only their kind out of purely benign purposes.(...)
All that said, I agree with Doug that this is a pointless and harmful debate for Paul to get sucked into. This has been settled law since before I was born and a Senate campaign isn't a political science seminar. This is the sort of question that more seasoned politicians know how to dodge.
And his colleague, Doug Mataconis, in the same article:
I think the decisions are wrong, but they are the law of the land. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not going to be repealed, and it serves no purpose for Paul to let himself be dragged into a debate about it.
Which is the main reason I cringed when I watched this unfold last night. It's fine for libertarian bloggers to debate this issue among themselves, but a politician can't allow himself to be trapped into a debate where he ends up defending segregated lunch counters in an election in the South.
Bottom line: Rand Paul is basically right when he says it is wrong for the federal government to do anything about discrimination, in hiring and serving, and when he implies that the Civil Rights Act should have been overturned by the courts. The problem is that he shouldn't say those things in public, because it makes libertarians look bad. Don't want the plebs to know what you actually think.
Cross-posted at Huffington Post- this was originally published last week and I thought I'd share
When you are in the political world, you have decisions to make every single day about who you will try to help and who you won't. In spite of the earnest quest of good technocrats everywhere, the simple fact is that there are only a few win-win solutions. Who you tax, who you give a tax break to, what programs you cut or add to, who you tighten regulations on, and who you loosen them on, what kind of contractors are eligible for government work, which school districts and non-profit groups get federal money, etc: these political decisions are generally not win-win. Instead, they mean that one group of people win, and one group of people loses. It is the nature of politics, and you can't take the politics out of politics.
The most fundamental difference between progressives and conservatives is that question of which side you are on. Conservatives believe that the rich and powerful got that way because they deserve to be, that society owes its prosperity to the prosperous, and that government's job when they have to make choices is to side with those businesspeople who are doing well, because all good things trickle down from them. Progressives, on the other hand, believe it is the poor and those who are ill-treated who need the most help from their government, and that prosperity comes from all of us -- the worker as well as the employer, the consumer as well as the seller, the struggling entrepreneur trying to make it as well as the wealthy who already have.
Usually, I might spend my time arguing which of those worldviews gives us better policy outcomes, or which is better politics, but in this post I want to focus on something else: which side the God of the Judeo-Christian Biblical tradition is on.
1. Second cloture vote at 2:30 pm, eastern Cloture on the overall bill was defeated yesterday, 57-42, with 60 needed for passage. Arlen specter did not vote, but will vote today. Harry Reid voted no so that he could bring up another vote today. This means the actual run of play right now is that one more vote is needed to achieve cloture.
2. Maria Cantwell and Scott Brown are the key votes. The two most likely "no" votes for the Democratic leadership to flip are Washington Democrat Maria Cantwell and Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown.
Before yesterday's vote, Brown told Harry Reid that he would vote for cloture, but then went back on his word. Now, Brown is saying that he will likely vote for cloture soon, but he has some demands first. Sounds like a trustworthy guy.
Cantwell would lose a decent amount of leverage in her attempts to improve the bill if Brown were to come out for cloture, so here is to hoping that a deal is reached with Cantwell rather than Brown. Plus, Brown is acting like a bad-faith wanker who can't be trusted.
3. Senate votes in favor of predatory lending Last night, Sheldon Whitehouse introduced an amendment to allow states to cap credit card rates. Naturally, it was defeated 60-35, because the Senate is out there standing up for the American people.
Twenty Democrats voted against this amendment., mainly New Dems and ConservaDems. Because nothing pisses off swing voters more than passing new restrictions on credit card companies.
Notably, Chris Dodd (who is managing the bill, Maria Cantwell (who is trying to improve the bill in other areas, but come on!), John Kerry, Ted Kaufman, Patty Murray, and Blanche Lincoln voted against allowing states to cap credit card interest rates. This feels like the kind of vote that Bill Halter can use to end Blanche Lincoln's career on June 8th. Why the f$%&@ wouldn't anyone vote to allow states to cap credit card interest rates, except that you are owned by credit card companies? I can't figure that one out, and I don't think voters would be able to figure it out, either.
Oh, and Ben Nelson, who also voted against capping credit card rates, said today that he has never used an ATM machine. Ever. No wonder he stands up for regular folks--he understands them so well.
4. Merkley-Levin should not change opposition to Brownback amendment Just to reiterate what I wrote yesterday, now that the Merkley-Levin amendment to reinstate the Volcker rule has been attached to the Brownback amendment to exempt auto loans from new consumer protection laws, the Brownback amendment should be opposed anyway.
The Merkley-Levin amendment likely has more than enough votes for passage (I heard 55 votes thrown around this morning, with only 51 required). However, because it is a secondary amendment, the Brownback amendment must also pass in order for the Merkley-Levin amendment to pass. While it might, that fact should not persuade more Democrats into supporting the Brownback amendment. Pass the Merkley-Levin amendment, but vote against the Brownback amendment on its own merits.
****
Odds seemt o be running in favor of cloture succeeding today. I will provide more updates later on.
The first is that Democrats are not Republicans. The modern Republican has become a bizarre and twisted hybrid of Ayn "selfishness is a virtue" Rand economic libertarians and Pat Robertson-style pseudo-Christian conservatives. This new hybrid has taken the worst of each of these two kinds of extremists, and made it more dogmatic and more bizarre in its synthesis. Anti-intellectualism has morphed into being opposed to reality-based policy. Morality has become on what people do in their bedrooms, but never about them stealing money from the public or lying about public policy. Support for the free market has become opposition to any kind of regulation or anti-trust laws or civil rights laws. The conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush became the cronyism and twisted extremism of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
The other reason I am a Democrat is that a majority of Democrats are reasonably progressive folks- about 75% of House Democrats, about 60% of Senate Democrats. That doesn't give us enough to pass strong progressive legislation, but I'd certainly rather be with a party that's 60-75% pretty good as opposed to the Republican alternative, which is 95-100% pretty awful. Having said all that, which is extremely obvious to any OpenLefters, let me get to my main point: the Democrats in power make me crazier than any woman the Fine Young Cannibals may have been singing about. Both the policy and the politics of this banking issue could not be clearer: take on the power of the big banks and rein them in. It is as simple as it could be. But Chris Dodd is playing footsie with the bankers, Tom Carper is shilling for them on a full-time basis, and the lobbyists are working their magic. The message is getting muddled, the base is getting pissed, and the clear political edge Democrats have had on this issue is being lost.
The last couple of days have been reformers' worst days since this issue first was brought to the floor. The mess yesterday on the cloture vote was a classic episode. Look, I am very sympathetic to Harry Reid. The Senate rules are a mess, his caucus is very divided between progressives who want to do something and the full-time shills for the Wall Street lobby, and there really is other pressing business the Senate needs to take up: a supplemental appropriations bill and the bill to extend COBRA and unemployment insurance need to be taken up sooner rather than later. And there is legitimate danger here: the longer the bank lobby has to work on members out of the public eye, the more dangerous our odds get for good legislation. But the Democratic Senators like Carper who are working with lobbyists and Republicans to mess up this bill are playing with fire, and they should be exposed and excoriated. The Republicans who won't even let a manger's amendment come to the floor without objection should be attacked and taken on. If that means a little more delay while the defenders of the big banks marinate in the sun for a few more days and good amendments are pushed forward, it's worth the extra time.
Democrats need to keep being aggressive on this issue, and not let the Republican/banker delay tactics win the day.
