Non-Vote Vote Rule Passed - House Voting on Senate Bill

The House has passed the rule allowing the 'deem and pass' measure to provide Democratic House members with cover from a recorded vote on the Senate HC bill, allowing it to move directly to a vote on a reconciliation package of 'fixes' to the Senate bill. These are required to deal strictly with budgetary matters, but of course one can word just about any measure in such a way as to make it about the budget. In the meanwhile, the president is expected to rapidly sign into law the Senate bill, and then to accept the reconciliation package later. Final votes were obtained after the president assured Rep. Stupak that he would issue a Presidential Executive order barring all federal funds from being used to obtain abortion.

'Just before taking the podium at a 4 p.m. news conference, the White House released the text of an executive order to be signed after the health care reform legislation is passed. It makes clear the president’s intention “to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion services” and continues the current prohibition on taxpayer money being used for abortions known as the Hyde amendment.'

The Republicans believe that there are several rules violations in the reconciliation package that would violate House rules, including an appropriation to fund a new agency to implement the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," that does not fall under the auspices of the committees that wrote the Senate bill. It remains to be seen if these rules violations would amount to a negative ruling by the Senate Parlimentarian.

Ceiling? What Ceiling?

Politico reports:

'In a bold but risky year-end strategy, Democrats are preparing to raise the federal debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion before New Year’s rather than have to face the issue again prior to the 2010 elections.'

Of course, they haven't quite succeeded in beating the New Year's deadline, and the loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat to Scott Brown, may change the calculus, but this would be the third time to raise the debt ceiling since President Obama took office. From The Hill:

'Both the White House and the independent Congressional Budget Office last month said that they expect the debt to increase by another $9 trillion over the next decade. Should the Senate follow the House's lead and set the new debt limit at $13 trillion, lawmakers would probably have to raise the limit again next year, when the Obama administration expects to run a $1.5 trillion deficit.'

On Christmas Eve, the Senate raised the ceiling marginally by $290-billion, buying a little more time, but the Senate will raise the ceiling in February. Presumably, they hope that voters are too stupid to notice this come November. Perhaps they hope to stage "Hope - The Obama Musical Story," at the Kennedy Center, by way of distraction.

Brown Wins! Results of Massachusetts Special Election - Constantly Updated

UPDATE 7: Highlights from the Brown victory speech: "I bet they can hear this cheering all the way in Washington D.C." That would be the reason you were elected - he does seem to get this. "The independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken ... the independent majority has delivered a great victory." The crowd is chanting "41, 41, 41." Brown - "This Senate seat belongs to no one person, no one political party ... this is the people's seat." Crowd now chanting "seat him now." Sen. Kirk apparently willing to step aside as soon as possible. "I'm ready to go to Washington without delay." Brown is giving fairly gracious praise to Ted and Vicky Kennedy. He clearly understands the independent nature of his state.

UPDATE 6: Highlights from the Coakley concession speech: Martha Coakley concedes by saying that Brown has "... two lovely daughters." Yes, he does, but what does that have to do with anything? She appears to have only her own staffers applauding during her concession speech. "I headed out on the campaign trail for the last two days." That would explain, in part, why she lost by a larger-than-predicted margin.

UPDATE 5: Awaiting Brown's speech. Current results - Brown, 52%; Coakley, 47%; Kennedy, 1%.

UPDATE 4: Fox News is reporting the Martha Coakley has conceded. Scott Brown is maintaining at 53% with 75% of precincts reporting. AP reports the same.

UPDATE 3: With 70% of precincts reporting, the results below remain the same. Even Dems are breaking for Brown to some extent (although turnout for Dems may be low despite pleading from all in the party). Independents are overwhelmingly breaking for Brown, and largely over the health care reform debate.

UPDATE 2: Per Fox News - Brown 53%: Coakley 46%

UPDATE 1: Live blogging with reader feedback @ RealClearPolitics.com: http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/19/massachusetts-senate-race-live-blog/.

Preliminary results show Scott Brown holding on to a solid majority of votes. Updates will continue throughout the night.

Does the White House Know How to Strategize?

This is third week in a row that Jake Tapper (ABC News) seems utterly mystified at the lack of any real strategy originating from the White House for any of the administration's major policy initiatives.

'TAPPER: Robert, is it the opinion of this White House -- has it been conveyed by this White House to Senate Democrats that the trigger mechanism for the public option would be a better way to get to 60 votes than the opt-in provision?

GIBBS: The President, when Senate Democrats were here last week, the President listened to what their strategy was for moving health care forward.

TAPPER: Robert, did he convey to them, one way or another, what he thought would be a more likely way to get the bill passed?

GIBBS: We listened to what their thoughts were there in the Senate and wanted to hear their strategy.

TAPPER: Seriously, you're not -- okay, so you listened, but the President didn't convey any --

GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of, no.

-jpt'

It would be funny if it weren't so disconcerting.

The Color Purple

Resurgent Republic has published the results of an extensive polling of self-identified Independent voters, with an eye to the 2010 elections. As has been evidenced in a number of recent polls, these voters (who are often the determining factor in national election cycles) still like President Obama, and generally support him. Support for specific policies however, is steadily slipping, particularly as pertains to fiscal policies.
The most intriguing results related to questions about support for Congress that were aimed at predicting outcomes in the 2010 Congressional election cycle. Here, Independents are generally united - they want to throw the bums out. Charlie Cook writes about these results in the National Journal Magazine.

'A whopping 48 of those Democrats -- eight more than the size of their party's majority -- are from districts that voted for both Bush and McCain. That America is very different from the Democratic base in blue America, and it sees many major issues very differently.

Resurgent Republic's findings corroborate a growing view that the cumulative impact of Democratic missteps has reached a critical mass, with Obama receiving some damage and with Democrats in Congress and the Democratic Party receiving much more. Critics point to the Troubled Asset Relief Program; the takeovers of banks and auto companies; an economic stimulus package that they see as ineffectual and stuffed with pork; and climate-change and health care reform efforts as all being contributing factors to Democrats' decline.

The 17-point advantage that Democrats enjoyed in the January Gallup Poll (when "leaners" were included) shrank to 5 points in August. Their edge on the generic congressional ballot test has vanished, according to most national polls. For three years, Democrats enjoyed high single-digit or low double-digit leads on this question -- a very good indicator of which direction (and how hard) the political winds are blowing as a congressional election nears.

What we are seeing is an electorate growing just as disgusted with the Democratic majority as it did with the Republican one in 2006. The mounting ethics problems of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., combined with ongoing allegations about House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., and others on his panel threaten to make matters still worse for their party.'

The poll results also match up with other polling, which consistently place the Republican brand within the statistical margin of error of the Democrats. In general Congress is strongly disfavored across the board. The running average reflected in the daily RCP average has consistently placed Congressional approval at -30 or lower for an extended period. Since January, no single poll has placed the Congressional approval at better than -15. This does not bode well for the 2010 election cycle. Looking at these results, it's doubtful that the Republicans can regain either the House or the Senate (after all, some of them are the bums that voters want to shed), but 29-37 House seats, and several Senate seats up for re-election (think Reid and Dodd), are vulnerable. We may end up with a deadlock in Congress starting next January, and that may be the best thing for the country. It would force bipartisanship to accomplish anything, and would push the President toward the centrality he campaigned on. Purple states (and voters) may lead the way next year.

Poll	Date				Approve			Disapprove		Spread
FOX News	9/15 - 9/16				27			64		-37
Associated Press/GfK	9/3 - 9/8				28			69		-41
Gallup	8/31 - 9/2				31			63		-32
CBS News	8/27 - 8/31				26			58		-32

See All Congressional Job Approval Polling Data

What a Charmer!

The opinion pages of the Las Vegas Review Journal bring us this little gem:

'On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal's director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.

Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.'

How collegial and senatorial of the Senate's Majority Leader.

Glen Thrush of Politico wonders (hopes) if Reid was engaging in some obscure dry humor, while The Washington Examiner wonders if the pressure of a tight election & falling poll numbers are getting to him. A separate paper, the Las Vegas Sun is privately and locally owned, and shares a joint distribution arrangement with the Las Vegas Review Journal. Wikepedia reports that the current and former editors are personal and political associates of the Clintons, both both papers appear to be publishing poor poll numbers and doubtful editorials about Sen. Reid, so the animosity is puzzling.

For whatever reason, Harry Reid seems to be straying further and further from the calm, even-tempered leader he projected (and that contrasted so directly with Nancy Pelosi). Perhaps this is Reid's real problem.

Nevada Senate - Lowden vs. Reid

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	Lowden (R)	Reid (D)	Spread
Mason-Dixon	8/17 - 8/18	400 RV	45	40	Lowden +5

UPDATE: President Obama Speaks Up

UPDATE 2:

UPDATE 1: For live coverage and active blogging on events as they're reported, go here to Atlas Shrugs.

The House passed a resolution in support of the protesters against the Iran's election results, followed by the Senate. Rep. Ron Paul was the only member of the House to vote against. The vote in the Senate was unanimous.

The Ayatollah's 'sermon' at Friday prayers at Tehran University predictably warned against further protests, saying: '"I want to tell everyone these things must finish. These street actions are being done to put pressure on leaders but we will not bow in front of them."' He further implied that any further protests would lead to bloodshed that would be on the heads of the protest leaders. This morning (Tehran time), the state-controlled media put our further warnings not to gather in protest. While there were protests today, and running battles with the sanctioned militia, crowds were unable (or too cautious) to gather in the numbers seen over the last few days.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the former Prime Minister who presided over the dismantling (and executions in some cases) of the former Shah's government after the Revolution, now says that he is willing to be a martyr. He has called for a nationwide strike if he is arrested, sparking speculation that strikes in the oil industry will cause a massive rate hike in the cost of a barrel of oil.

All of this had led President Obama to make yet another statement today, this one more forceful than over the previous week. '"We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."' While I long to hear the president make a truly forceful statement in support of the protesters, and I'm not convinced that his motives are as described, it's possible that any stronger statements will only be used by the Iranian government to further harm the protesters themselves. This is the opinion of Henry Kissinger.



We'll find out in the next few days how far this will go. Right now, protests have continued into the night, and a tank is now reported to be at Azadi Square. Hot Air has many excellent video and site links to follow further.

UPDATES: Is CARS a Clunker?

Update 1: Congress finished passing the CARS (Cash for Clunkers) bill today.  

A overly cutely-named bill, the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act (CARS), is moving from the House to the Senate, where it is expected to pass.  The bill was introduced to the House on June 8, passed on the 9th (note, some article refer to passage on the 5th, but the House calendar records it as passing on the 9th), sent to the Senate on the 11th, and entered the Senate calendar on the 11th.  A little fast, no?  A quick look at govtrack.us reveals the following information.

Overview
Sponsor: Rep. Betty Sutton [D-OH13]show cosponsors (59)

Text: Summary | Full Text 
Cost: $15 per American over the 2009-2010 period. This is computed from a Congressional Budget Office report, merely by dividing the estimated cost of $4,000,000,000 by the U.S. population. The figure is extracted from the report automatically and may be incorrect. See the report for details.

Status: Introduced Jun 8, 2009 
 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments 
 Reported by Committee Jun 11, 2009 
 Passed House Jun 9, 2009 
 Voted on in Senate ... 
 Signed by President ... 

This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. Keep in mind that debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the Senate, rather than on this particular bill. [Last Updated: Jun 12, 2009 8:41AM] 
Last Action: Jun 11, 2009: Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 74. 

Jon Markman (MSN Money) wrote today:

'The program, which has been approved by the House but still needs to go to the Senate, would provide vouchers of $3,500 to $4,500 to Americans willing to trade in their old gas-guzzling vehicles as part of transactions for new vehicles that consume gasoline at slightly less fearsome rates. ... It's sort of like a store advertising a 15%-off sale, then billing the customer for the cost of the discount at the cash register. It sounds like a great deal until you realize the money doesn't come from outer space. It comes from taxes. It's like socialized medicine, but with mudflaps. The bill is called the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act -- CARS, get it? -- yet the main thing to be recycled would be taxpayers' money. It's a Pinto painted to look like a Ferrari. If [the return to GDP figures are] accurate, those would amount to gigantic swings off the negative-5% GDP growth of the first and second quarters and create a lot of political capital for Democratic lawmakers going into the 2010 re-election season. Perhaps we should rename the program "clunkers for Congress." ... As for the new vehicles, all 25 of the top-selling light vehicles of 2008 would meet the minimum. However, Barclays' analysis indicates Honda would see the greatest benefit because its fleet of fuel-efficient small cars and light trucks would fit the program best, with Toyota Motor (TM, news, msgs) a close second. The cost of the program is expected to hit $4 billion in the first year, and many lawmakers are already balking. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who originally backed the concept, said the latest version "doesn't make much sense" because the fuel savings sought is small compared with the cost. After a junker got turned in, the dealer would be prohibited from selling or using it and would have to hand it over to the government -- so don't expect any premium over the voucher value. The feds would then drive it straight to a metal recycler, which would turn it into soda cans and maybe new fenders. This would create a lot of business for recyclers, though it might depress the price of metal due to a flood of supply.'


News widgets and RSS feeds on Feedzilla.com