Why were we even talking about repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the first place?

Rand Paul, the winner of the Republican Senatorial primary in Kentucky, has since made statements indicating he is opposed to several portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The main title he was referring to the title which bars racial discrimination in private enterprise. He made the statements while being interviewed by Rachael Maddow of MSNBC and has come under fire from liberals and conservatives alike. Conservatives have gone as far as criticizing Rand Paul for not committing to a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Liberals, such as Jim Clyburn (D-SC) have called his comments "appalling."

Nonetheless, this debate over his comments couldn't come at a worse time. Portions of the voting rights act were almost struck down earlier this year in a closely watched Supreme Court decision. Not many people are still talking about it, but George W. Bush pushed for the privatization of Social Security less than 10 years ago. These pieces of legislation form some of the most important achievements in the history of the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is so important to who we are as Americans it is even taught so in public school textbooks.

So why are we even talking about it as if it is a campaign issue? It increasingly appears the political climate is moving closer and closer to what it was 100 years ago. We don't have to be moving backwards. This country was built on freedom, equality, and individual opportunity. Any person who claims to oppose such core aspects of Civil Rights legislation oppose these fundamental principles. Let's send a message to these politicians that we do not want our country going back 100 years.

Wall Street Reform fails to garner 60 votes needed to end debate

In what is possibly a sign of trouble to come, Senate Democrats have failed to achieve the 60 votes needed to move their "Wall Street reform" bill. The opposition comes from both the left and right, though it is widely expected the measure will gain the 60 votes needed to move it to conference once the differences have been settled between various senators and the leadership. Those voting "no" on the cloture motion but expected to votes "yes" eventually include Russ Feingold (D-WI), Maria Candwell (D-WA), and Scott Brown (R-MA). Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and George Voinovich (R-OH) are both considered gettable votes based on previous statements they have made regarding the bill. Additionally, Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) both voted to end debate.

What Christopher Dodd (D-CT) said earlier this month, that financial reform has been a uniquely non-partisan issue, seems likely to be true. The Senate Republicans who are considered in play are all considered fairly moderate, and most have a history of supporting the Obama Administration on key issues. The bipartisan support for this bill stands in contrast with statements John McCain and Lindsay Graham made earlier this year, which indicated bipartisanship would be dead for the remainder of the 111th congress because of the health care debate. Clearly it is not. These moderate Republicans in the senate may be what is left of the once noble GOP who knew how to compromise and did what is right for the country.

In contrast with these moderate GOP voices, Mitch McConnell blasted the "government takeover" of the financial industry. We have heard this argument repeated for every single controversial piece of legislation which has come up these last two years. It is one thing to be prudent about spending, it is another to not want anything done at all. The fact of the matter is, Mitch, you were elected to the United States government. Any decision you make is a government intervention. If you want so little government intervention, go work for a multinational corporation.

Update: The Senate has now passed the measure on a vote of 69-39. Chuck Grassley, Arlen Specter and Scott Brown joined the Senators previously supporting the measure. The measure now moves to conference committee with the House where the differences will be reconciled in the coming weeks.

Rand Paul wins Republican senate nomination in Kentucky

It is no surprise to anybody that Rand Paul has won the Republican nomination for senate against establishment candidate Trey Grayson. Though not suprising, the result is very significant. Rand Paul is well known to be a Tea Party movement sympathizer, even going so far as to quote Tea Party members during his victory speech earlier tonight. He has been riding a wave of anti-establishment anger in Kentucky, as Trey Grayson received the endorsement of its other senator, minority leader Mitch McConnell. He is currently the second Republican primary contender to lose because they did not get cozy enough with the Tea Party movement. The first of course, is lame duck Utah senator Bob Bennett. If a Tea Party candidate can defeat an establishment Republican with more votes than have ever been cast in a Kentucky senate primary election, one could conclude the movement is one to be reckoned with. If I were the GOP leadership, I would be very scared right now.

Goodbye, Arlen Specter.

It is official. Arlen Specter, who has served as Pennsylvania's senator since 1980, has lost the Democratic nomination to congressman Joe Sestak. This is very significant. Arlen Specter, since switching to the Democratic Party, has received the endorsement of many prominent Democrats. These endorsements include numerous local mayors all the way up to President Barack Obama. Many have been commenting that this proves an endorsement from the White House means absolutely nothing. Indeed, Obama campaigned with Specter earlier this year and many ads have featured his support. The question nobody is asking is: is the White House making the wrong endorsements?

Arlen Specter won the support of the Administration for several reasons. They needed his 60th vote for health care reform at its most critical stages, and knew he would not switch parties without firm White House support. Furthermore the White House clearly does not want to anger him by remaining neutral, as he might change his liberal voting record he has accumulated since his party switch. Finally, Arlen Specter is an old Senate buddy of Obama.

What we do know is, the White House has made a huge miscalculation here. The electorate is clearly frustrated with Arlen Specter and not impressed by his blatant political maneuvering. If the Obama Administration wants the 2010 midterm elections to turn out as an anti-incumbent year rather than an anti-Democrat one they should heed the will of the voters. Joe Sestak polls better against Republican nominee Pat Toomey than does Specter, therefore should have been a natural choice for a WH endorsement.

We will see how this dynamic plays out in the Arkansas Democratic primary currently in progress. More on what's going on in Arkansas later tonight.

So a budget resolution fails to move, is it the end of the world?

In February, the administration released its budget proposal for the 2011 fiscal year. There was significantly less press surrounding the President's release of the budget than there was for the 2010 budget, mostly because of the health care debate. Since its release, the budget has gone absolutely nowhere. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has said she is looking for a way to satisfy her diverse caucus, but that it was proving very difficult. Many have wondered if a budget resolution will pass through Congress at all. Kent Conrad (D-ND), the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has said the prospect for a 2011 budget resolution is "fading". Congress has not failed to even consider a budget blueprint since 1974. If Congress does not end up passing a budget resolution, will this be a major setback for the Obama Administration?

The fact of the matter is it probably would. The 2011 budget blueprint does a lot of things which would be very good for the country. It allows most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, creates a $90 billion dollar bank tax, increased infrastructure spending, and major reductions in oil/gas/coal subsidies. These are things that will not likely come up for consideration this year, due to the huge number of legislative items currently waiting to be marked up in committee. Furthermore, the failure of the 2011 budget resolution would send a message to voters that Democrats cannot govern effectively, even with one of the largest congressional majorities for decades.

Congress has until October 1st of this year to complete the budget process, though if the ball is not rolling yet, it is unlikely they will have enough time to complete it.

Richard Blumenthal, what on Earth are you doing?

Democratic Senator Chris Dodd announced he did not wish to seek reelection in January 2010. Dodd had been trailing in polls against GOP front runner Rob Simmons, who had successfully exploited Dodd's relationship with the financial industry in the wake of its meltdown. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's attorney general, announced his candidacy shortly following Dodd's withdrawal. Initial polls taken shortly after he entered the race showed him with a 19-36% lead. As AG, Blumenthal enjoys unusually high favorability ratings during an election cycle in which incumbents are extremely vulnerable. This was until the gaffe.Blumenthal was giving a speech at a veterans' ceremony when he said:

We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam. And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it -- Afghanistan or Iraq -- we owe our military men and women unconditional support

This would sound fine if it were not for the fact that Blumenthal never served in Vietnam. In fact, it appears he received at least five deferments from the draft. Why would anyone say something like this? What I think Blumenthal is suffering from is a bad case of Martha Coakley syndrome. Here's how it goes. Polls show a Democratic senate candidate running extremely well against their Republican opponent in a very liberal state. They become extremely cocky, making extremely wrong and damaging comments that sink their polls numbers and their campaign. Martha Coakley claimed Curt Shilling is a Yankee fan. Blumenthal claimed he was a veteran. Sadly, these two comments will probably turn out to be equally inflammatory.

Will this comment turn out to be as damaging as some of Coakley's gaffes during the 2010 special election? We don't know yet, but it is certain Blumenthal is far too cocky at such an early stage of the election season.

Location, location.

Does this look familiar to anyone? It is a picture taken shortly after the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing that was eventually tied to a American militia movement sympathizer. The attack claimed 168 lives and destroyed an entire United States federal building. Lets look a little more recently. Does anybody recall on February 18th of this year, Joseph Stack flew a small plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas? How about the shooting of two Unitarian Church members who were antagonized for having liberal social beliefs?

These events have nowhere near the gravity of incidents of international terrorism in the United States in our current media. The Times Square bomb plot of 2010 attracted so much media and political attention, it is worth thinking about more serious threats that exist within our own borders. The bomb plot in question killed nobody. Imagine if the Muhammad Omar flew a small plane into a federal building instead of Joseph Stack. The reaction would be enormous. Imagine if an Iraqi politician put gun targets on freshman Democratic representatives as part of his campaign. My point is that the reaction would be completely different.

Freaking out about international terrorism is a convenient way to distract the public from pressing issues within the United States such as right-wing violence, but it is not even close as dangerous as right wing extremism at home. What should happen within our politics is that all acts of terrorism should be treated with equal attention, no matter where they originated. A white southerner killing 5 people is just as invidious as Muhammad Omar doing the same. It complicates things when southern white extremists constitute the political base of one of our major political parties. That is a different matter, however.

A storm brewing in Arkansas?

Blanche Lincoln is about to face her party's primary voters in Arkansas on Tuesday. Up against her are liberal Bill Halter and conservative D.C. Morrison. Polling has consistently shown Lincoln leading Halter by around 7 points. Morrison will not top 10% of the vote. Lincoln is clearly trying to get over 50% to avoid a runoff primary, which would tilt the race towards Halter whose supporters are much more motivated to return to vote at a later date. This race and the one in Pennsylvania will clearly show if the anti-incumbent spirit is as strong as pundits have predicted. This is a race to watch.

Financial reform is an issue of unique agreement

This is strange. The financial reform bill has moved through the upper chamber with no GOP filibusters whatsoever. Many of the amendments, such as the Audit the Fed measure, have garnered near universal backing. The amendment in question passed the Senate 96-0. This is unheard of. During the health care debate, amendments were filibustered just to slow down the process. Furthermore, the bill has become more and more liberal as it has passed through the upper chamber. The health care and climate change bills, in contrast, become significantly more conservative when moving through the Senate. This is true of most legislative proposals. So my question is, what has changed?

The atmosphere certainly has not changed. Republicans are emboldened by the Democratic Party's dropping poll numbers and have been opposing Obama's agenda more than ever. I think the difference is the issue. The public is extremely angry over the greed of wall street, and headlines saying the GOP is obstructing wall street reform don't fly very well. Harry Reid made a uniquely good calculation by forging ahead without Republican votes. Earlier this month, when the motion to begin debate came up, the Republicans filibustered a total of three times before breaking. It seems the "liberal" media won them out once again.

Nominations should not be made for political reasons

It has recently been revealed that President Obama offered the position of Secretary of Education to Colin Powell before nominating Arne Duncan, the CEO of the Chicago public school system. Colin Powell is the former Secretary of State under George Bush (43), former National Security Adviser (1987-1989), and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-1993). Before this he was a four star general. He is known to be a moderate Republican, advocating for a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, among other things. Why on earth did Obama nominate him to be Secretary of Education if he has no experience in the matter?

President Obama, upon taking office in 2009, began to nominate moderate Republicans to high up positions within his Administration. Ray LaHood, a moderate Republican House member from Illinois, was nominated and confirmed as the Secretary of Transportation. He served on the House Transporation and Infrastructure Committee, though held no other qualifications for the position. John Huntsman, the moderate Republican senator from Utah, was nominated and confirmed to become the Ambassador to China. Though he is fluent in Mandarin, many viewed this nomination as a potential way to remove a strong 2012 presidential election contender from the country.

That is not to say the picks have all been chosen for political considerations. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense under Bush and now Obama, was widely regarded as a strong man for the position. John McHugh, a moderate Republican from upstate New York, was nominated as the Secretary of the Army after being the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. These were very deserved picks.

For the most part, the Obama Administration has clearly been selecting moderate Republicans and placing them in his administration, far from where they could have an effect on the direction and policy of their party. This is especially true of John Huntsman, who was a vocal critic of the rightward swing of the GOP until his nomination. Preventing a Republican messiah from appearing is an effective way to prevent an upswing from their 18 point approval ratings. It is not, however, an effective governing strategy. Colin Powell was not qualified to be the Secretary of Education and Ray LaHood was equally unqualified to be Secretary of Transportation. Politics will only get you so far, but governing well will get you even farther.

The role of health-care and retirement benefits in a postindustrial economy

It is not news to anyone that the United States produces nothing anymore. We have transitioned from an industrial to a service based economy in roughly thirty years in a process dubbed deindustrialization. The typical job in the 1950s was a life long, well paid, pensioned, unionized, and relatively secure manufacturing job. These jobs have recently been replaced by mechanization or outsourced to Southeast Asia. The American economy is now a service sector economy, specialization in the provision of services such as food, medical care, education among other things. The jobs found in the service sector are for the most part short term, lacking in job security, non-unionized, and with few retirement or healthcare benefits. My question is; how do pensions and healthcare coverage fit in with this new organization of our economy?

In our former industrialized economy, health-care was provided primarily by the unions and the corporations themselves. Pensions were provided by the government through Social Security and through the corporations. In a service sector economy, it is impossible for employers to provide adequate health-care and pensions to their employees. Many of them are relatively temporary and low paid, leaving little reason to provide benefits. It is extremely inefficient to constantly shift between health-care policies. The same goes for pensions. It is impossible for modern service sector workers to acquire pensions because of their constantly shifting work situation.

Who should provide these services, if not the employer? My answer: the federal government. Jobs may shift endlessly and their employers go through periods of success and failure, but the government will always be there to pick up the tab. By having the federal government take over health-care coverage from the workers (preferably in a single payer system), it would consolidate the health care system and give the government a direct incentive to promote public health. By providing a strengthened Social Security system, workers could contribute a portion of their income to one source that would always be there, not one that will only be built during the duration of their employment.

The cost of the health care and pension shift to the federal government would be paid for by increased taxes on businesses. This might not even be necessary because the increased productivity and job creation of businesses without the constraints of health insurance for its workers would translate into an increase in tax revenue. The key to a service sector economy is portability. By giving responsibility to the federal government, workers' pensions and health care coverage would be absolutely portable, and likely save a lot of money along the way.

This is all hypothetical. The fact that we could barely pass a health care bill the Heritage Foundation was advocating for 16 years ago shows how unrealistic this is.