You won't see the GOP filibustering defense spending

First, it was Jim Bunning blocking an unemployment benefit extension because the cost of it was not offset. It ended up passing. Then they blocked it again, this time with additional support from their caucus. It also ended up passing. A further unemployment benefit extension is now about to come up for a vote, with Republicans vowing once again to block it unless the cost is fully offset by spending cuts. The Senate adjourned for their recess without voting on the measure, so on June 2, nearly 200,000 people will lose their unemployment benefits. This cuts nearly 200,000 people a week off from the money they need to put food on their table, their health insurance and their livelihoods. This is all to make the point that deficit spending is wrong.

Let's put this in perspective. The Republicans began this deficit with two wars which were not paid for. War funding is essentially a benefit program. The money goes to pay for the deployed soldiers, their equipment and their well being. This is a social support program paid for by deficit spending. See any parallels? If the Republicans were actually trying to make a point about deficit spending they would block votes on ALL spending bills, not only unemployment benefit extensions. Furthermore, blocking unemployment benefits at a time when near 10% of the working population is unemployed is a completely reprehensible thing to do. Just as it would be completely unforgivable to cut soldiers off from their supplies.

Don't get too cozy, Obama

Obama has made a huge mistake here. Since the gulf oil spill happened thirty seven days ago, the Obama Administration has shied away from striking a definitive tone on BP's handling of the effort. This has presumably been because it happened in the wake of Obama's offshore drilling expansion. The Obama Administration likely wants to avoid the appearance of flip-flopping on the issue. The ensuing environmental catastrophe has the potential to sink the newfound confidence within the Democratic establishment.

The handling of this situation did not have to be so horrible. The Obama Administration opened new offshore drilling, a relatively popular move with the electorate, even though policy wonks predicted it would not have much effect. Obama could have moved the response away from being a referendum on offshore drilling, and toward a referendum on big oil companies influencing the bureaucracies enforcing safety regulations. Instead, Republican lawmakers somehow are arguing that Obama is getting cozy with big oil. This is a ridiculous claim, if you compare parties receiving corporate contributions from oil companies.

Don't get me wrong. Offshore drilling will not solve our energy problems in a meaningful and sustainable way. This being said, a weakened Obama presidency is the last thing proponents of alternative energy need right now. Lets reflect on the implications of this spill, but also remember the Obama Administration is not the culprit here.

Derivatives trading reform transformed into a uniquely populist issue

It was three weeks ago when Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), the moderate Democratic chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, released her proposal to regulate derivative trading. Regulating derivatives is a mild way of describing this proposal. It effectively bans banks from participating in derivative trading altogether. Judd Gregg has described it as left as you can go on the issue of derivatives. Coming from a Southern Democrat, such a liberal economic proposal is extremely unusual. It is less unusual when you consider she is facing a runoff against the liberal Bill Halter.

Ok, so Blanche Lincoln is facing pressure when it comes to derivatives. So what then, is Chuck Grassley (R-IA) doing in voting for it? Chuck Grassley is an extremely conservative senator who did not even support the motion to begin debate on the financial reform bill. He has seen his approval ratings crash as a result of health care negotiations with Max Baucus (D-MT). On a similar note, Scott Brown ended up voting for a strengthened bill, even though he did not support the weakened one. Even in the House, moderates such as Mike Castle (R-DE) who did not vote for the weaker financial reform bill, are publicly considering supporting the more liberal version.

The reason so many Republicans are signing on to the derivative trading ban and to the larger financial reform bill is that they are scared. They know they have been trashing a popular president's agenda for almost two years now and it will eventually catch up with them. Something as shady as derivative trading is a good area to side with the Democrats on, as it is a uniquely non-partisan issue. Expect to see many GOP backers when the bill comes up for final consideration. This is only if Dodd does not go through with plans to scrap the ban.

GOP support for previous gay rights issues in 111th Congress paints good picture for DADT repeal

The White House has apparently reached a compromise on the push to repeal the controversial"Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the military. The compromise apparently entails a delayed implementation of the repeal. The policy would be repealed only after a Pentagon study group completed a review of the effects of repeal. This is moot, however. Robert Gates was appointed by President Obama therefore will likely sign off on any policy the President endorses. The repeal of DADT has picked up support among many GOP military leaders, notably Colin Powell. The major question people are asking is, will the repeal pass the house?

It is very possible, looking at previous Republican votes on gay rights issues this year. The Matthew Shepard Act, which extended the definition of hate crimes to cover sexual orientation, passed with 18 Republican votes in the House. It moved on to win 5 Republican votes in the Senate. The repeal of DADT will be a far more controversial issue, though if several Republican lawmakers vote yes, it is likely the Blue Dogs will go along. At this point it seems the prospects of passage are fairly good, though much remains to be seen.

Update: It seems John Larson (D-CT) agrees with me. This is only speculative, however, as House Democrats never actually talk to their Republican colleagues as they do in the Senate.

House Republicans oppose 9/11 first responder benefits

This is appalling. Republicans are caught playing politics with the funding of 9/11 responder health insurance coverage. They have opposed an effort to make it a mandatory spending program, which does not have a spending limit. They go further to claim creating another entitlement program is far beyond the government's spending reach. Goes beyond our spending reach? If the United States of America does not take care of the men and women who risked their lives to save victims of our worst attack since the Civil War, then who can we take care of? How is this in any way patriotic? How can we ask for our men and women to put their lives on the line, be it in the army or fire department, if our country will not assure their well being? We have a fundamental duty to protect anyone who is part of our country who cannot protect themselves.

The same holds true for the impoverished. These are people who supply the labor for our leaders to become wealthy and enjoy good standards of living. Being in Oakland, I have seen many damaged people on the street. There is absolutely nothing being done for them. The only opportunity they have to succeed is to go from soup kitchen to soup kitchen for meals, while sleeping in city parks. There is no way the free market system can take care of people who are holding two full time jobs. There is no way individual responsibility can help a disabled veteran put food on his table. I am a firm believer that the strength of a system is revealed by its weakest point. In the United States, our weakest points are pretty weak. And there are millions of them.

Dem leadership battle shows itself in immigration debate

Ever since Harry Reid's reelection prospects headed south, two top Democratic senators have been pushing for his position as Senate majority leader. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Richard Durbin (D-ILL) have been quietly building support for the leadership battle that will ensue if Harry Reid is defeated. Charles Schumer was chairman of the DSCC during the 2006-2008 election cycles and many senators owe him their job. Richard Durbin is the Senate majority whip and second ranking Democrat. There are absolutely no notable ideological differences between the two men. They are also roommates. This allows the race to avoid becoming a repeat of the 2006 House leadership battle, when moderate Representatives voted for John Murtha and liberals voted for Nancy Pelosi.

The split between the two men has showed itself on the issue of immigration. Charles Schumer is leading the charge with a comprehensive immigration bill. Durbin, however, is pushing for his DREAM Act. This bill would grant citizenship to U.S. born aliens who joined the military or completed college. The passage of either bill would undoubtedly give the upper hand to whichever author prevails, therefore watch for this battle to heat up in the coming weeks. This conflict comes as Harry Reid's standing appears to be improving. The GOP front runner is bogged down in controversy and the second pick is substantially weaker against Reid.

My take is the issue of immigration has been handled so sloppily by the Democrats, it would be better to leave a comprehensive bill for a later date. The DREAM Act would do well to appease angry Latinos, notably Louis Gutiererrez, while prolonging the real immigration fight for next year. The Democrats have a lot on their plate right now, from energy legislation to gay rights issues. Furthermore, immigration is an area in which finding Republican cosponsors will be relatively easy. Next year Democrats will see their majorities substantially reduced, and immigration could act as a good bipartisan issue to tackle in the first months of the 112th Congress.

Big tent parties require big tent policies

Political parties often have a decision to make about whether to adopt a certain group's stances on issues, or cede their votes. The Democratic Party resoundingly won over African-American voters in the 1960s when they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Democratic Party won over women when they supported the equal rights amendment to The Constitution, which eventually failed. As gay rights activists began to mobilize in the 1980s, the Democrats embraced their agenda with open arms. The Republicans continued to maintain their hold on their traditional demographic, upper/middle class white males. Since the 1980s, they have not won over any further emerging groups, with the possible exception of white evangelical Christians. The next group to be won over by a party will be Latino voters.

Democrats have been winning the battle over the Latino vote. Barack Obama won over 60% of the Latino vote in 2008. This kind of resounding electoral victory will only be intensified with conservative antics such as the 2010 Arizona Immigration Law. Latino voters are one issue voters. They will essentially support any party which signs on to comprehensive immigration reform. At this point, this is is the Democrats. Republicans previously supportive of immigration reform such as John McCain have backed off the issue due to right wing pressure. At the same time, Chuck Schumer is currently pushing a comprehensive immigration bill with widespread support among his Democratic colleagues.

It is impossible to create a big tent coalition without having many diverse views included. The Republican Party cannot become a viable alternative unless they stop pandering to their shrinking demographic base. This means endorsing progressive immigration reform.

Don't we all support small businesses?

A study done by the National Center for Policy Analysis has the current health care law negatively impacting the incentives for small businesses to hire more workers. This is likely due to the provision which provides a 50% tax credit for businesses with less than 10 employees, who make an average of $25,000 a year. The tax credit is reduced as more employees are hired. This naturally gives an incentive to keep businesses small. Why is this a bad thing? Local businesses do wonders for both working conditions and community development. Small businesses are run by locals, who keep most of the earnings in the community. This stimulates the local economy and keeps the wages of the management from skyrocketing out of proportion. In terms of the health care law, small businesses are the ones who need the most assistance with providing health coverage, and do wonders for the local community.