The good, the bad, and the ugly for the Administration

First the good news. The latest attempt to cap the leaking oil well is reported to have worked, meaning no more oil is leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. It is only a test, though, and will be removed if the pressure is found to be too high in the well. In addition to this, the Wall Street Reform bill has now passed the senate. It will likely be signed by President Obama by early next week. These are both incredibly good news for the Administration, who have been desperate for some good news.

Now the bad news. The public confiderence in the Administration is heading south, says a new poll. This could have to do with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the economy, and the budget deficit. Whatever the problem, this is not good news.

Finally, the ugly. For the first time ever, President Obama is trailing or tied with ALL of his potential 2012 challengers. That's right, Barack Obama is tied with Sarah Palin. No, this is not Rasmussen. Worse, it is the Democratic Public Policy Polling firm. The Administration should be worried about this news. President Obama has somehow maintained favorability ratings much higher than most other mainstream politicians. That he is trailing people with even lower poll numbers than himself means the country is no longer behind him. Watch to see how the Wall Street Reform bill and the Oil Spill cap affect his numbers.

Politician of the Month: Scott Brown (R-MA)

After adamantly pledging to be the 41st vote against Harry Reid's agenda, it seems this centrist Republican Senator from Massachusetts has gone against his word. Ever since being elected to the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Senator Brown has arguably helped the Democrats' agenda more than challenger Martha Coakley ever could have. He provided the critical 60th vote on the Democrats' job bill which came up for consideration earlier this year. He has now committed to supporting the financial reform package which he played an integral part in crafting. These have all angered his conservative base in Massachusetts, however, he has emerged as the state's most popular politician.

Scott Brown's true contribution to President Obama's agenda goes further than this. The willingness for this moderate Senator to support some of his signature policies has given Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe political cover to negotiate. It has also freed up Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) to vote with his party again, shaking the fear of appearing to support a liberal agenda. His reluctance to support the health care law cut back the negotiations and gave Harry Reid the incentive to use the reconciliation process. He is now refusing to support the campaign finance disclosure bill, though it is not likely it would have been brought up for consideration by the August recess anyway. Regardless of whether you approve of the job he is doing, this guy is powerful.

Scott Brown (R-MA) to vote yes on Wall Street Reform: passage all but assured

Scott Brown (R-MA) has announced today he will be supporting the financial reform bill being debated in the Senate. He came to this decision after having extracted concessions in conference committee, notably the removal of the $19 billion bank tax which would have affected many Boston banks. His vote will be joined by Senate moderates Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME). The vote of conservative Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley will not be known until the cloture vote, though it is likely to be no. This bill has not been followed by the progressive community with the same intensity as the health care bill but it is a very big deal. It begins to reverse the trend of financial deregulation begun under President Reagan in a powerful way. It does not solve some of the problems which led to the financial meltdown, but does rein in some of the worst abuses by banks. It also shows there is still potential for negotiation with moderate Republicans, such as Scott Brown. This will likely hurt his standing among conservative Republicans, however.

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.

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.

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.

Is there evidence of a Democratic Party surge?

This doesn't quite fit in with the Republican Party's narrative about the November midterm elections. The Democrats have regained the lead in the congressional ballot poll according to an Associated Press/GFK poll released today. This coincides with a surging approval rating for President Obama in numerous polls, including the Gallup Tracking Poll. Does this mean the Democrats are headed for less significant losses in November, and if they are, what is driving this reversal of fortune?

As Bill Clinton would say, it's all about the economy stupid. After recent economic reports, it's looking like the economy will be adding more jobs in the first two years of the Obama Administration than were created during the entirety of the Bush years. This should be sending shivers down Republicans' spines as they have been campaigning against the Administration's economic policies for much of the election season. This narrative will be difficult to hold once the economy is in a distinctive upswing, which looks more and more likely now.

One other conclusion is that the oil spill has solidified the public's opinion against the corporatism the Republicans in congress espouse. Rush Limbaugh telling his viewers the oil spill is not a problem may be acceptable for uber-conservative primary voters, but the average American really likes beaches in Florida (and maybe are worried about some dead sea gulls). The financial reform bill before congress could have this same effect. Republicans will have a hard time facing the voters if they outright oppose financial reform. The polls do not show a successful Democratic year, but may help to alleviate fears of a 1994- like disaster for the incumbent party.

All we have is government in times like these

Conservative criticisms of the role of the federal government couldn't come at a worse time. A BP oil platform is currently spilling thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico because of lax safety standards, financial firms overstretched causing one of the biggest stock market crashes in history, health-insurance companies are dumping cancer patients, and wages/benefits are falling at record levels. These don't seem to be problems with the federal government. In fact, they seem to have come about because business has controlled the stage for too long. The BP spill is worsened by a $75 million cap on oil company cleanup liability. The financial crisis was arguably caused by the repeal of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

I don't think anybody can successfully argue that big business is working for America. Deregulating big business is the least effective way to reverse the trend of economic and environmental decline in America. Neither is criticizing the role of government. Though Americans are fed up with government right now, nobody is stressing the fact that people are fed up that the government is not working. This can be interpreted as a frustration at the failure of government action, rather than the intrusion of the government in peoples' lives. Big business is undoubtedly even less popular than big government right now, among even the right.

We have to remember that ultimately, a corporation can make bad decisions and go out of business. If government makes bad decisions and goes out of business, we get Somalia.

Hmm.. I wonder why the financial industry is donating to Democrats

The Republicans love every chance they get to jump on the fact that Democrats have benefited from Goldman Sachs campaign contributions. Now with the news that hedge funds are donating mainly to Democrats, these attacks should intensify. The Democrats are pursuing the first push to regulate Wall Street in decades. And why should the hedge funds donate to Republicans? They can pretty much take for granted that Republicans will have their back. They have for the last year. Why should they donate to a minority that thinks it has no incentive to back a regulatory bill in the first place? You won't see the Republicans jumping on the bandwagon any time soon, they are all but irrelevant in the debate.

We dare you to oppose this! No, not you, Ben Nelson..

On Monday night, the Democrats held the first of a series of test votes to attempt to bring the financial reform bill to the floor for debate and amendments. As expected, the Republicans voted against the motion to proceed as a bloc, setting the process back several days. They were joined by the conservative Democratic senator, Ben Nelson, who has been trying to appease his Nebraska voters since his vote for the health care bill in December. The Republicans have been claiming that their unified vote against the motion to proceed is because they want the bipartisan negotiations involving Bob Corker, Chris Dodd, and Richard Shelby to continue. These talks had previously collapsed after going on for several months in which the Republicans came back to the negotiating table more than three times.

Putting the politics of the financial bill aside, what the Republicans are doing here is completely hypocritical. In John Boehner's closing speech against the HCR bill, he frequently cited back room deals and closed negotiations in his opposition. By voting against the motion to debate and amend the financial reform bill, Republicans are essentially saying that they want to postpone debate on the bill in favor of closed door negotiations. What these senators do not seem to understand is that voting against a motion to begin debate is a vote against doing anything about the problem the bill is addressing. If you are really committed to solving the problem, the first step is to add your ideas through amendments on the senate floor.

I don't think I need to say this, a solid majority of Americans support this already.

You can't even call this financial "reform"

The Republicans have once again left the table on financial reform negotiations. They have cited democrats wanting to drive a wedge between the GOP and Democratic Party on the issue. The Democrats have framed the Republicans as supporting businesses and banks over the average American. Lets put this in perspective: Democrats have been the ones pushing for financial regulation all along, even before the crash of 2009. The current legislation (in the senate, at least), is completely watered down to the point it won't even work. If the Republicans really wanted financial regulation, they would be calling for stricter regulations, not more lax ones. Btw guess when Mitch McConnell said his party couldn't support the legislation; right after getting out of a meeting with hedge fund managers. Kind of says it all.

A take on Bob Corker and Lindsay Graham

There has been a unified chorus of discontent with the ongoing negotiations between Chris Dodd and Bob Corker on the financial regulation bill; and between Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman and John Kerry on climate change. The left has characterized both respective battles as a waste of energy on a process that substantially weakens important legislation while the right has accused the two senators of being RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). These adverse reactions to bipartisanship on both sides of the political spectrum only reinforce the polarized times we live in. I think both of these assertions miss their mark, especially in a bipartisan institution such as the senate.

The senate is known to be where bipartisan deals are struck, as the minority wields the power to obstruct, which is absent in the house. This is not to say that the power to obstruct hasn't been overwhelmingly abused recently, but it does have a purpose. This is where the art of compromise has been forgotten. The conservative GOP primary electorate is so bent on opposing Obama's agenda that politicians have no ability to negotiate on important issues. Legislators have forgotten that compromise means "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions." Lindsay Graham and Bob Corker (and to a lesser extent Olympia Snowe) therefore are possiby the last republican negotiators in the senate. They just happen to be very conservative senators, and their concessions must be correspondingly deep. If the GOP's more liberal senators (Judd Gregg, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown and Susan Collins) negotiated in good faith on these issues, their concessions would not gain the ire of liberals in the same way.

Sadly, this is how partisan congress has become. We can only hope that more senators will follow these two in fulfilling the senate's role in government.