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.

Who created this deficit, really?

From the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities comes the unexpected news that the Obama Administration policies have had little impact on the federal deficit after all. A new report released shows the deficit would barely top 3 billion dollars if it were not for the policies of the Bush 43 Administration. The TARP program is projected to be close to deficit neutral as the money is paid back, the recovery measures will be paid for in increased tax revenue, and the economic downturn will eventually subside. The enormous tax cuts enacted by the Republican Congress will balloon the budget shortfall and the ongoing wars in Iraq/Afghanistan will further sink any hope of fiscal solvency.

The first implications of these findings is it builds a strong case for deficit hawks to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. The UI extension in the senate would extend the tax cuts for all but the wealthiest of Americans. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have shown an ambivalence about passing a tax extenders bill without an extension of Unemployment Insurance. The second implication of this data is it could somehow translate into an opportunity for the Democrats to regain the upper hand on spending and the deficit. However, the Republicans will likely criticize the "liberal media" for twisting the data as usual.

Why is Harry Reid rebounding?

Harry Reid was a lost cause. Both Minority Whip Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer have been publicly vying for his position for over a year now when it is assumed he will be defeated for reelection. Not so fast, says a recent Mason-Dixie poll recently released which shows his numbers rebounding significantly. Reid slightly trails potential challengers Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian and actually LEADS Sharon Angle. These are not good numbers for an incumbent by any means, but they indicate a competitive race. So my question is, what has caused this sudden reversal of fortune. The surge can be attributed to several factors.

1. The Republican field- The Republicans have fielded a very poor assortment of candidates in this race. Danny Tarkanian has no political experience at all, Sue Lowden is the Nevada GOP chair, and Sharon Angle is a former state assemblywoman. Sue Lowden, the presumed front runner, has been bogged down by numerous gaffes since launching her campaign. The most famous of these is when she suggested bringing chickens to healthcare providers was a good way of bringing down costs. Sharon Angle is the Tea Party favorite. Like many people conservative enough to be Tea Party affiliates, they do not match their electorate. Nevada is a swing state. Being associated with a right wing organization does not help you with the general electorate.
2. The immigration debate- This is where most pundits have fallen short. The bounce comes as an extensive immigration bill is introduced into the Senate with widespread Republican opposition. This clearly drove Hispanics to Reid's camp in large numbers.
3. Reid's war chest- Very, very large. It was $11 million at the beginning of the election season, but could now be as much as $25 million. Hard to top these numbers.

On top of all these factors, Democrats have been rebounding slightly in national polls. They hold the generic ballot once again, are surging in swing states, and are finally deploying a messaging strategy. If Harry Reid is not defeated for reelection, it will be very difficult for the RSCC to peel off other swing states.

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 this even a climate bill anymore?

John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have finally unveiled their "climate change" bill. It is very surprising that it does not have significant Republican backing as it hardly does anything good. It promotes nuclear power, regulates some offshore drilling, gives 2 billion dollars to the coal industry for research, among other things. It does not address the huge carbon footprint of industrial agriculture, as the entire agricultural sector is exempt from the carbon trading scheme. The bill does very little to promote renewable energy or public transportation, two central pillars of a green economy. It contains huge carve outs for industries that senate Democrats will need on board such as coal and natural gas. The bill sets a 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 as its goal, but this is exactly that, a goal.

This bill is in its current form because of bipartisan negotiations with Lindsay Graham, who pulled his support at the last minute due to his frustration about the immigration debate. I won't comment much on this move, but it does present a problem. If this is the starting legislation in the senate, the final legislation will be significantly more conservative than this. Anything more conservative than this will start to do more harm than good. I've always argued the most sound way to combat climate change is to restructure the economy through incentives to one that is more environmentally friendly. This bill really will not do this. It can be thought of as more of an "energy independence" plan. After all, that is why the authors named it the American Power Act.

With legislation like this, the argument for a piecemeal approach to climate change solutions grow. Harry Reid declared earlier this week that he is open to a smaller bill that is targeted at renewable energy such as wind and solar. To many environmentalists, this may seem like a non-starter. Though a piecemeal approach would ultimately be less effective, it would be a much more efficient way of doing things at the moment. Harry Reid claims there is bipartisan backing for a renewable energy bill in the senate right now. If he is right, we would do well to move a very progressive energy bill without 2 billion for coal stuffed in. This could be followed by increased energy efficiency standards from the EPA and other congressional measures to address agriculture, such as a sensible farm bill. One thing is for certain, this bill will not do.

This vaccination will cost you two chickens

You know Harry Reid is in trouble for reelection when he trails challengers like Nevada GOP chairman Sue Lowden. Harry Reid is best known for passing the health bill through the senate in December. His plan relies on state exchanges for people to purchase insurance. Sue Lowden's plan relies on.. chickens? Here is the quote.

Before we all started having healthcare, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor. I’m not backing down from that system.

Now I'm no expert in health economics but I think this plan has serious flaws. First, most of the chicken farms are located in the South. Where does this leave the rest of the country? Second, does this mean that health insurance companies will be required to maintain healthy populations of poultry? Maybe they'll relocate the Medicare administration to a farmhouse. Thank you again, Republicans, for providing entertainers like Stephen Colbert with endless ammunition.