It was an action-packed week at the state capitol, with Iowa House and Senate committees deciding which non-budget bills merit further consideration and which would be dead for the 2011 session. The full news roundup from the state legislature is coming later this weekend.

Governor Terry Branstad rolled out more than 200 appointments this week. I covered some of them here and here. Look over the governor’s long list and post a comment if I left out any appointees who seem particularly noteworthy.

Here’s an unsurprising story: Senator Tom Harkin is “greatly disappointed” in the White House approach to negotiations over fiscal year 2011 spending:

Harkin said that he objected to the White House’s emphasis on non-security discretionary spending, which is about 12% of the overall budget but has drawn the overwhelming attention of both parties in their efforts to trim the deficit. Neither Democratic or Republican leaders are proposing raising taxes to help bridge the gap. According to Harkin, discretionary spending cuts disproportionately hurt working families by targeting safety net programs and education.

“The White House is wrong on that,” Harkin said. “I want to see proposals like what Bill Clinton did in 1995. He said we’re not going to cut education, we’re not going to cut women, infant, and children programs, we’re just not going to cut those specific things. I want to see the President out there using his bully pulpit…talking about what those specific cuts are out there and then to advocate, saying ‘Look everything is on the table.’” […]

“If we’re going to do this let’s do it fair — one-third mandatory, one-third discretionary, one-third revenue,” he said.

I’m “shocked, shocked” that the Obama administration conceded the heart of the budget cut dispute to the GOP before the serious deal-making began.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

The Des Moines Register continues to release results from its latest statewide poll. Selzer and Co surveyed 800 Iowa adults between February 13 and 16. Bleeding Heartland discussed the Register’s poll numbers on Governor Terry Branstad here.

Follow me after the jump to discuss President Barack Obama’s approval inching up in Iowa, slight growth in support for same-sex marriage rights, views on ways to close the state budget gap, and more.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced yesterday that the Department of Justice will no longer defend Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in court. Section 3 defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. It has been challenged in court multiple times, and last July a federal judge ruled the provision unconstitutional. The DOJ appealed that ruling, but Holder announced yesterday that President Barack Obama

has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.   The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.   Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.   I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit.   We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.   I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option.   The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

I’ve posted Holder’s complete statement after the jump. It notes, “Much of the the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA.” While some conservative commentators were outraged by the announcement, it’s important to remember that the Obama administration hasn’t stopped enforcing the DOMA despite the president’s opinion of the law.

Linda Hirshman argues that Obama has laid a trap for Congressional Republicans, who will look foolish in federal court if and when they defend Section 3. I think she is way too optimistic that the federal appeals process will uphold last year’s district court opinion. Hirshman and I may find the legal arguments supporting the DOMA weak, but it would not surprise me to see a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming the constitutionality of Section 3.

I was surprised to see so little Iowa reaction to Holder’s announcement. The outcome of this federal litigation will affect thousands of legally married Iowa same-sex spouses, who would be eligible for some federal benefits if the law is struck down. As far as I know, Senator Chuck Grassley is the only Iowan in Congress to issue a statement on yesterday’s news. He’s the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he criticized the Obama administration’s decision as “clearly based more on politics than the law.” He stopped short of promising to help with the DOMA legal defense, but presumably Congressional Republicans who are attorneys will handle that. I posted Grassley’s complete statement after the jump.

Republicans in the Iowa legislature continue to fight marriage equality. A constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman passed the Iowa House last month but will not reach the floor of the Iowa Senate. A short-lived legislative effort to legalize discrimination against married same-sex couples was backed by many Republicans and at least one Democrat, but House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich Anderson tabled that bill before it received a subcommittee vote.

A new bill, House File 330, would prevent Iowa county recorders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples “until such time as an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa defining marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman is submitted to the electorate for ratification.” The same bill would block the Iowa Supreme Court from considering its constitutionality. There are some pretty big problems with that idea, though:

That outcome: Iowa families could appeal a recorder’s decision in trial courts but those decisions would not be able to be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

It would make the lower courts ruling final and it would also set up the likelihood that Iowa would have pockets of the state were the law was recognized and others were it was thrown out.

“I think the result is that you would have a hodgepodge of rulings across the state,” Bartrum said. “It would depend on whatever the local district judge thought because were would be no uniform appeal.”

FRIDAY UPDATE: According to Troy Price of One Iowa, House Speaker Kraig Paulsen has communicated by e-mail that House File 330 is going nowhere. KCRG reports,

Top Republicans on Thursday said they have no plans to debate the issue, viewing it a nod to the party’s social conservative wing. […]

Backers say introducing the measure is one more opportunity to voice their displeasure with how the marriage issue has been handled.

Republican Rep. Betty De Boef says the issue has been handled badly and that some lawmakers want to take every opportunity to make that point.

In related news, Maryland is likely to become the sixth state to grant full marriage rights to same-sex couples. A bill on marriage equality is advancing in the Maryland Senate and has substantial support in that state’s House of Delegates. Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Washington, DC has recognized same-sex marriages since December 2009. Some U.S. House Republicans are pushing a bill to reverse that policy. If a same-sex marriage ban for the nation’s capital cleared the House and the U.S. Senate, Obama would probably veto it given his decision to stop defending DOMA.

Hawaii’s new Democratic governor Neil Abercrombie signed a civil unions bill yesterday, bringing the number of states that recognize same-sex civil unions to seven. Republican Governor Linda Lingle vetoed a similar bill in Hawaii last year.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports,

Some opponents of same-sex marriage said the administration’s decision could end up helping to preserve the law in court.

“The previous efforts of the Obama administration and DOJ to defend the law were so inadequate as to raise the suspicion that the Justice Department was deliberately throwing the case,” said Robert George, a political science professor at Princeton University who opposes same-sex marriage. “Chances are the law will get a robust defense, and I suspect it will withstand constitutional scrutiny.” […]

In his letter to [House Speaker John] Boehner, Holder criticized portions of the congressional debate leading up to the law’s passage, saying they had undermined the prospects for defending the measure. “The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus that the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against,” Holder wrote.

The U.S. House approved a continuing resolution to fund the federal government through September 30 by a 235 to 189 vote at 4:40 am Saturday morning. The bill contains about $61.5 billion in spending cuts; it “would kill more than 100 [federal] programs and cut funding for hundreds more.” The roll call shows remarkable party unity; all but three House Republicans voted for the bill, and every Democrat present voted against it. Iowa’s representatives voted along the usual party lines.

Much of the language in this continuing resolution will never become law. President Barack Obama has already threatened to veto the House bill, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate is working on its own continuing resolution with roughly $25 billion to $41 billion in spending cuts. Some signs point toward a federal government shutdown, but House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan says House Republicans are not seeking that outcome. Quinn Bowman and Linda Scott further note:

To make time for the negotiations between the two chambers, yet another short term [continuing resolution] might need to be passed – which brings up another wrinkle: as time passes and the fiscal year gets shorter and shorter, Republicans set on cutting billions from the rest of the year’s budget will have a smaller pie to slice as money is spent.

Many House Democrats denounced the Republican budget cuts, but I didn’t see any of them acknowledge the failure to pass 2011 budget bills when Democrats still controlled both chambers of Congress. U.S. Senate Republicans blocked the Democratic omnibus spending bill during the lame-duck session in December, setting the stage for the current budget brinksmanship. None of these fiscal 2011 spending cuts would be on the table if Congress had passed budget bills on time last year.

After the jump I’ve posted the five Iowa House representatives’ statements on the House continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011. All include themes we are likely to hear during the 2012 Congressional campaigns. Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) embraced the principle of reducing government spending, but argued that the GOP plan would eliminate jobs here and undermine the national economic recovery. I noticed that Boswell is holding a roundtable discussion about transportation on February 22; expect him to warn of the dire consequences of proposed GOP spending cuts.

Braley’s comment on the continuing resolution warned that the proposal “will kill thousands of jobs in Iowa’s ethanol industry.” In that vein, I’ve also enclosed below his statement from February 16, touting an amendment he proposed to “safeguard the Renewable Fuel Standard.” The Environmental Protection Agency issued its final rule on the Renewable Fuel Standard earlier this month. Braley asserts that the continuing resolution blocks the EPA “from setting renewable fuel standards for 2012,” and industry groups are worried. House leaders ruled Braley’s amendment out of order, and Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) argued that the language prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases would not affect the ethanol industry in any way. At The Iowa Republican blog, Craig Robinson says Braley “didn’t understand what he was talking about,” while Bleeding Heartland user SamuelJKirkwood claims here that Latham was misinformed or ignoring the facts. If that portion of the continuing resolution becomes law, we’ll find out later this year who was correct (either ethanol industry jobs will disappear or they won’t). Iowans are likely to hear more about this issue during the 2012 campaign, especially if the new map throws Braley and Latham into the same district.

Latham’s statement on the continuing resolution praised Congress for starting down “the road less traveled,” passing “some of the biggest spending cuts in the history of Congress.” He did some sleight of hand: “I joined a majority of my colleagues […] to vote in favor of cutting $100 billion in federal spending over the president’s funding request for the current fiscal year.” Jamie Dupree explains,

As for the budget cuts in this bill, Republicans persisted in calling this a cut of over $100 billion – but that figure is misleading, as it compares the bill’s spending levels to President Obama’s budget from last year, which was never enacted by the Congress.

It’s worth noting that Latham didn’t stand with the most ambitious House GOP axe-wielders. He was among 92 Republicans who joined Democrats to reject an amendment containing $22 billion more in cuts. Without elaborating, Latham described that proposal as “not thoughtful.” (As opposed to, say, zeroing out federal support for the Public Broadcasting Service or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–very thoughtful!)

The statement from Republican Steve King (IA-05) focused on his own successful amendments to the continuing resolution, which prohibit the use of federal funding “to implement and enforce ObamaCare.” King has consistently been one of the loudest voices in the House for repealing or otherwise blocking the health insurance reform law approved last March. Incidentally, unlike Latham, King voted for that amendment proposing to cut an additional $22 billion from current-year spending.

I haven’t seen any statement from Senator Chuck Grassley regarding the House GOP’s spending cut plans. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin has been on a tear for days, blasting how the House continuing resolution would affect health care in Iowa, employment and training in Iowa, the Social Security Administration in Iowa, education in Iowa, and so on.

Share any thoughts about the federal budget or the political debate over spending cuts in this thread.

Putting up the weekend open thread early in case Bleeding Heartland readers want to talk about the momentous news out of Egypt. After Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak didn’t step down as anticipated yesterday, I thought he was heading for a Ceausescu endgame. However, today Mubarak handed power over to the military, ending 30 years in control of Egypt. On paper, Mubarak is one of the richest men in the world, but it’s not clear how much of that wealth is accessible to him; Switzerland has already frozen his accounts.

President Barack Obama sent Mubarak a fairly clear signal yesterday that it was time to go. I posted the full text of Obama’s speech today after the jump. I expect that for now Egypt will remain one of the top U.S. foreign aid recipients.

This is an open thread–all topics welcome.

President Barack Obama delivers the State of the Union address tonight. Share any comments about his speech or his presidency in this thread.

I find the prospect of a Democratic president arguing for austerity budgeting deeply depressing. A domestic budget freeze is a bad idea, and an earmark ban is just a waste of time. Earmarks don’t add to the deficit; they just give members of Congress more power to control how certain pots of money are spent.

I cannot believe how much media coverage has been wasted on plans for some Democrats and Republicans to sit together for the State of the Union. Who cares?

The “revisionist history” blaming Rahm Emanuel for Obama’s mistakes during his first two years sounds pathetic, even though I am not at all an admirer of Emanuel.

UPDATE: John Deeth is liveblogging at his place.

SECOND UPDATE: I don’t know why Obama is so intent on repeating the “great mistake” of 1937.

I’ve posted statements released by Iowa’s Congressional delegation after the jump.

A third poll this month finds former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee with an early lead among Iowans likely to participate in the 2012 Republican caucuses. James Q. Lynch brought the latest poll to my attention. Strategic National surveyed 410 Republican Iowa caucus-goers on January 18 about their preferences for the next presidential campaign. Huckabee led the field with 27.5 percent, followed by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with 18.5 percent, 17.6 percent undecided, 12.4 percent for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, 12.2 percent for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 4.4 percent for former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, 3.7 percent for Representative Michele Bachmann, 1.95 percent for Senator John Thune, just under 1 percent for former Senator Rick Santorum, and 0.24 percent for Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.

Strategic National has worked for various Republican candidates, but I know nothing about the Michigan-based consulting firm as a pollster. I wonder whether “410 Republican Iowa caucus voting answers” means 410 people who said they will go to the GOP caucuses in 2012, or 410 people who have caucused in the past, or whether some other likely voter screen was used.

Earlier this month, Public Policy Polling and Neighborhood Research both found Huckabee leading Iowa Republican caucus-goers, with Romney in second place.

My hunch is that Huckabee won’t run for president in 2012, for reasons I discussed here. Also, his 2008 campaign manager Chip Saltsman just took a job on the Hill, although Saltsman says he would be available if Huckabee runs for president again.

If Huckabee decides to challenge Obama, he’ll probably get in the race late. Iowa caucus-goers aren’t known for rewarding late starters, but Huckabee already has high name recognition here. In addition, a large portion of GOP caucus-goers have a conservative evangelical orientation. Strategic National’s poll found that nearly 68 percent of respondents said the earth was created in six days, and 45 percent agreed that the earth is about 10,000 years old.

Public Policy Polling’s latest Iowa poll finds President Barack Obama ahead of four potential Republican opponents among 1,077 Iowa voters surveyed between January 7 and 9.

Yesterday’s release showed Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney as the leading Republicans in the early caucus race for 2012, and if the election were today, those two are the only ones who would give Obama a bigger run for his money than McCain did two years ago. Obama tops Huckabee by a slender 47-43 margin, and Romney by 47-41. But against Newt Gingrich, he would prevail, 51-38, and by 53-37 over Sarah Palin.

The difference comes with independents, who make up a full quarter of the electorate, with Democrats and Republicans splitting the rest evenly. Obama has a significant party- unity advantage against all four Republicans, taking 86-91% of his own party and holding each of them to 67-79% of the GOP. But while he leads with unaffiliated voters by a 49- 34 margin over Gingrich and 49-38 over Palin, he actually trails Huckabee, 41-42, and leads Romney only 40-38. Huckabee and Romney do also hold Obama’s crossover support down. While he takes 13% of Republicans to Gingrich’s 5% of Democrats and 17% of Republicans to Palin’s 6% of Democrats, the split against Huckabee is only 10-7, and 11-9 against Romney.

Click here for the summary and here for the full polling memo (pdf). The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 3 percent. PPP found 50 percent of Iowa respondents approved of Obama’s performance as president, while 43 percent disapprove. Tom Jensen commented, “When you combine Obama’s relative popularity in the state with the GOP field’s lack of appeal, it looks like things are going to have to get a lot worse for the President over the next 22 months to send Iowa back into the red column.”

I wouldn’t be too sure about that. If the unemployment rate stays roughly the same or inches up, and the Republicans nominate someone without high negatives like Gingrich or Palin, Obama will have to fight to hold Iowa. Huckabee has led several early polls of Iowa Republicans, but I think he would have trouble winning the nomination if he runs. If I were a GOP primary voter, I’d be looking for a bland senator or former governor who could essentially campaign as a generic Republican.

Incidentally, Iowa may become crucial to Obama’s path to victory in 2012. Reapportionment after the 2010 census took six electoral votes away from states Obama won, and several of the 2008 blue states are likely to go Republican next cycle. One path to exactly 270 votes would have the president winning all the states he carried in 2008 except for Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, and the second Congressional district in Nebraska.

UPDATE: The Cook Political Report lists Iowa as a tossup for the 2012 presidential race. The other states in that category are Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  

The Associated Press is reporting that President Barack Obama has selected William Daley as his next chief of staff. It appears that Howie Klein is right: Obama was able to pick an even worse top staffer than Rahm Emanuel. After running the White House staff for nearly two years, Emanuel recently resigned in order to run for mayor of Chicago.

Open Secrets posted a “Revolving Door” profile on Daley showing his employment history in government and as a lobbyist. More background on why Daley’s a terrible choice can be found after the jump.

The U.S. Senate rejected a cloture motion on the DREAM Act today by a vote of 55 to 41. At least 60 yes votes were needed to move forward the bill, which would give some undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children a path to citizenship. Iowa’s Tom Harkin voted yes, as did most of the Democratic caucus. Chuck Grassley voted no, along with most Senate Republicans. Six cowardly and mean-spirited Democrats voted no: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana. (Correction: it looks like Manchin missed the vote, but his office released a statement this morning saying he could not support the bill because it didn’t require people seeking citizenship to receive a college degree. Jackass.)

Only three Republicans voted yes on the DREAM Act: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Bob Bennett of Utah. Fake GOP moderates Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois all voted against the bill. Sickening. President Barack Obama nominally supports the DREAM Act, but as far as I can tell, the White House did nothing to convince wavering senators to vote for it.

After the DREAM Act failed, the Senate moved to a cloture motion on a stand-alone bill to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. The Senate approved that cloture motion 63 to 33, with Iowa’s senators splitting the usual way (Harkin for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Grassley against). The Senate will vote on the bill itself early next week later today, and it should easily pass.

UPDATE: Click here for the roll call on the DREAM Act cloture motion. The roll call for the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell vote is here. Congratulations, Chuck Grassley, you put yourself on the wrong side of history twice in one day.

SECOND UPDATE: The bill repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell passed the Senate by 65 to 31 (roll call). Harkin yes, Grassley no, of course. After the jump I’ve posted Harkin’s statements on the DREAM Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Grassley’s office hasn’t issued a statement on either vote; typically he sends out a press release every time the Senate considers major legislation.

Harkin’s statement on DREAM noted that the original 2003 bill had 15 Republican co-sponsors, which prompted me to look them up here. Lo and behold, there’s our Chuck Grassley, one of 47 sponsors of Senator Orrin Hatch’s “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003.” No wonder he doesn’t want to explain his vote today to block the bill from consideration.

The House of Representatives approved a bill last night to extend all the Bush tax cuts for two years, reduce the estate tax, and extend benefits for some unemployed people by 13 months. The bill passed by an unusual bipartisan vote of 277 to 148. The Democratic caucus split 139 in favor of the bill and 112 against, while Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill by a 138 to 36 margin. The roll call shows that Iowa Democrats Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted for the bill, as did Republican Tom Latham (IA-04). Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Republican Steve King (IA-05) both voted no.

It’s a disgrace that House Democrats went along with a so-called “compromise” that makes the lowest-income workers pay more, does nothing for people who have exhausted 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, and will lay the groundwork for big cuts to domestic spending and Social Security in the future. President Barack Obama deserves the most blame for not negotiating a better deal with Republican leaders. He could have changed the dynamic months ago by making a clear threat to veto any extension of the tax cuts for the highest incomes. But he lacked the courage or the integrity to stand up for tax policies he claims to believe in.

Democrats should nevertheless have voted against this bill, in my opinion. They campaigned against the Bush tax cuts for a decade and are now extending them at all income levels, setting the stage for a permanent extension two years from now. Sorry, Sue Dvorsky: that’s not standing up for the middle class.

It’s a moral failure for the Democratic Party to ask people earning less than $20,000 and families earning less than $40,000 to pay a bit more while the wealthiest people don’t sacrifice a penny. Democrats may have worried the Republican-controlled House would pass an even less favorable bill in the new year, which Obama would sign.

After the jump I’ve posted statements from Braley, Loebsack and Boswell. You can tell Loebsack isn’t proud of this vote, and Boswell makes some excuses too. But it’s consistent with his style: “As I have always said, my legislative philosophy is if you can’t take home the whole loaf of bread, grab as many slices as you can to benefit your constituents […].”

Braley’s press release touting his no vote uses a Republican frame (“Americans spoke clearly on November second. Congress must get serious about reducing the deficit and become better stewards of their tax dollars […]”). His remarks during the House floor debate also focused on fiscal conservatism, although Braley also threw in some populist lines criticizing the tax breaks for the rich. He also cited the threat to “the long-term viability of Social Security.”

UPDATE: In the comments, John Deeth mentioned the House vote on an amendment to raise the estate tax rate and lower the exemption to that tax received just 194 yes votes, all from Democrats. Braley and Loebsack voted with the majority of their caucus, but Boswell was among the 60 Democrats who voted with Republicans. Changing the bill would have sent the measure back to the Senate rather than directly to the president’s desk.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller spoke out this week about changes attorneys general and bank regulators will seek in order to resolve major problems in the banking and mortgage servicing industry. Miller has led the national mortgage foreclosure working group since October. He discussed the investigation and possible terms of a settlement in a recent Des Moines Register interview and in a December 14 meeting with advocates for reform to reduce foreclosures and compensate homeowners.

Miller’s remarks suggest the settlement will focus on ending all “robo-signing” practices, increasing the number of loan modifications and reducing principal to help keep people in their homes. The investigation may lead to criminal prosecutions as well. More details are after the jump.

Iowa’s U.S. Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley were among a large bipartisan majority that voted to advance a bill to extend unemployment benefits, the Bush tax cuts and various special tax breaks and credits. The Senate passed the cloture motion by a vote of 83 to 15. Just 10 members of the Democratic caucus and five Republicans voted against cloture for various reasons. A handful of senators who voted for cloture may vote against the bill itself, but the bill will pass easily.

The Los Angeles Times summarized key points in the Senate’s version of the deal President Barack Obama negotiated with Republican leaders in Congress:

The package extends the Bush tax cuts for two years on families at all income levels, including the wealthiest 2% who have incomes above $250,000 a year. Obama once campaigned against tax cuts for those earners.

The package also continues unemployment insurance through 2011 for up to 7 million Americans who otherwise would see their extended jobless aid expire.

One key change for most taxpayers will be a 2-percentage-point reduction in payroll tax worth up to $2,000. It replaces the so-called Making Work Pay tax cut for 95% of Americans, a break that expires Dec. 31.

The package also reinstates the estate tax that lapsed this year under a quirk of law. It establishes a 35% rate on inheritances above $5 million for singles and $10 million for families. […]

[T]he Senate added $10 billion in energy assistance, including nearly $5 billion in ethanol and coal credits that environmentalists oppose. But it also included an extension of grants for renewable energy developers, which supporters credit with having doubled solar plant production in 2010.

The package also includes a long, $55-billion list of specialty tax breaks that tend to be extended each year – help for Puerto Rican rum makers, racetrack developers and Los Angeles film producers.

I don’t have time to list all the shameful aspects of this deal tonight, but I discuss seven big problems after the jump. UPDATE: I recommend Rortybomb’s post on “who got what” in this package.

The ban on gays in the military appears likely to live on despite broad public support for letting gays serve openly and a Pentagon review showing repeal would pose a “low risk” to the armed forces. Democrats in Congress attached a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal provision to the 2011 defense authorization bill. But on December 9 the U.S. Senate rejected a cloture motion to proceed with considering that bill on a mostly party-line vote of 57-40. Iowa’s Tom Harkin was among 56 Democrats who voted to proceed with the bill; newly-elected Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia gave a convoluted excuse for voting no, while just-defeated Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas did not vote. Chuck Grassley was among all but three Republicans who voted no; two didn’t vote and Senator Susan Collins of Maine voted yes. Three Republicans who have claimed to support repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy upheld yesterday’s filibuster: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Scott Brown of Massachusetts and John Ensign of Nevada.

Negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Collins of Maine appear to have broken down over how Reid would allow amendments to be offered to the bill, and/or the length of time he would permit for debate. Collins and Senator Joe Lieberman say they will offer a stand-alone bill to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but whether that bill could clear the Senate before the end of the year is a big question mark. Even if it does, the House may not have time to vote on it before the new Congress takes office.

President Barack Obama publicly opposes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but he has so far declined to order a moratorium on discharges under the policy. That means federal courts will have the final say on whether the ban survives. A federal judge declared Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unconstitutional earlier this year, and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take up the case next year.

In other Senate news yesterday, Republicans showed they were serious when they promised to block every single piece of legislation until the Bush tax cuts were all extended. The GOP caucus unanimously blocked consideration of a bill “that would provide medical benefits and compensation for emergency workers who were first on the scene of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” The vote was 57 Democrats in favor, including Harkin, and 42 Republicans opposed, including Grassley. According to the New York Times, “Republicans have been raising concerns about how to pay for the $7.4 billion measure,” which is laughable, because they have no problem voting for trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts.  Republican priorities disgust me, but they do know how to stay united, unlike Democrats.

Incidentally, Grassley said in a statement yesterday that he was able to get a full extension of ethanol and biodiesel tax credits included into the tax deal Obama negotiated with Republicans. Sounds like he will definitely support the package on the Senate floor (no concern from the phony deficit hawk about finding a way to offset the $858 billion price tag). Harkin hasn’t committed to voting yes or no on the tax cut deal. Grassley believes a short-term extension of unemployment benefits might have been possible even without a deal on the tax cuts. That would fall way short of what’s needed to help unemployed people and stimulate the economy. I am frustrated that no Congressional leaders in either party are serious about getting help to the “99ers” who have exhausted all their unemployment benefits.

The House of Representatives approved the DREAM Act on December 8 by a vote of 216 to 198. The bill would give some undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children a path to citizenship. Eligible people could obtain “conditional” status for six years provided they have no criminal record, have lived in the country for at least five years, and have graduated from high school or received a GED. To maintain legal status, people would have to pass a criminal background check and demonstrate that they have either attended college or served in the military for at least two years. Although 38 House Democrats opposed the DREAM Act yesterday, all three Iowa Democrats (Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell) voted for it. Only eight House Republicans crossed party lines to support this bill, and those did not include Tom Latham or Steve King. In recent weeks, King has slammed the DREAM Act as a “multi-billion dollar amnesty nightmare.”

The White House supports the DREAM Act, and the administration has mostly exempted students even as deportations of undocumented immigrants increased since President Barack Obama took office. However, Obama didn’t insist on passage of the DREAM Act as part of his tax cut deal with Congressional Republican leaders. The Senate is expected to vote on the House version of this bill next week. Although some Republicans support the DREAM Act, including Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, I would be surprised if it passes during the lame duck session.

Incidentally, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has supported legislation like the DREAM Act in the last, but last week he said he opposed current bill before Congress. He must be aware that if he runs for president again, he’ll need to win over GOP primary voters and caucus-goers who overwhelmingly oppose what conservatives call “amnesty.”

Also on December 8, the House voted on the Seniors Protection Act. According to a statement from Braley’s office, that bill “would have provided a one-time $250 payment to seniors on Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), railroad retirement, and veterans disability compensation or pension benefits due to the lack of a cost-of-living adjustment for 2011 (COLA).” The bill received 254 votes in favor and 153 votes against but still failed, because it was brought to the House floor under a suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote to pass. The Iowa delegation again split on party lines.

Meanwhile, the offices of Representatives Braley, Loebsack and Boswell still have not responded to my requests for comment on Obama’s tax deal with Republicans. On December 9 the House Democratic caucus reportedly voted against bringing the deal to the floor, but that was a non-binding resolution. The bill could still pass with a minority of Democratic votes and a majority of Republicans. On the Senate side, Republican Chuck Grassley says the deal is better than doing nothing. Democrat Tom Harkin says he is working behind the scenes to improve the deal and is inclined to vote no without some changes. However, even as he criticized Obama’s negotiating strategy, Harkin didn’t rule out supporting the deal until he sees the final package.

UPDATE: Braley released this noncommittal statement on December 9:

“As the tax cut package takes shape, I want to reiterate my support for a tax cut extension for every American family on incomes up to $250,000.  I continue to fight for an extension of unemployment benefits, especially during the holiday season.  I remain extremely concerned that extending Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans will explode the deficit.”

“I continue to fight to cut taxes for Iowa’s families and I am working to ensure our future generations are not saddled with extreme debt.  I look forward to reading the legislative language produced on the bill before making a final decision on these important issues.”

SECOND UPDATE: Steve King talked to the Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth:

King said he dislikes that the tax cuts are only extended for two years. He said he wouldn’t go to the mat to extend the tax cuts permanently, but that they should be at a minimum extended five years so people sitting on capital to invest will know their tax liabilities for a longer period.

Further, King doesn’t like the unemployment benefits extension, since he said that only encourages people to not work and continue to receive those dollars.

THIRD UPDATE: Loebsack’s office says he “has consistently supported extending the middle-class tax cuts. He is also pleased to see that an extension of emergency unemployment benefits and additional tax cuts for hard-working families are included, along with potential extensions of renewable energy tax credits.  He is actively working to improve the proposal as it develops in order to ensure that the best interests of Iowans are being served.”  

President Barack Obama announced the “framework” for his unilateral surrender betrayal of core principles deal with Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts today. It’s worse than I expected, which is saying something. Republicans get tax cuts for all income levels extended for two full years (we’re supposed to believe Obama will stand up for letting them expire during a presidential election year). They agreed to extend some unemployment benefits, but only for 13 months. Although long-term unemployment is at historically high levels, the “99-ers” (people who have exhausted 99 weeks of unemployment benefits) will get nothing out of this framework. To sweeten the deal for Republicans, the estate tax will be reduced to 35 percent, and it will apply only to estates exceeding $5 million in assets. That’s very costly and not at all stimulative. To provide more disposable income for working people, the payroll tax on employees will be cut by two percentage points for a year. That’s good as long as it doesn’t become an excuse later to cut Social Security benefits. UPDATE: David Dayen reports that a senior administration official told him the payroll tax cut “would be paid for out of general revenue through a credit, and so would not impact Social Security and Medicare finances in any way.”

It astounds me that Obama could think he will gain politically from this bargain. How many videos like this one are floating around? October 30, 2008: “Why would we keep driving down this dead-end street? […] At a moment like this, the last thing we can afford is four more years of the tired old economic theory that says we should give more and more to billionaires and corporations and hope that prosperity trickles down on everybody else.”

After the jump I’ve posted some Iowa politicians’ reactions to the deal. I’ll update as more statements become available.

UPDATE: Late on Tuesday afternoon, the offices of Representatives Bruce Braley (D, IA-01), Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) have not responded to my requests for comment on the tax deal. How hard is it to express an opinion about the major decision of the lame-duck session? U.S. Senate conservadem Mary Landrieu of all people came out guns blazing today against the “moral corruptness” of the deal.

Republican filibusters on Saturday blocked two U.S. Senate attempts to vote on extending Bush tax cuts for all but the highest income levels. The first cloture attempt related to an amendment to permanently extend all tax cuts affecting the first $200,000 of income for individuals or $250,000 for families. It also would have extended unemployment benefits. It needed 60 votes to pass but received 53 yes votes and 36 no votes (roll call). Iowa’s Chuck Grassley joined all Republicans present and a handful of conservative Democrats to block this measure. All 11 senators who didn’t vote were Republicans. Perhaps they didn’t want to go on record voting against tax cuts.

The second cloture motion related to Senator Chuck Schumer’s amendment, which would have extended Bush tax cuts for all incomes below $1,000,000. The idea was to force Republicans to show that they would defend millionaires’ interests even if doing so torpedoed tax cuts for everyone else. But many Democrats objected to Schumer’s plan, because it would cost $400 billion over ten years and would tacitly redefine earners up to $1,000,000 per year as middle-class. The vote was 53-37, with 60 yes votes needed to invoke cloture. Iowa’s Tom Harkin was among the small group of Democrats who voted no, as did Grassley and the rest of the Republicans.

A deal that would have allowed votes today on two Republican-proposed amendments, extending all the Bush tax cuts permanently or for a limited time, “fell apart when a Republican objected to it at the last minute, leaving a surprised and embarrassed Mitch McConnell at the table empty-handed.” Click through for David Waldman’s explanation of the procedural issues and why a Republican would want to prevent those votes from happening during the lame-duck session.

Joan McCarter posted a revealing exchange between Schumer and Grassley during today’s Senate debate:

   Mr. Schumer: I thank my colleague. And through the chair, I’d simply like to ask my colleague this. I understand we have a different point of view here. We both care about deficit reduction. Could he please explain to me why it is okay to take $300 billion of tax cuts for those at the highest income levels, above a million, and not pay for it and yet we have to pay for unemployment insurance ex extension?

   Mr. Grassley: I thought I made that point very clear, because the taxpayers are smarter than we in Congress are. They know that they give another dollar to us to spend and it’s a license to spend $1.15. So it just increases the national debt. And when it comes to paying for unemployment compensation, we can pay for unemployment compensation because the stimulus bill was supposed to stimulate the economy and it’s not being spent. And if you put money from stimulus into unemployment, you don’t increase the deficit and you’ll also have the money spent right away.  

   Mr. Schumer: I would just say that the answer doesn’t deal with deficit reduction. If you care about deficit reduction, the two should be treated equally. A dollar of tax break for millionaire and a dollar of increased unemployment benefits increases the deficit the same amount. However, every economist — I saw we had a chart up about economists before — will tell you that a dollar into unemployment benefits stimulates the economy about four times as much as a dollar into tax decreases for millionaires. That’s pretty universal. Mark Zandy, John McCain’s economic advisor during his campaign, said that a dollar of tax breaks for millionaires stimulates the economy about 30 cents worth. A dollar of tax — a dollar of unemployment benefits increases the economy by about $1.62.

Grassley and the rest of the Republicans should stop pretending to care about the deficit.

If I were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I would ignore whatever deal President Obama is working out with Republicans and refuse to schedule a vote on extending all the Bush tax cuts. Republicans had their chance to keep lower tax rates for everyone on their first $250,000 of income, but they said no.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics report on U.S. employment in November 2009 was much worse than expected: the unemployment rate went up from 9.6 percent to 9.8 percent as total nonfarm payroll employment increased by only 39,000. The Calculated Risk blog posted ugly graphs here and here. The U.S. economy needs to add about 140,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. The unemployment rate won’t start dropping until the economy is adding close to 200,000 jobs per month, and it’s hard to see how that will happen.

Interest rates are already extremely low, and “quantitative easing” by the Federal Reserve probably won’t stimulate huge new demand.

Spending from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is winding down, and Congress won’t approve any significant new money for infrastructure. Members of Congress can call employer tax breaks “stimulus,” but businesses won’t start hiring until they expect or experience more demands for the goods or services they sell.

The number of long-term unemployed remains at the highest level in decades. Republicans are holding an extension of unemployment benefits hostage to continuing all the Bush tax cuts, which won’t create jobs. Even if benefits are extended for some of the long-term unemployed, it won’t help the “99ers,” who have received the maximum 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

A payroll tax holiday could permanently weaken the Social Security system.

It all adds up to high unemployment for the forseeable future.  

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

P.S.- Some people are way too confident that Barack Obama will be re-elected. Ronald Reagan presided over a higher spike in unemployment in 1982, but by 1984 the economy was booming. That is unlikely to be the case by 2012. A 10 percent unemployment rate nationally means even higher jobless rates in many states Obama would need to win (Nevada, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Florida). Even if Republicans nominate a bad candidate, like Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin, Obama would not coast.

For a smart guy, President Barack Obama has surprisingly poor bargaining skills. Putting lots of tax cuts in the too-small stimulus without insisting on Republican concessions made the Recovery Act less stimulative but failed to win bipartisan support for it. Expanding off-shore oil drilling without gaining anything concrete from Republicans did nothing to advance a comprehensive energy bill.

Despite those failures, Obama still seems unable to start negotiations from a position of strength. To set the tone for his first post-election meeting with Congressional Republican leaders, the president announced a new policy designed to appeal to conservatives, with no strings attached. During yesterday’s meeting, he even apologized to top Republicans for not reaching out to them more.

Naturally, Republicans haven’t made any policy gestures toward the president this week, nor have they apologized for not working constructively with him.

Millions of Americans will pay the price for Obama’s inability to grasp basic negotiating tactics.

President Barack Obama supposedly wants to end the ban on gays and lesbians openly serving in the U.S. military. His administration has backed a legislative compromise that would probably lead to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell next year. However, the votes aren’t there in the Senate to attach that provision to this year’s defense authorization act. The Senate will consider the bill again after the November election, but I doubt senators would vote to lift the ban on gays in the military during a lame-duck session. Next year the issue will be off the table in a House and Senate with many more Republican votes, and possibly Republican majorities.

Yesterday a U.S. District Court judge in California gave Obama an easy way to keep his promise on ending the ban:  

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ permanent worldwide injunction — praised by gay rights organizations — orders the military “immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced” under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. […]

In her ruling Tuesday, Phillips stated the policy infringes on the rights of military personnel. “Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers’ rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights,” the judge wrote.

Now the question is whether Obama will have his administration appeal this ruling:

President Barack Obama has backed a Democratic effort in Congress to repeal the law, rather than in an executive order or in court.

But U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ injunction leaves the administration with a choice: Continue defending a law it opposes with an appeal, or do nothing, let the policy be overturned, and add an explosive issue to a midterm election with Republicans poised to make major gains.[…]

If the government does not appeal, the injunction cannot be reversed and would remain in effect. If it does, it can seek a temporary freeze, or stay, of her ruling. An appeal would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Either side could then take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Pentagon did not immediately comment, and a Justice Department spokeswoman said the government was reviewing the decision. Meanwhile, a group of 19 Democrat senators signed a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to let the injunction stand.

As of yesterday, Senator Tom Harkin was not among the Democrats who co-signed that letter. I am seeking comment from his office on whether he supports a Justice Department appeal of Judge Phillips’ ruling.

President Barack Obama is discussing the economy this morning at a private home in Des Moines. Governor Chet Culver and several other elected Democrats are there, but the president isn’t doing any campaign rallies in Iowa like his appearance in Wisconsin yesterday.

The latest Des Moines Register statewide poll by Selzer and Co showed just 45 percent of all Iowa respondents approve of Obama’s performance, while 50 percent disapprove. Among the “likely voters” subset, Obama’s approval is 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving.

Last night Obama tried to fire up a group of Democratic activists about this year’s election. Maybe Democrats would be more enthusiastic about voting and volunteering if the president had delivered on more of his campaign promises and implemented better economic policies. That’s a topic for another post.

I’ll update this post later with links on today’s event on the economy. Meanwhile, share any thoughts about Obama or his impact on the Iowa elections in this thread.

LATE UPDATE: The group of people invited for Obama’s backyard visit wasn’t representative of Iowans struggling in today’s economy. He spent a lot of time criticizing Republican ideology on tax cuts, mostly with accurate facts and figures. But I just don’t find Obama’s economic message credible. He seemed afraid to face the people hurt the most by the recession, and he won’t acknowledge or correct his administration’s inadequate response to the housing crisis and continuing high unemployment. Where is the president’s plan to help the “99ers,” people who have exhausted all their unemployment benefits but still can’t find work? Why did he reappoint a Federal Reserve chairman who won’t do much to attack the unemployment problem? Heads should have rolled at Treasury for designing a foreclosure response program primarily to benefit banks rather than Americans who are underwater on their mortgages. (See David Dayen’s “Portrait of HAMP failure” series at Firedoglake.)

Obama’s backyard event succeeded at what may have been its primary aim–generating positive vibes with Iowa journalists like Kathie Obradovich. She somehow concluded the staged performance helped “Obama reconnect with Iowa” by allowing “the president to interact with people in a way he never could in a huge venue.” Oh, and we’re supposed to be impressed he got a couple of semi-critical questions during the Potemkin visit.

President Barack Obama gave a televised address last night to announce the end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq. I didn’t watch the speech, but I read the full transcript and posted it after the jump.

Several commentators have noted that Obama did not declare victory in the speech, but he certainly put a positive spin on our foreign adventures. The gist was that he’s kept his promise to end the war, we’ve accomplished the goals he set when he became president, and ceasing combat in Iraq will allow us to pivot to a more effective fight against terrorism in Afghanistan as well as a more. Obama highlighted the withdrawal of nearly 100,000 troops and the transfer of responsibility to Iraqi authorities. However, our”transitional force in Iraq is about 50,000 troops now, and even at the end of 2011 we could have tens of thousands of troops stationed in the country. Tehcnically, these are “advise and assist” brigades rather than combat brigades, but our soldiers will still be targets, and some will continue to die under hostile fire.

In the least convincing part of his speech, Obama hailed “credible elections” leading to “a caretaker administration” as Iraqis form a government. The lack of a functioning Iraqi government nearly six months after those elections doesn’t evoke optimism about future political stability.

Three years ago, candidate Obama bombarded Iowa Democrats with messages about how he spoke out against the war in Iraq. Last night, he only mentioned his previous opposition to the war in passing, and he didn’t suggest the war was a mistake. His kind words about George W. Bush glossed over the lies that helped lead the country to war as well as the mismanagement that undermined our national security and kept us bogged down in Iraq for so many years.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest; it’s in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home.

We’ve persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people, a belief that, out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibilities. Now it’s time to turn the page.

As we do, I’m mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it’s time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well-known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security.

As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.

Obama then pivoted to defending the importance of our mission in Afghanistan. He claimed that drawing down from Iraq will give us “the resources necessary to go on offense” against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He affirmed that troop reductions will begin in the summer of 2011, with the pace “determined by conditions on the ground.” Juan Cole remarked, “Presumably the language about the Afghan struggle against al-Qaeda was intended to please hawks, while the pledge to begin withdrawing next year was for the purpose of reassuring liberals. It is not clear, however, that practical success in Afghanistan can be achieved through this sort of rhetorical compromise.” I still think the escalation of our war in Afghanistan will turn out to be one of Obama’s biggest mistakes. U.S. and coalition military fatalities in Afghanistan have sharply increased since Obama took office. We have close to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, three times as many as when Obama became president. The drawdown is scheduled to begin in July 2011, but I wouldn’t bet on that date sticking, judging from recent comments by General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Toward the end of last night’s speech, Obama suggested that ending the combat mission in Iraq will allow the U.S. to invest more in our own economy, creating jobs. I’ll believe that when I see it. Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan will cost an exorbitant amount during the next few years. For the last decade, Congress has always been willing to sign blank checks for war, but the deficit hawks pop up to express concern about excessive domestic spending. If Republicans retake one or both chambers of Congress, you can forget about new economic stimulus measures. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is also a non-starter, judging from how the Senate energy bill is shaping up. More broadly, I don’t think Obama acknowledges how precarious our economic situation is now. His August 30 public comments on the economy were narrowly focused on extending small business tax credits, which Senate Republicans have been blocking. It will take a lot more than that to produce job growth again.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: The estimated audience for Obama’s address was 29 million viewers.

Iowa’s Republican National Committeewoman Kim Lehman stood by her false assertion about President Barack Obama’s faith yesterday. As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, Lehman claimed last week that Obama “personally told the muslims that he IS a muslim. Read his lips.” Sam Stein of the Huffington Post asked Lehman to clarify and got this response:

“I was watching television when he was over there talking to the Muslim world and he made it, in my opinion, clear he was partially Muslim,” Lehman told the Huffington Post. “The way he was approaching that speech was, ‘Hey I’m one of you. I’m with you.’ He didn’t have to say that… but he did.” […]

“Again, going back to his speech… he would have said I’m a Christian and I’m from the Christian religion and we can work together. It didn’t appear to me he said Christianity was part of his religion.”

But oops! Stein looked up the transcript of Obama’s June 2009 speech in Cairo and found this:

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I’m a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

The Des Moines Register’s Jennifer Jacobs also sought comment from Lehman yesterday:

This morning, Lehman said she was referring to an Obama speech in Cairo last summer in which he reached out to Muslims “to seek a new beginning.” In that speech, he makes no comment about being Muslim, a transcript shows.

Lehman said she objected to Obama’s speech because “it just had a sense of embracing or aligning with the Muslims. I don’t know. It was unnecessary the stuff he said. That’s the whole point.”

Lehman said she would never give anyone the impression that she is anything but a Christian.

“I don’t give myself an appearance to the Muslims that I am aligning myself with the Muslims. I am strictly a Christian. I believe that. I stand by that. I’ll die by that,” she said.

Jason Hancock noted at Iowa Independent that this isn’t the first time Lehman has used her twitter account to claim Obama is Muslim. According to Stein, though, she may be “the first [Republican] national committee member to fully endorse the Obama-is-a-Muslim view.”

Lehman told Politico to read Obama’s lips regarding his faith. She should take her own advice. She ignores the president’s numerous public statements about being a Christian because in her opinion, one speech “had a sense of embracing or aligning with the Muslims.” Republicans should be embarrassed to have one of their leaders pushing conspiracy theories, and it’s a sad comment on the Iowa GOP that no one stepped up to counter Lehman’s view.

Speaking of poor form, neither Stein nor Jacobs linked to this blog, which was the first to report on Lehman’s comments about the president’s faith.

UPDATE: The Iowa Democratic Party cited Lehman’s comments in a fundraising e-mail, which you can read here. Todd Dorman posted a funny take on this episode too.

Krusty Konservative feels Lehman is “not helping the Republican cause.”

You come across the strangest things on Twitter sometimes:

Yes, it’s delusional to believe Politico is in the game to “protect” Barack Obama, but for now I’m more interested in Republican National Committeewoman Kim Lehman’s claim that the president is Muslim. Presumably she was responding to Tim Grieve’s August 19 report for Politico on the latest Pew survey about the president’s religion. Pew found that about 18 percent of American adults say Obama is Muslim, while about 34 percent say Obama is Christian. About 34 percent of those who identified themselves as conservative Republicans told Pew Obama was Muslim. Grieve’s report referred to “a dramatic spike in false views about the president’s religious faith.” Politico’s Josh Gerstein also reported on the Pew finding, as well as a Time magazine survey which (using different wording) found even higher numbers of Republicans believe the president is Muslim.

Neither Lehman nor anyone else would claim Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad’s not really a Christian because his mother was Jewish. Yet for some reason, it’s not enough for Lehman that Obama has been baptized, regularly attended Christian churches for many years and was sworn in on a Christian bible.

I wonder how many other prominent Iowa Republicans believe the urban legend about Obama being Muslim. Representative Steve King recently claimed Obama is a “Marxist” who “surely understands the Muslim culture.” What about Senator Chuck Grassley, Representative Tom Latham and Republican Congressional candidates Ben Lange, Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Brad Zaun?

State party chairman Matt Strawn and Steve Scheffler, head of the Iowa Christian Alliance, are Iowa’s other two representatives on the RNC. Do they and members of the Iowa GOP’s State Central Committee share Lehman’s view?

Branstad’s own interfaith family background makes him an ideal person to speak publicly about religion as a matter of faith and an individual’s spiritual journey, as opposed to a genetic inheritance. But I’m not holding my breath for Branstad to dispel false rumors about Obama. He generally avoids taking any position that would anger conservatives–when he’s not kowtowing to far-right sentiment, that is.

If the “energy package” about to emerge in the Senate looks anything like what Kate Sheppard is hearing, Senate Democrats should be ashamed. I threw in the towel on the climate bill a long time ago, because it was clear no serious attempt to address global warming could gain 60 votes in the Senate. Still, I thought some decent provisions might survive in a scaled-back energy bill.

Not so, according to Sheppard, who’s among the best reporters covering climate legislation. Sources from “several Senate offices” told her what’s likely to be in the new bill, and what will be conspicuously absent:

Obviously, there’s no carbon cap, that much we already knew. But there’s also no other major energy efficiency standards, and, perhaps most importantly, no renewable electricity standard -not even the weak one included in the energy bill last year. […]

Senate aides hoping to put a positive spin on the package note that it at least does not include any of the really bad measures that progressive senators were worried about, including major incentives for coal and nuclear power and the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Are we supposed to be impressed that the largest Democratic Senate majority in decades won’t press ahead with “really bad measures” for the environment?

For all of President Barack Obama’s talk about our clean energy future, we won’t even get a renewable electricity standard to boost wind and solar production. We won’t get new energy efficiency standards, even though reducing demand for electricity tends to be faster and cheaper than building new facilities to generate electricity.

The American Wind Energy Association put out an action alert urging people to contact their senators demanding a renewable electricity standard in the energy bill. If you are so inclined, you can contact your senators through this page. I will contact the offices of Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley, although doing so probably won’t accomplish anything.

This disgrace gives me yet another reason not to donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the future. I don’t plan to waste my money or volunteer time on Organizing for America either. Obama failed to use his bully pulpit to produce a good climate bill and made stupid concessions to polluting industries along the way. He’s so afraid of losing a legislative battle that he didn’t even fight the good fight. But when he signs this worthless energy bill, he’ll probably declare victory in a very inspiring speech.

UPDATE: How pathetic–a White House official provides a blind quote to Politico blaming environmental groups for the Senate’s failure to pass a broad climate bill:

“They didn’t deliver a single Republican,” the official told POLITICO. “They spent like $100 million and they weren’t able to get a single Republican convert on the bill.”

Poor Mr. President. He could have delivered on one of his major campaign promises if the environmentalists hadn’t let him down.

SECOND UPDATE: I couldn’t agree more with Transportation 4 America: “With the Senate backing down on a real climate bill, it’s more important than ever that next transport bill helps make climate progress.”

President Obama is ready to sign a $34 billion bill to extend unemployment benefits to many out-of-work Americans after the U.S. Senate finally passed the bill last night and the House of Representatives followed suit today. Unemployment benefits for many Americans started running out in early June, but Senate Democrats failed in several attempts to overcome Republican filibusters of the measure. This week a cloture motion on the unemployment benefits bill finally passed 60-40, with Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine joining 58 Democrats to overcome a filibuster. (West Virginia now has a Democratic appointee filling Robert Byrd’s old seat; his long illness and death this summer had left Democrats one vote short of 60.)

Iowa’s Chuck Grassley joined the Republican filibuster again this week, and last night he voted no on the bill itself, which passed 59-39. Grassley’s office sent out this statement yesterday:

“There’s bipartisan consensus that Congress should extend unemployment insurance, but there’s no reason we can’t extend benefits and pay for it.  We’ve offered solutions, five separate times, on ways to pay, only to be rebuffed by the Democratic leadership.

“Iowans have told me time and time again that Congress must stop deficit spending, so I voted to extend unemployment insurance and pay for it.”

Give me a break. When we had a Republican president, Grassley never hesitated to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare part D, or war supplemental funding bills that added to the deficit. In fact, under President George W. Bush the Republican-controlled Congress passed unemployment extensions without making sure the additional spending was “paid for.” Senator Tom Harkin got it right in his July 20 speech on the Senate floor:

“For far too long, the long-term unemployed have gone without the assistance they need because of political gamesmanship in the Senate.  Critics argue that we cannot help some of the most desperate workers in America if it adds a dime to the deficit, but in the next breath, they argue in favor of extending hundreds of billions of tax breaks for the most fortunate and privileged Americans was necessary.  Tell that to the working family in Iowa who, through no fault of their own, struggles with joblessness and cannot put food on the table.

“Some two and a half million unemployed Americans have seen their benefits terminated in recent weeks.  They are among the nearly 6.8 million Americans who have been out of work for more than half a year.  That’s the highest number of long-term unemployed we’ve had since we started keeping track in 1948.”  

The House approved the unemployment benefits extension by a vote of 272 to 152 (roll call). Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell all voted for the bill. Ten Democrats (mostly representing conservative districts) crossed the aisle to vote against the bill, and 31 House Republicans voted for it. That’s a surprisingly high number of Republicans going against their leadership. Iowa Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King stuck with the majority of their caucus. Not only do they lack compassion for some long-term unemployed Iowans whose benefits have run out, they apparently don’t understand that unemployment benefits are among the most stimulative forms of government spending.

It’s good news that benefits will be restored to millions of Americans in the coming weeks, but in other respects this bill falls short of what’s needed to address our long-term unemployment problem. Although the number of Americans out of work for at least six months is at its highest level in six decades, Congress still hasn’t done anything for people who have exhausted the full 99 weeks of eligibility for unemployment benefits. The House has approved more infrastructure spending and other measures that would create jobs, but for now the Senate seems unable to overcome GOP filibusters of further stimulus.

Chuck Grassley will vote no when the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up Elana Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court today, he announced today. In a statement, Grassley said Kagan “failed to answer directly” many questions asked during her confirmation hearings. Supreme Court nominees proposed by Republican presidents have likewise declined to answer certain questions in committee, but Grassley said “candid answers” were needed from Kagan because “she has no previous judicial experience.” I posted the full text of Grassley’s statement below. He also told Radio Iowa that Kagan won’t exercise “judicial restraint” and will “let her own private views enter in” as opposed to interpreting the law. (No word on whether he found Kagan to be “aggressive” or “obnoxious.”)

It’s rich to hear Republicans talk about judicial restraint when judicial activism has “become a defining feature of the Roberts Court’s unfolding legacy” (see also here).

Click here to watch a YouTube video of Grassley questioning Kagan during Judiciary Committee hearings in late June. Radio Iowa and Blog for Iowa summarized the exchanges between Grassley and Kagan, which covered guns rights and gay marriage, among other issues.

Grassley voted to confirm both of President Bill Clinton’s nominees for the Supreme Court as well as all judges nominated by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. Some Iowa conservatives have been grumbling about Grassley in recent years, so perhaps that explains his opposition to confirming Sonia Sotomayor last year and now Kagan.

UPDATE: Media Matters compiled a list of “45 myths and falsehoods” about Kagan’s nomination.

SECOND UPDATE: The Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to confirm Kagan. All committee Democrats and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted yes.

“No one spent more time trying to beat President Obama than I did, except maybe Senator McCain,” Mr. Graham said Tuesday, referring to the 2008 presidential election and Senator John McCain  of Arizona, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival. “I missed my own election – I voted absentee. But I understood: we lost, President Obama won. The Constitution, in my view, puts a requirement on me not to replace my judgment for his.”

Mr. Graham said there were “100 reasons” he could vote against Ms. Kagan if he based his vote on her philosophy, which is at odds with his. But he said she met a time-honored standard for judicial nominees: whether they are qualified and of good character.

As a senator, Mr. Obama adopted a different standard, saying it was permissible to vote against a nominee based on judicial philosophy, not just qualifications. Mr. Graham said that approach undermined the judicial confirmation process, by making it more partisan.

“Something’s changing when it comes to the advice and consent clause,” he said. “Senator Obama was part of the problem, not part of the solution.”

THIRD UPDATE: The reaction from Grassley’s Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin is after the jump.

So the North Iowa Tea Party covered up their Mason City billboard that juxtaposed pictures of Adolf Hitler (“National Socialism”), Barack Obama (“Democrat Socialism”) and Vladimir Lenin (“Marxist Socialism”) over the slogan, “Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive.” (Here’s a photo.) Activists in statewide tea party circles repudiated the billboard. Ryan Rhodes, chairman of the Iowa Tea Party movement, wants fellow travelers to educate the public about freedom and U.S. history. Rhodes’ problem was the Hitler imagery, not the underlying message that we’re headed toward socialism.

I know I’m supposed to be outraged that right-wingers would compare Obama to Hitler, but I’m too stunned that anyone paying attention to the news could view Obama as “socialist.” I got a window onto the tea party mindset from Bob Johnson, one of the Mason City billboard’s creators. For your weekly dose of unintentional comedy, I recommend Jennifer Jacobs’ interview with Johnson on the Des Moines Register blog. Among his insights:

“It was absolutely not the aim to just create controversy. Nobody’s more surprised about the thing than I am,” Johnson said. “This billboard was misunderstood. I’m not going to say it was a mistake.” […]

“We had some hesitations about it,” Johnson said, “but for those that understand it, it’s just such a powerful billboard, so we said screw it and go ahead with it.” […]

“When we put that Hitler up there, it just totally overwhelmed everything on the billboard,” Johnson said. “That’s the one thing that just destroyed the whole concept we did not realize the power Hitler still has, the emotion.” […]

“When you want to compare the present administration to Hitler, Hitler took over the banks. Gee, what’s this administration doing? Hitler took over the health care. Gee. Hitler took over the transportation and what’s this administration doing? If that wasn’t a direct comparison to socialism, I don’t know what is.”

Let’s consider the so-called government takeover of health care, a major area of concern for the tea partiers. Under socialized medicine (as exists in real socialist countries), the government employs all the doctors and runs all the clinics and hospitals. Under single-payer health care (as exists in Canada), the government pays for medical care, but most doctors and medical institutions are privately operated.

In contrast, Obama had his top aides cut deals with health industry interests, working closely with the most corporate-friendly Congressional  committee drafting a health reform bill. The key staffer charged with writing that committee’s bill, Liz Fowler, came straight from one of the largest health insurance companies. Obama broke many significant campaign promises on health care so as not to tread on corporate interests. As a result, key industries got virtually everything they wanted from the bill that passed. Private health insurance companies are now guaranteed millions of new customers in the coming years, with no new competition from government-run entities. Completing the circle, Fowler is now working for the Obama administration to help implement the health reform law.

Rest assured, no corporate CEO in America is lying awake at night worried about “socialist” health care the way Johnson says he worried people might bomb his house because they didn’t like his billboard.

Most of the Obama administration’s economic team came straight from the Wall Street culture, and the president hasn’t tried to “take over” or even break up major financial institutions.

I have no idea what Johnson is talking about when he suggests the Obama administration has been taking over the transportation sector.

Anyone who has such a skewed view of this corporate-friendly administration could gain perspective from spending a few weeks in a socialist country.

President Barack Obama has nominated Jacob “Jack” Lew as his new director for the Office of Management and Budget. Peter Orszag recently announced plans to step down from that position. Lew served as OMB director during Bill Clinton’s administration. Announcing his choice at a July 13 press conference, Obama said,

“Jack’s challenge over the next few years is to use his extraordinary skill and experience to cut down that deficit and put our nation back on a fiscally responsible path. And I have the utmost faith in his ability to achieve this goal as a central member of our economic team,” Obama said.

The president pulled this line straight from Republican talking points:

“At a time when so many families are tightening their belts, he’s going to make sure the government continues to tighten its own,” Obama said in announcing Lew’s selection at the White House.

“He’s going to do this while making government more efficient, more responsive to the people it serves,” Obama continued.

How will the government become “more efficient”? We know the Pentagon won’t be asked to make any sacrifices, since Obama can’t bring himself to request even a slight reduction in our defense budget. On the contrary, he keeps going back to Congress for more supplemental war spending.

I hope Obama doesn’t believe what he’s saying, because aggressive policies to reduce unemployment are much more urgently needed than “belt-tightening” by the government. The Clinton economic boom turned deficits into surpluses not only (or mainly) because of spending cuts, but because unemployment dropped to historically low levels across the country.

If the president was speaking sincerely yesterday, then Lew’s appointment likely means less spending on infrastructure, social benefits and other domestic programs. The trouble is, we’re not going to significantly reduce the federal deficit if unemployment remains high. More federal spending may be needed to stave off a double-dip recession and ease the strain on state budgets. Bonddad decimated the argument for “austerity” here. Click over to view the numbers he posted, which show that the U.S. has had a structural deficit for the last decade.

Notice this started a long time ago. Yet suddenly everyone is up in arms about the deficit. Please.

Secondly, the complete denial about the important beneficial effects of government spending (especially infrastructure spending and unemployment benefits) is maddening. Regrettably, everyone now talks in sound bites instead of facts. So here’s a few inconvenient facts.

1.) The US economy grew at a solid rate in the 1960s. Why? A big reason was the US government building the highway system. Now goods and services could move between cities in a far easier manner. If you think that wasn’t a big deal then you obviously don’t get out much.

2.) Since 1970, government spending has accounted for about 20% of all US GDP growth.

Bonddad further explained here why austerity hasn’t created economic expansion in European countries that have gone down that road.

Instead of echoing Republican messaging, which suggests the deficit should be the government’s top concern, Obama should be out there making the case for more spending on job creation and economic relief (such as unemployment benefits, which yield more stimulus “bang for the buck” than most forms of government spending). He should also demand more federal fiscal aid to the states, particularly through the Medicaid program. If Congress cuts off further support now, state budget cuts could cost this country nearly a million jobs, according to Nicholas Johnson of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

The [National Governors Association (NGA) and the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO)] report shows that federal Recovery Act [2009 stimulus bill] assistance has greatly helped states deal with their shortfalls in a responsible, balanced way. But that assistance will largely run out by the end of December, halfway through states’ fiscal year and long before state budgets are expected to recover.

In the year ahead, state budget-closing actions could cost the economy up to 900,000 public- and private-sector jobs without more federal help. When states cut spending, they lay off teachers and police officers and cancel contracts with vendors. The impact then ripples through the wider economy as laid-off workers spend less at local stores, putting more jobs at risk.

If Obama stakes his presidency on bringing down the budget deficit in the short term, he may be looking for a new job in 2013.

LATE UPDATE: Chris Hayes wrote a good piece for The Nation called “Deficits of Mass Destruction”:

Nearly the entire deficit for this year and those projected into the near and medium terms are the result of three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession. The solution to our fiscal situation is: end the wars, allow the tax cuts to expire and restore robust growth. Our long-term structural deficits will require us to control healthcare inflation the way countries with single-payer systems do.

But right now we face a joblessness crisis that threatens to pitch us into a long, ugly period of low growth, the kind of lost decade that will cause tremendous misery, degrade the nation’s human capital, undermine an entire cohort of young workers for years and blow a hole in the government’s bank sheet. The best chance we have to stave off this scenario is more government spending to nurse the economy back to health. The economy may be alive, but that doesn’t mean it’s healthy. There’s a reason you keep taking antibiotics even after you start to feel better.

And yet: the drumbeat of deficit hysterics thumping in self-righteous panic grows louder by the day.

Last week’s horrible nationwide jobs report for June is another danger sign for the U.S. economy. Charles Lemos put the numbers in perspective here. The U.S. unemployment rate doesn’t appear to be rising, but that’s mainly because discouraged workers have stopped looking for a job. Other pieces of the economic picture aren’t looking great either, and some analysts think we are on the brink of a double-dip recession.

In terrible news for central Iowa, Wells Fargo announced on July 7 that it is “eliminating Des Moines-based Wells Fargo Financial and 3,800 positions nationwide.” From the Des Moines Register report:

Wells Fargo Financial will eliminate 2,800 positions in the next six months. The majority of those will come with the closing of 638 Wells Fargo Financial stores around the country, including 12 in Iowa. Only 14 of the initial layoffs will be in the Des Moines headquarters.

Wells Fargo also will eliminate an additional 1,000 positions in the next 12 months, most of those positions in Des Moines, said David Kvamme, president of Wells Fargo Financial. […]

Currently, Wells Fargo Financial has approximately 14,000 team members throughout the country, and 3,500 in Des Moines. The remaining 10,600 jobs will transition to other Wells Fargo units, including mortgage and community banking.

Laid off employees will receive 60 days’ working notice and a severance package.

Affected Wells Fargo employees also are encouraged to apply for other jobs throughout the company. Wells Fargo currently has more than 400 open positions in the Des Moines area, Kvamme said.

Wells Fargo is Iowa’s largest bank in terms of deposits and Central Iowa’s largest private employer with about 12,900 employees in the Des Moines area.

The Des Moines area is far from the worst place to do job-hunting; unemployment and the cost of living are pretty good compared to other medium-sized cities. Still, that’s a lot of people who will hit the job market at the same time.

Here’s some good news from the past week: the Iowa Utilities Board adopted “rules to encourage the development of more small wind generation systems across Iowa,” the Newton Independent reported.

One prominent Iowan got a new (unpaid) position this week, as President Obama appointed Vermeer Corporation president and CEO Mary Andringa to his 18-member export advisory council. Heavy-hitter Iowa Republicans tried to recruit Andringa to run for governor last year, and she is a chair of Terry Branstad’s campaign.

The celebrity job story of the week was of course LeBron James abandoning the Cleveland Cavaliers for the Miami Heat. I haven’t watched an NBA game in years, but I think James should have stayed in Cleveland, or at least not humiliated his hometown on nationwide television. A couple of good takes on the unprecedented dumping via tv special: Bill Simmons for ESPN and Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone.

Some enterprising person was able to make google searches for “Terry Branstad” turn up ads for cheap drugs from Canada. The ads look like they are coming from Branstad’s official campaign website. Luke Jennett of the Ames Tribune got the scoop. As of Sunday morning, the problem still hadn’t been fixed.

This thread is for anything on your mind this weekend.

UPDATE: Who else watched the World Cup final? I was rooting for the Netherlands, but at least it wasn’t decided by penalty kicks. Spain scored a goal in the final minutes of extra time to post its fourth straight 1-0 victory. (Paul the psychic German octopus was right.) I’m happy for Spain, because they looked like the better team for most of the game, but it’s incredible to think that they are the World Cup champions after scoring eight goals in seven games.

The Democratic National Committee’s Rules Committee has recommended Monday, February 6, 2012 as the date for the next Iowa caucuses, according to Iowa Democratic Party executive director Norm Sterzenbach, who attended the meeting. The same body recommended February 14 for the New Hampshire primary, February 18 for the Nevada caucuses and February 28 for the South Carolina primary. All other Democratic nominating contests would occur in March or later.

Although we are unlikely to have real competition on the Democratic side in 2012, it’s good precedent to start the presidential nominating process in February rather than January. Having to knock on doors and phonebank between Christmas 2007 and New Year’s Day 2008 was insane.

The big question is how many states will try to jump ahead of the early states. The DNC rules committee recommends that states violating the proposed calendar would lose half of their delegates. The Republican Party adopted similar sanctions before the 2008 campaign, which didn’t deter Florida and Michigan from holding their primaries “too early.”

The 2010 Iowa caucuses were held on a Saturday afternoon, but off-year caucuses always have light attendance. A Saturday afternoon caucus in a presidential year was never likely, because observant Jews would be unable to participate.

I would like to see more reforms to the Iowa Democratic caucus process, including an absentee ballot option for shift workers who can’t get the night off or voters who are housebound. In Maine, Democrats can participate in the caucuses by absentee ballot.

House Republican leader John Boehner gave a revealing interview to the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review this week. He dismissed the need for more financial regulations, saying the draft Wall Street reform bill is like “killing an ant with a nuclear weapon.” Boehner also dabbled in Steve King-style rhetoric, accusing Democrats of “snuffing out out the America that I grew up in.” Then he spoke frankly about Republican priorities:

Boehner had praise, however, for Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan and stepped-up drone attacks in Pakistan. He declined to list any benchmarks he has for measuring progress in the nine-year war, at a time of increasing violence and Obama’s replacement of Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus.

Ensuring there’s enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country’s entitlement system, Boehner said. He’d favor increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation and limiting payments to those who need them.

“We need to look at the American people and explain to them that we’re broke,” Boehner said. “If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you’re retired, why are we paying you at a time when we’re broke? We just need to be honest with people.”

Boehner handed our president the opportunity to highlight the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Last year Boehner advocated a federal spending freeze, which would have made a severe recession much worse. Now this guy still doesn’t understand how serious the 2008 financial crash was. President Barack Obama plans to slam Boehner’s comments about financial reform at a town-hall event today.

Ideally, Obama would also bash Boehner’s plans for entitlement reform. The top House Republican wants to reduce Social Security benefits for future recipients in order to keep us on a war footing indefinitely. In other words, make working Americans pay the bills for endless war.

Unfortunately, our president seems less and less committed to a timeline for ending the war in Afghanistan. David Dayen predicts, probably correctly, that the July 2011 deadline for drawing down troops in Afghanistan will disappear now that General David Petraeus has replaced General Stanley McChrystal as commander in the theater.

Obama’s unlikely to go to the mat to preserve Social Security either, having just appointed Republican Alan Simpson to co-chair a deficit commission. Simpson wasn’t serious about addressing the budget deficit as a U.S. senator, and his “zombie lies” about Social Security are notorious.

I never expected Obama to be a partisan warrior, but if he can’t be bothered to help build the Democratic brand, could he at least protect Social Security, one of the greatest programs the Democratic Party ever created?

UPDATE: The president shouldn’t count on Americans supporting endless war in Afghanistan.

Yesterday, President Obama met with Senators at the White House and pushed them to pass comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Still, the skeptics are spinning a monotonous web of negativity regarding what is achievable on this front.  And, not surprisingly, the “mainstream media” once again has been asleep at the wheel in setting the record straight.  Fortunately, we know that when this President rolls up his sleeves, he gets stuff done and delivers on his promises. One thing’s for sure; President Obama is anything but an underachiever!

Along these lines, President Obama held a press conference following the G-20 summit in Toronto.  In response to a reporter’s question regarding how he would achieve his deficit reduction goals, the president responded:

For some reason people keep being surprised when I do what I said I was going to do. So, I say I’m going to reform our [health care system], and people say well gosh that’s not smart politics maybe we should hold off. Or I say we’re going to move forward on [Don’t Ask Don’t Tell] and somehow people say well why are you doing that, I’m not sure that’s good politics. I’m doing it because I said I was going to do it, and I think it’s the right thing to do. And people should learn that lesson about me, because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficit and debt step up cause I’m calling their bluff.

To that list of accomplishments, we could also add:

• Almost single-handedly saving the Copenhagen Climate Summit from failure.
• Preventing Great Depression Part II. 
• Creating or saving 2.2-2.8 million jobs, well on the way to Obama’s February 2009 pledge that he would “create or save 3-and-a-half million jobs over the next two years.” 
• Reforming Wall Street (likely to pass Congress any day now)
• Overhauling the student loan market 
• Reaching a nuclear arms treaty with Russia

We could go on and on, but you get the point: anyone who continues, at this point, to be “surprised” when President Obama gets things done when he puts his mind to it is deep in denial. Or, as a previous president might have put it, they are wildly “misunderestimating” our 44th president.

Clearly, as we’ve seen over the past two years, underachieving is not a problem Barack Obama suffers from.  Of course, even a superachiever like Barack Obama has an awful lot on his plate to deal with. And right now, one of the most important things on Obama’s plate is figuring out how to push comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation through the U.S. Senate.   Along those lines, yesterday, Obama met with a group of Senators on this issue, reportedly holding firm in his call for putting a price on carbon emissions.

The question at this point is, will President Obama roll up his sleeves and deliver on another of his major campaign promise (as well as a major challenge facing our nation)?  Given the long list of accomplishments mentioned above, it certainly wouldn’t be smart to bet against him.  The fact is, Barack Obama usually succeeds in whatever he puts his mind to.

Given the nation’s increased focus on energy and climate issues – and the increased support by the American people for taking strong action as a result of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster – now is clearly the time for boldness and for bluff calling by our nation’s leaders.  Today, President Obama has the opportunity to demonstrate once more that, when he rolls up his sleeves, he accomplishes what he says he’s going to do.  In sum, today is clearly the moment for President Obama to prove the doubters and naysayers wrong – to call their bluff – yet again!

As President Obama prepares for his meeting tomorrow with Senators at the White House to discuss clean energy and climate change legislation, he might want to check with the White House staff on an important matter first. No, not the details of the legislation, although that’s important of course. Instead, what President Obama might want to make absolutely sure about is the non-trivial matter of whether the White House air conditioning is in tip-top shape. I say “non-trivial,” but these days it’s more like “life or death.” How hot is it in the Washington, DC area?  As NBC Washington puts it, “We're Talking Spontaneous Combustion.” (UPDATE: it's more likely this is apocryphal than literally true, but it sure feels like plants could catch on fire these days in Washington, DC!)

The Senate version of a bill designed to create jobs, support state budgets and extend various tax credits and benefit programs failed to overcome a Republican filibuster yesterday. Tom Harkin was among 56 members of the Democratic caucus who voted for the cloture motion (which would end debate on the bill), but Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted with all the Republicans present, including Chuck Grassley, to kill the bill (roll call here). Joan McCarter observed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

voted yes, without changing his vote, signaling that this iteration of the bill is indeed dead.

Reid followed the vote by attempting to pass the emergency provisions of the bill, the “doc fix,” unemployment benefits extension, and FMAP as well as the homebuyer tax credit, as separate bills under unanimous consent. McConnell objected to each, so we’re stuck in further limbo.

Extending unemployment benefits should be a no-brainer when the percentage of unemployed Americans who have been out of work for more than six months is higher “than at any time since the government began keeping track in 1948.” Without the “doc fix,” medical providers’ reimbursements for Medicare patients stand to drop about 20 percent. FMAP stands for Federal Medical Assistance Percentage funding, relating to federal government reimbursements for part of each state’s Medicaid spending. The 2009 stimulus bill temporarily raised FMAP payments for states during the recession, with larger increases going to states with higher unemployment rates. Failing to extend this provision will put state budgets under further strain for the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years.

Republicans who blocked this bill claim we should not be adding to the federal deficit. A spokesman for GOP enabler Ben Nelson laid out his views here. Ezra Klein pointed out a few glaring problems with the analysis: the federal budget can’t start approaching balance with unemployment at 9 percent, polls show Americans are much more concerned about jobs than the deficit, and the current rate of economic recovery is “far, far too slow to really dent unemployment.” Meanwhile, the same senators who claim to oppose adding to the deficit also oppose rolling back tax cuts or tax loopholes for the wealthy in order to pay for extending unemployed benefits, state fiscal aid and tax credits.

I share John Aravosis’ view that it was a terrible mistake for President Barack Obama to talk tough about reducing the deficit earlier this year. As Aravosis writes,

[T]he President didn’t want to blame Bush and the GOP for the deficit, and he didn’t want to sufficiently defend the stimulus and explain to people that they had a choice between a Great Depression and a bigger deficit. […] If the public understood that the deficit was a) mostly caused by Bush, and b) not nearly as important as staving off a Depression and creating jobs, the GOP would be facing far more pressure not to launch these filibusters at all.

Perhaps no jobs bill passed this week would alter the economy enough to affect the November elections, but if we accept current unemployment levels and don’t pass additional fiscal aid to the states, the economy may still be very weak leading up to the 2012 election.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread. From where I’m sitting, the case for Harkin’s filibuster reform proposal has never looked stronger.

Oil from BP’s blown-out Deepwater Horizon well continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico and will do so until August at the earliest. In response, the Obama administration extended a moratorium on deepwater drilling for six months last week. However, the president also “quietly allowed a three-week-old ban on drilling in shallow water to expire” last week (hat tip Open Left). As a result,

Federal regulators approved Wednesday the first new Gulf of Mexico oil well since President Barack Obama lifted a brief ban on drilling in shallow water, even while deepwater projects remain frozen after the massive BP spill.

The Minerals Management Service granted a new drilling permit sought by Bandon Oil and Gas for a site about 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana and 115 feet below the ocean’s surface. It’s south of Rockefeller State Wildlife Refuge and Game Preserve, far to the west of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that triggered the BP spill.

Chris Bowers put it mildly when he described the Obama administration’s action here as “difficult to fathom.” The president gave a speech on the economy today and talked about investing in alternative energy, but like all my parenting books say, actions speak louder than words. The greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, and BP doesn’t know how to stop it, but it’s business as usual at the Minerals Management Service. Nor is today’s permit approval an isolated case:

In the days since President Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new offshore oil wells and a halt to a controversial type of environmental waiver that was given to the Deepwater Horizon rig, at least seven new permits for various types of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted, according to records.

The records also indicate that since the April 20 explosion on the rig, federal regulators have granted at least 19 environmental waivers for gulf drilling projects and at least 17 drilling permits, most of which were for types of work like that on the Deepwater Horizon shortly before it exploded, pouring a ceaseless current of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Words fail me, so you’ll have to share your thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: In 1979 it took nine months to stop oil gushing from a shallow well in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 today to pass a compromise that will probably lead to repeal of the prohibition on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote for the compromise. Jim Webb of Virginia was the only Democrat to vote against it. I wouldn’t have predicted that Webb would vote no when people like Evan Bayh, Robert Byrd and Ben Nelson voted yes.

This bill appears to have the votes to pass on the Senate floor. Representative Patrick Murphy (an Iraq War veteran) is offering a comparable amendment to the Defense Authorization bill in the House. Technically, it’s not correct to call this a “repeal” of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, because the legislation allows officials at the White House, Pentagon and Joint Chiefs to leave the policy in place. Here’s what will happen if the amendment makes it into the final bill passed by the House and Senate:

When the President signs the Department of Defense Authorization bill into law, DADT will not instantly be repealed. Repeal would take place only after the study group completes its work in December 2010 and after the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense all certify that repeal will not hurt military readiness or unit cohesion.

So, gay and lesbian soldiers will continue to be discharged several months (and perhaps several years) from now. Still, I agree with Adam Bink; this has to be viewed as a “giant step” toward taking Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell off the books. Ideally, Congress would have passed stronger legislation, but I’d rather have them pass this deal now than shoot for something better next year. If Republicans took control of the House or Senate, we’d have no hope of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for a long time.

Iowa’s senators don’t have seats on the Armed Services Committee, but Tom Harkin is expected to support repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Chuck Grassley opposes moving forward on this issue until the Pentagon has completed its review of the policy, and it sounds like even if the report recommends repeal, Grassley is a likely no vote: “I’m going to be listening to see what it does for readiness and our national security. Because we’ve had the policy in place for 18 years… and it seems to have worked and not affected the readiness.”

Senator, that policy didn’t work so well for “over 13,500 well trained, able-bodied soldiers willing to take a bullet for their country” who have been “kicked out of the military simply because they were gay.”

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: The House passed the amendment 234 to 194 tonight, with five Republicans voting yes and 26 Democrats voting no. I will post a link to the roll call when it’s available, but I think all three Iowa Democrats voted yes. Leonard Boswell’s statement on why he supports repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is after the jump.

UPDATE: Here is the House roll call. Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack did vote yes, along with most of the Democratic caucus. Tom Latham and Steve King voted no, with almost all the House Republicans.

Senator Tom Harkin is among 13 senators (eight from the Banking Committee, five from the Agriculture Committee) named to the conference committee that will reconcile differences between the financial reform bills approved by the House last December and the Senate last week. The House will also have 13 representatives on the conference committee. For lists of the key differences between the bills, see Pat Garofalo’s Wonk Room chart and this post by David Dayen. Harkin’s office released this statement on Tuesday:

“Over the last year, Wall Street has repeatedly tried to kill this reform with hundreds of lobbyists and millions of dollars in ads. From my seat at the table, I look forward to ensuring that effort will have been in vain,” Senator Harkin said. “I plan to do everything in my power to preserve the bill’s integrity, strengthen its consumer protections, and stop the reckless financial wheeling and dealing that destabilized our economy and threw millions of Americans out of work. And, given the dangers they pose if not properly regulated, I plan to focus on preserving the key reforms in the Senate-passed derivatives portion of the bill. The Restoring American Financial Stability Act is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to improving it in conference.”

He’ll have his work cut out for him if he wants to preserve the Senate language on derivatives. Dayen wrote last week,

Everyone expects the 716 provision, which forces the mega-banks to spin off their swaps trading desks, to be excised in conference. But Michael Greenberger believes something like it will be retained. The House’s derivatives piece is a mess and nearly useless, but [conference committee chairman] Barney Frank has admitted a mistake on that front, and wants to preserve strong rules against derivatives, like in the Senate bill.

The smart money is on the conference committee dropping the strong derivatives language after the Arkansas Democratic primary runoff election on June 8. Until then, corporate hack Senator Blanche Lincoln needs to be able to brag about standing up to Wall Street lobbyists.

Here’s another battle Harkin should fight during the conference negotiations. On Monday the Senate passed a non-binding instruction to the conference committee supporting “a special exemption to shield automobile dealers from the oversight of a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.” The House bill already contains that exemption. Harkin was among the 30 senators who voted against that instruction, while Republican Chuck Grassley was among the 60 who voted to limit the oversight of the new consumer protection unit. Of the 13 senators named to the conference committee, six voted against the instruction on automobile dealers, four voted for it, and three did not vote (roll call).

According to the White House blog,

The President has been clear on this issue, repeatedly urging members of the Senate to fight efforts of the special interests and their lobbyists to weaken consumer protections.  The fact is, auto dealer-lending is an $850 billion industry, which is larger than the entire credit card industry and they make nearly 80 percent of the automobile loans in our country.

Is there any question that these lenders should be subject to the same standards as any local or community bank that provides loans?

Auto dealer-lenders sell auto loans to working families every single day, and while most dealers are no doubt above board, some cannot resist the bigger profits that come from inflating rates, hiding fees, and tacking on over-priced add-ons.

In this kind of situation, President George W. Bush would make his demands clear and tell members of Congress to send him “a bill I can sign.” We’ll see how far President Obama is willing to go to keep consumer protection provisions in the Wall Street reform bill.  

The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee met yesterday in Washington and approved a proposed calendar for the 2012 presidential nominating process. The DemRulz blog noted that the calendar “tracks the DNC Change Commission recommendations,” which state that all primaries and caucuses must be held in March 2012 or later, except for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, which may schedule their nominating contests in February 2012. In a statement released to the media, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Michael Kiernan hailed the vote as “another important step” that “will help us ensure that Iowa is First-in-the-Nation once again.”

The Republican National Committee has moved toward a similar calendar in 2012, with the same four states allowed to schedule primaries or caucuses in February, and all other states allowed to go beginning March 1. The final calendar may not reflect the RNC’s wishes, though; some states may try to jump ahead the way Florida and Michigan did in 2008.

I suspect Iowa’s representatives will have to fight hard to maintain our early position for the 2016 campaign. Democrats in several larger states resent the outsized influence of Iowa and New Hampshire, which are small and predominantly white. The calendar doesn’t matter much on the Democratic side for 2012, because it’s unlikely anyone will challenge Barack Obama for the nomination, but the next cycle will certainly be competitive, whether or not Obama wins a second term.

Numerous media reported tonight that Monday morning, President Barack Obama will nominate his solicitor general, Elana Kagan, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Above the Law blog saw several “clues” over the last few days that the president would pick Kagan.

I always expected Obama to choose corporate-friendly pro-choice moderate judges like President Bill Clinton’s appointees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Instead, Obama is choosing a corporate-friendly pro-choice “blank slate.” Kagan is a lot less qualified than Sonia Sotomayor, whom Obama named to the high court last year. She probably will turn out to be more conservative than Justice John Paul Stevens, whom she will replace if confirmed.

Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald laid out a devastating case against Kagan last month, and he supplemented that on Sunday with more links and commentary.

As far as I can tell, Obama gets two things out of this nomination: a chance to show off how “moderate” he is by enraging liberals, and a Supreme Court justice who will support any expansion of executive power begun under President George W. Bush and continued during the current administration.

If tonight’s reports are true, Obama is on the verge of making one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency. We may all pay for that decades into the future.

UPDATE: To be clear, I’m not advocating a progressive fight against confirming Kagan. That would be pointless and doomed to fail. I wish the president had named someone who would be a counter-weight to the four right-wing ideologues on the court, but not surprisingly, he chose a different course. I guess we’ll all have to hope that Lawrence Lessig is right about Kagan. Incidentally, I didn’t find Walter Dellinger’s case for her convincing; Greenwald decimated that piece here.

Meanwhile, we can count on conservatives to make idiotic arguments against Kagan. Media Matters previews and rebuts 15 “myths” about her nomination we’re likely to hear in the coming weeks.

SECOND UPDATE: Right on cue, the conservative National Review Online blog attacks Kagan’s “remoteness” from the average American because she did not learn to drive until her late 20s.

THIRD UPDATE: Democratic Senate candidate Tom Fiegen released the following statement regarding Kagan’s nomination:

“The President’s nomination of Ms. Kagan is an opportunity for our senior senator Chuck Grassley to either objectively advise and consent to the nomination or to bow to right wing forces in his party which took down Utah U.S. Senator Bob Bennett. Iowans will be watching to see whether Senator Grassley represents us or the most extreme wing of his own party.”

My money’s on “most extreme wing of his own party.” But at least this time Grassley will be able to remember why he voted against the president’s nominee.

FOURTH UPDATE: Oops, I forgot to post Grassley’s statement:

“A lifetime appointment requires a thorough vetting and I expect Elena Kagan to receive fair, respectful and deliberative consideration.  The Constitution gives the Senate a tremendous responsibility to carefully review the President’s nominees to the Supreme Court.   The Judiciary Committee must take time to ensure that the nominee will be true to the Constitution and apply the law, not personal politics, feelings or preferences.  With no judicial experience, it becomes even more important that we ask thorough questions to determine that Ms. Kagan truly understands the constitutional role of a Supreme Court justice.”

Senator Tom Harkin released this statement:

“Elena Kagan is extremely qualified.  She has the intellect and experience necessary to serve on our nation’s highest Court and her stellar legal credentials have been recognized by liberal and conservative lawyers alike.  She clerked for two judges for whom I have enormous respect – Judge Abner Mikva and Justice Thurgood Marshall.  I am also encouraged that in this nomination, the President selected a candidate from outside of the Judiciary.  Elena Kagan is recognized as one of the leading legal educators in our country.  

“I am confident that, if confirmed, she will be an important voice on our Court for the rule of law and constitutional rights and values.  She will ensure equality and give proper effect to our most important statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Civil Rights Act, so our most vulnerable citizens receive the fullest protections of the law.

“Elena Kagan’s nomination comes after a series of firsts in her career – first female Dean of Harvard Law School and first female Solicitor General – setting the stage for what may be only the fourth woman to serve on the Court in our history.”