Weiner Goes (Appropriately) Nuts On 911 Health Care Bill

From the Huffington Post:

House Republicans late Thursday were able to corral enough votes to defeat a bill that would have provided up to $7.4 billion in aid to those sickened by toxins resulting from the 9/11 attacks.

In the process, they set off a host of fiery speeches and denunciations from their Democratic colleagues and produced a veritable YouTube moment from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y), whose district includes many of the affected.

Well worth watching:

Weiner Ahead In 2013 (!) Fundraising

The Wall Street Journal ran a story today about the cash on hand for various mayoral contendors. Weiner has $3.9 million in campaign cash, and Quinn also healthy with $2.7 million war chest. “Five officials contemplating mayoral bids in 2013 have provided The Wall Street Journal with details of their disclosures:” Quinn, Weiner, Stringer, Thompson, and Liu. Bill de Blasio declined to particpate.

Stringer is the only mayoral contendor who raised much money in the past six months:

Mr. Stringer raised more than $600,000 this year, and he said he intends to carry over about $1 million from his re-election campaign last year.

“I’m gratified by the close to 1,000 people who contributed, and I’m moving forward,” Mr. Stringer said in an interview. “This is a long journey.”

Thompson has also made his intentions clear:

“It is definitely my intention to run for mayor in 2013 and we’ll begin that process in the latter part of this year,” Mr. Thompson said in an interview.

2013 is going to be an interesting year. If all five ran, we’d also have big fields in the comptroller and Manhattan Borough President races. Not that my political acumen matters much, but if all five ran and went the distance to Primary day, I would bet on Liu.

Cuomo’s Shadow Governor-ing

NY Magazine’s Intelligencer calls Cuomo “the shadowy fourth man in the Albany room,” a play on the old adage that New York is run by three men in a room (Governor, Senate President, Speaker of the Assembly):

Publicly, Cuomo has supported Paterson’s positions at key moments while not appearing to meddle. When the Legislature tried to replace school-aid cuts with tax increases, Cuomo spoke out forcefully on Paterson’s behalf at a press conference. Behind the scenes, Cuomo has been even more active. “Andrew’s mark is all over this budget,” a Democratic insider says. “He began a dialogue with Paterson about a month ago, and they’ve been having nearly daily conversations and Andrew talks a ton to Larry Schwartz,” Paterson’s chief of staff.

Paterson and Schwartz came up with a stroke of political genius—the lame-duck governor’s threats to shut down state government have enabled him to force weekly budget concessions from the Legislature. Cuomo has successfully bolstered their choices, from cuts to education spending to holding the line on most tax increases to fending off the temptation to add billions to the state’s deficit through Ravitch’s plan. Winning those battles now, by Paterson proxy, reduces the pain Cuomo will need to inflict should he get elected. The risk is that Cuomo has antagonized the Legislature six months before he’s sworn in. Last week, he declared that the Legislature was “dreaming” if it didn’t agree to a Medicaid-funding contingency plan and said the Legislature had “accomplished absolutely nothing” in their revisions to Paterson’s budget. “It’s classic Andrew,” says an Albany insider who likes Cuomo. “The fundamental points are accurate, but it’s going a little too far, it’s saying a little too much.”

BP Not LIving Up To Its Promises

As though our opinion of BP couldn’t get any lower:

In the 77 days since oil from the ruptured Deepwater Horizon began to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, BP has skimmed or burned about 60 percent of the amount it promised regulators it could remove in a single day.

The disparity between what BP promised in its March 24 filing with federal regulators and the amount of oil recovered since the April 20 explosion underscores what some officials and environmental groups call a misleading numbers game that has led to widespread confusion about the extent of the spill and the progress of the recovery.

…

In a March report that was not questioned by federal officials, BP said it had the capacity to skim and remove 491,721 barrels of oil each day in the event of a major spill.

As of Monday, with about 2 million barrels released into the gulf, the skimming operations that were touted as key to preventing environmental disaster have averaged less than 900 barrels a day.

Skimming has captured only 67,143 barrels, and BP has relied on burning to remove 238,095 barrels. Most of the oil recovered — about 632,410 barrels — was captured directly at the site of the leaking well.

Wall Street No Longer Paying

The Washington Post and Politico both ran stories yesterday about the Democrats losing big Wall Street donors. From the Washington Post’s “Democratic campaign committees losing big Wall Street donors”:

This fundraising free fall from the New York area has left Democrats with diminished resources to defend their House and Senate majorities in November’s midterm elections. Although the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have seen just a 16 percent drop in overall donations compared with this stage of the 2008 campaign, party leaders are concerned about the loss of big-dollar donors. The two congressional committees have raised $49.5 million this election cycle from people giving $1,000 or more at a time, compared with $81.3 million at this point in the last election.

Almost half of that decline in large-dollar fundraising can be attributed to New York, according to a Washington Post analysis of records filed with the Federal Election Commission. Donors from that area have given $8.7 million this year, compared with $23.9 million at this point in the 2008 cycle, with most of those contributions coming from big contributors in the financial sector. New York donors had given congressional Democrats almost twice as much money at this stage of the 2006 midterm campaigns, when Republicans ruled both chambers and held the White House.

Politico’s article points out that politicians who voted for financial reform (e.g. most of the Democratic Caucus) are engendering some resentment for even asking for donations now. The article specifically points out two New York names as those who are (hypocritically in my opinion) now asking Wall St for money:

“I think at least in the short term there is going to be a great deal of frustration with people who were beating the hell out of us — then turning around and asking for money,” said a senior executive of a Wall Street bank.

One member coming in for special criticism: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), viewed as largely unwilling to publicly defend her home state’s top industry but who continues to make fundraising requests, according to Wall Street insiders.

“Sometimes their chutzpah just has no bounds,” an executive said, referring to Gillibrand, who is on the ballot this fall. “People like her who didn’t stand up for us at all during the debate are certainly going to feel some pushback.”

Gillibrand’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

“The fact is that the ink is not even dry on this bill, and everyone in town is still getting fundraising requests from members of the conference committee and all sorts of other people who were beating up on Wall Street,” an official at a large bank said, citing Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) as two conference committee members who recently sought Wall Street contributions. Maloney and Kanjorski would not comment.

Elena Kagan’s Confirmation Hearings – Day 2

OFA has a video on highlights from yesterday’s hearings:

Kagan, as was expected, was dodgy in her answers. “She’s doing exactly what she criticized other nominees for doing. She’s dancing,” Senator Coburn said in an interview. The White House’s comments:

During her 10 hours of testimony, Elena Kagan was so clear and forthcoming that she removed any doubt about her ability to live up to the so-called ‘Kagan standard.’ She demonstrated a deep grasp of so many aspects of the law and shared her views about it where appropriate – on topics ranging from constitutional interpretation to antittrust to campaign finance. Republicans were unable to lay a glove on her despite their kitchen-sink attacks.”

Having said that, the Washington Post had a story entitled “Kagan makes bipartisan appeal in Supreme Court confirmation hearings”:

During more than eight hours of friendly questions from Democratic senators and sharper grilling by Republicans, Kagan, 50, remained somewhat guarded. At times, she retreated into broad statements about the Constitution or recited legal precedent on polarizing questions without divulging her own views. Nevertheless, for a nominee who has spent her career in government and academia — without displaying much of an ideology — her testimony provided the strongest clues to date about her positions.

Kagan noted that she has worked for two Democratic presidents, including currently as President Obama’s solicitor general. But at several points during the hearings, she played to conservatives. She said she has “the greatest admiration” for Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the high court’s most conservative members. She lauded as “a great lawyer and a great human being” Miguel A. Estrada, a prominent conservative who has been a GOP cause celebre since his nomination to the appellate bench by President George W. Bush was thwarted by Senate Democrats. And she said that military lawyers she has worked with have been “stunningly good.”

The Times also ran a story yesterday analyzing the just finished Supreme Court term, nothing that “The Roberts Court Comes of Age“:

[] the profile of the court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is fundamentally changed. Judicial minimalism is gone, and the court has entered an assertive and sometimes unpredictable phase.

That will only intensify with the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, a 35-year veteran of the court and the leader of its liberal wing, and his likely replacement by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, whose confirmation hearings in the Senate are under way this week.

W Train Funeral

MYD mourned the loss of the W train at the W Train Funeral on Friday. Pictures from the event:

DNC Hitting Republicans In Two New Ads

Two fun DNC ads came out recently. The first, from last Friday, is called ‘Stop Apologizing’:

The second, which came out today, ‘How Republicans Would Govern’:

According to Mike Allen’s Playbook Daily:

A party source: ‘The decision to move forward with a new ad came after the tremendous response the party received from grass roots, low dollar donors and Democratic Party activists who see this as a golden opportunity to define the choice voters are facing this fall. The outpouring included donations into the significant figures in response to the Barton apology and the request for funds for an ad. So successful was the effort we’re on to ad #2.

Obama’s Successes, And Feeling Good About Them

Andrew Sullivan has a great blog post today called “Getting Shit Done” where he outlines Obama’s successes on BP, Iran, DADT, and the economy. Sullivan praises “Obama’s incrementalism,”

his refusal to pose as a presidential magician, and his resistance to taking the bait of the fetid right (he’s president – not a cable news host) seems to me to show not weakness, but a lethal and patient strength. And a resilient ambition.

E.J. Dionne comes at this same idea from a different angle in his column today:

A weird malaise is haunting the Democratic Party.

That’s a risky word to use, I know. It’s freighted with bad history and carries unfortunate implications. So let’s be clear: President Obama is not Jimmy Carter, not even close. And Obama’s speech on Tuesday was nothing like Carter’s 1979 “malaise speech,” in which Carter never actually used that word. Obama gave a good and sensible speech that was not a home run.

What’s odd is that Obama was seen as needing a home run. This is where the Democratic malaise comes in.

Democrats should feel a lot better than they do. They enacted a health-care bill that had been their dream for more than 60 years. They pulled the country out of a terrifying economic spiral. They are on the verge of passing the biggest reform of Wall Street since the New Deal. The public has identified enemies that are typically seen as Republican allies: oil companies and big bankers. And given the Republicans’ past policies, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is at least as much their problem as Obama’s.

On top of this, the GOP seems to be doing all it can to make itself unelectable, veering far to the right and embracing a Tea Party movement that, at its extremes, preaches the need for revolution. That sounds more like the old New Left than a reinvigorated conservatism. Oh, yes, and can you think of one thing Republicans stand for right now other than cutting spending? Never mind that they are conspicuously vague about what they’d cut.

Yet it is Democrats who are petrified, uncertain and hesitant — and this was true before the oil spill made matters worse. Obama’s bold rhetoric about “the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels” was not matched by specifics because he knows that nearly a dozen Senate Democrats are skittish about acting. Why does it so often seem that Republicans are full of passionate intensity while Democrats lack all conviction?

Paterson Sets Budget Deadline Of June 28

Paterson said to legislative leaders yesterday that he would not sign any budget with deficit financing in it, and that he is setting a deadline of June 28th for the budget. Now, budget deadlines have come and gone in the past, but yesterday Paterson said he would put his budget plan into an emergency spending bill (a bill proposed by the Governor to the legislature, that they have to more or less approve up or town), giving the legislators the choice of adopting his budget or a government shutdown.

Lawmakers and Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch have urged the governor to a consider a range of borrowing plans. Mr. Ravitch, whom Mr. Paterson appointed last year, has sought to link a bond sale to tighter fiscal controls, but legislators have balked.

The state has been running without a budget since the beginning of the fiscal year on April 1. The Paterson administration has pressured lawmakers to approve chunks of an estimated $130 billion spending plan. But lawmakers have adopted only a fraction of the cuts and taxes that Mr. Paterson has proposed.

But the governor will have none of it: “I will not sign a budget that has any deficit financing in it.” Why?

The rejection of borrowing to close the gap is needed to show the public that “we are not pushing any problems of today off into the future,” Mr. Paterson said.

Mr. Paterson, who isn’t seeking election in November, said the state will continue to face budget pressure after his term is completed at year-end. Federal stimulus money runs out this year and in 2012 the three-year increase in the top tax rate for individuals earning more than $200,000 will expire, he said.

Assuming this year’s deficit is bridged as Mr. Paterson proposed, the budget gap for the year beginning April 1, 2011, would be $5.39 billion, according to state projections. That gap would be larger if this year’s deficit was closed by additional one-time actions not sought by Mr. Paterson, such as bond sales.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat like Paterson and front-runner in November’s gubernatorial election, also opposes selling bonds to close the deficit.

Next Page »