Thanks, jobless Americans, for keeping Wall Street rich! After all, what's more important--feeding your family or having an extra 10 million dollars?!
And-and-and the pork! Wooden arrows for little children! The little wooden arrow girl can now be safely hungry in the street.
Congress has its own security firmly in mind. Why not vote against everybody in office, except those few nay votes?

...was defeated only a week or so ago - maybe two weeks. Right before the Paulson bailout panic hit?

They can't pass anything like that because they need sixty votes in the Senate and Democrats only have 51 votes if every Democrat and Lieberman votes with them.

I will be very surprised if Democrats don't address that issue in January; in fact, I think a stimulus package will be one of the first orders of business for both congress and an Obama administration.

Your question is meaningless, Lambert, because it's based on no facts, no information about what the specific circumstances of this particular situation were.

You do understand that Obama is running for President, and that his campaign has a schedule laid out that isn't easily changed, without disappointing thousands of people at various venues, not to mention the local party.

If there was a chance in hell of passing the damn thing and having a veto-proof majority, I'd agree with you that every Democrat had a responsibility to stay there and pass it. But that is not the case.

And your snarky headline assumes facts not in evidence, i.e., that the non-passage of an extension of unemployment benefits, something that the Democrats included in their first stimulus package way back when in 2008, but were forced to drop to get any kind of package through, is the fault or failure of Obama.

The reflexive hostility to Obama keeps you from consideing what might be done to bring Democrats back after the election but before January to see if they can pass even a temporary extension.

As someone who was partly raised on unemployment benefits - Hollywood has an ugly habit of laying off its workers between productions, and nowhere was that truer than at the Disney studio, I understand exactly what is at stake for families. And my mother worked full time during the entirety of my childhood, and even so, unemployment benefits kept us from sliding back as a family. It meant I could still have my dance lessons, and my parents could still pay for daycare for my younger brother, so that my mother could continue to work. When they had finally saved up enough to put a down payment on a house, unemployment benefits insured that we didn't lose that house, even when layoffs lasted for months.

Given the kind of support Obama is receiving from unions, I'm quite sure he also understands what is at stake.

Why quibble?..

The bailout bill also gives the Internal Revenue Service new authority to conduct undercover operations. It would immunize the IRS from a passel of federal laws, including permitting IRS agents to run businesses for an extended sting operation, to open their own personal bank accounts with U.S. tax dollars, and so on. (Think IRS agents posing as accountants or tax preparers and saying, "I'm not sure if that deduction is entirely legal, but it'll save you $1,000. Want to take it?") That section had expired as of January 1, 2008, and would now be renewed.

Starting with the so-called Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1988, the IRS has possessed this authority temporarily, with occasional multiple-year lapses. A 1999 internal report said the IRS had 126 "trained undercover agents" working in field offices at the time. This is the first time that such undercover authority would be made permanent.

Obama is the gift that keeps on giving. And it isn't even Christmas yet. That doesn't arrive until January 20.

Very concise as well

Some in Congress want something and others want other things--so couldn't the Dems tie the extended benefits in there too once the GOPers got on board because of the pork?
Did the Dems try this in the bail-out and I missed it? (450 pages...) Did they try and fail in the end? If they seriously tried again, because this bail-out would be a big opportunity, that would be a good sign.

but cleverly, too. Don't ever show your hand too soon, say I.

We're talking the Boy Scouts here, after all. But, of course, one understands the need remain frugal in these trying times.

Barack Obama co-sponsored a bill this past September specifically to extend unemployment benefits by seven to thirteen weeks and provide supplemental funding to depleted state unemployment programs. This bill is the one you discussed, the one that Harry Reid tried to usher to the floor but failed due to Republican opposition. Quite opposite your assertion, Lambert, Obama didn’t merely whip the effort - he co-sponsored the bill.

Obama, along with other senior Democratic leaders, put all of his influence on the line; unfortunately, the effort by the Democrats was inadequate. Those at fault here are the BlueDog caucus controlled by Steny Hoyer and the Republican House and Senate caucuses controlled by the Republican Party Criminal Conspiracy. Currently, neither Obama alone nor in combination with Pelosi and Reid has sufficient influence with those groups to gain the necessary support on this matter.

There’s a complicated history here, none of it Obama’s fault. The short version is that a pissing contest is going on between the Republican caucuses and the BlueDogs over two divergent economic-stimulus-special-interest-giveaway packages. They’ve been at it for weeks, and had the Trillion Dollar Rip-off Scam not appeared they would likely have sorted out the problems and all might have been quietly settled. The earlier, on-going argument got caught up in the Trillion Dollar Rip-off frenzy, the combination contributed to the vehemence of the larger argument, and in the end an extension of unemployment benefits was sacrificed by a compromise between the three caucuses. That coalition is, at the moment, to strong for Obama to overcome.

And now we get to the irony; I like irony, don’t you?

The Democrats engineered a 13-week unemployment benefit extension three months ago, as a package with the Fiscal Year 2008 supplemental appropriations bill. By itself it had no chance and a veto had been threatened anyway, but some hors-trading maneuvers by Reid got enough votes to tack it on as an amendment and Bush signed it after threatening a veto. This new extension, S.3507, presented in this bill as well as in other forms by the Democrats, is intended to go on top of the previous 13 weeks extension and is part of a package of direct citizen economic stimulus support that got caught up in the Republican-BlueDog argument and is currently stalled by that conflict.

The only way for Obama to gain the power to break the obstructive linkage of this three-caucus coalition is if he is elected President.

However the election turns out, the residual Republican Senate caucus will be large enough to still be obstructive; Dems will pick up six seats and maybe eight, but that’s all. Under a McCain administration that caucus will be protected by the Executive’s authority in the appropriations and disbursement process, and work with him as they have with Bush to drive the Executive’s will and thwart even simple human dignity measures like this unemployment extension.

Under a President Obama, however, the Democratic Caucuses will be in alliance with the Executive and the Republicans will be at their mercy. Only those Republican Senators who reach across in “bipartisanship” – the meme Obama and the Democrats have been pushing – will find them selves benefitting from the appropriations process. Those who stay in opposition will be frozen out. The Dems will need only two to four votes for cloture, and the line of suddenly “bipartisan” Republicans vying to be among them will, ahem, form to the Left.

There will almost certainly be a lame duck session, an end-of-session, post-election distribution of spoils and the rare opportunity for a good many consequence-free votes to be bought and sold. The President-elect will have enormous power over how the goodies get distributed and that means enormous power over which bills are advanced and which are not. If it is important to you to see Barack Obama’s unemployment benefits extension package enacted into law, then logically you should support his candidacy.

Could this be the reason you’ve been searching for, Lambert; the one you needed to be able to re-tick that checkbox “[X] Very tepidly voting for Obama”?

Only those Republican Senators who reach across in “bipartisanship” – the meme Obama and the Democrats have been pushing – will find them selves benefitting from the appropriations process. Those who stay in opposition will be frozen out.

So the republicans will give up.

Just like that.

Amazing.

In your zeal to castigate Obama, you published this post apparently without even a cursory search for mitigating information. I am willing to assume it was just that, a failure to search for balance, rather than a willfully biased misrepresentation. However, since you continue to persist in misrepresenting the facts about both Senator Obama and have also misrepresented my own position, the motivation behind your argument is being forced to the front. I would much prefer to debate on facts and logical merits; insisting on misrepresenting the intentions as well as the acts of Obama and me in this matter as you have done, however, will if continued make such a civilized exchange impossible. I beg you to reconsider your approach.

You assert that Obama was insufficiently supportive of extending unemployment benefits, and that this claimed inadequacy is the result of a callous disregard on his part for the most vulnerable among us. Both claims are false and unsubstantiated. The facts of the matter are as follows:

July 2008: Maneuvering over the objections of the Republican House and Senate Caucuses and a threatened veto by the White House, Democrats including Obama forced passage and signing into law a measure to extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks (PL 110-252).

Early September 2008: Democrats tried to advance bills containing a variety of grass-roots economic stimulus measures including $6 Billion for additional extension of unemployment benefits and support for depleted state unemployment programs (S.3604; HR.7110). These bills were defeated as a result of a power struggle between the Senate Republican Caucus on one side and the House Republican Caucus and the BlueDogs on the other. Even if the BlueDogs could have been brought into line, the dispute between the two Republican Caucuses was not something the Democratic leadership could have controlled and the unity of the Senate Republican Caucus was enough to block both measures.

End-September 2008: The House rejects the Trillion Dollar Rip-off, in part to try and extort from the Senate the provisions of HR.7110. During subsequent negotiations, the Senate insists on including most of the provisions of S.3604 along with those of HR.7110 but Senate Republicans will not agree to inclusion of an unemployment benefits extension even though 800,000 unemployed people will run out of financial support starting in October. That being the only remaining impediment, it is agreed that the Rip-off bill will move forward without the unemployment benefit extension, which then will be offered as a stand-alone measure immediately after the Rip-off bill is passed. S.3507 and H.6867, put together in the aftermath of the failure to pass H.7110 and S.3604 in the hopes of appending it to some other legislation, are to be the vehicles.

3 October, 2008: The Trillion Dollar Rip-off (HR.1424) passes in the House.

3 October, 2008 – one hour later: H.6867, an unemployment benefits extension package companion to S.3507, passes in the House by a veto-proof margin of 368 – 28.

3 October, 2008 – at the same time: Harry Reid, with the full backing of the Senate Democratic Caucus and support from four Republican Senators (Snow, Coleman, Specter, and Smith of Oregon), urges suspension of the Senate rules to allow S.3507 to come directly to the floor. He is informed by the Republican Leader McConnell that there will be enough Republican “Nay” votes to block suspension of the rules, and the measure is held in committee.

You have claimed that Obama’s efforts in favor of extending unemployment benefits were inadequate. This is a false assertion, unsupported by any evidence. The Democrats, including Obama, provided every possible support for unemployment benefits extension on repeated occasions. In the end, it was obstructionism from the Senate and House Republican caucuses that thwarted these attempts. In the last attempt, the Democratic Leadership certainly did whip their caucus to full support; it was Republican obstructionism that blocked the bill and Republicans alone who should receive the blame.

Your original laying of blame on Obama was misplaced. Your continued insistence on blaming Obama and the Democrats in general in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is an unmitigated falsehood. It is especially troubling that you should insist on perpetuating an obvious false claim about Obama while you so meticulously defend the secessionist Dominionist Sarah Palin against any and all claims you deem even slightly questionable. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander; you should retract your false claims about Obama in this matter.

You have also now made false assertions about me. You wrote “as bringiton points out, the unemployed can perfectly well wait through the winter and the holidays for Congress to take their concerns up again” when in fact I made no such point. What I urged was entirely the opposite. What I urged was a mustering of support for passage of S.3507 during the lame-duck session which will begin on November 17, and I have already written to my representatives urging passage with a provision for retroactive payments to keep recipients current. You are completely unjustified in making such a false representation about my position.

Harry Reid has vowed to make another attempt to pass the bill then, and the additional influence that can be brought by a President-elect Obama would certainly assist that effort while a President-elect McCain would likely ensure its defeat. I ask again for your support in that effort, and await your direct response to that request.

You know what now needs doing here, Lambert, and I urge you to do it swiftly and completely. Please put this unfortunate event in the past.

Let's keep it simple.

Original points in post and scattered through comments:

1. Great contrast between Obama whipping caucus for the Bush + Reid + Pelosi + Obama + Paulson giveaway, not for unemployed. Subsidiary possibility: Making political hay out of Republican obstructionism. Neither happened. Co-sponsoring a bill is non-responsive, obviously. Priorities!

2. Great contrast between what got in the Bush + Reid + Pelosi + Obama + Paulson bill and what didn't. Originally, the wooden arrows (not the unemployed). Later, I find actual substantive material -- mental health in the bill (not, however, the unemployed). Priorities!

3. Simple conclusion: The unemployed -- unlike the bankers -- get thrown under the bus. And the party leader can't do anything about it. Priorities!

There's no point getting down in the weeds on the details of the legislative maneuvering; please refer to Shystee's post The Process Dodge, which cannot be improved upon, and file, circularly, as appropriate. Had help for the unemployed -- as opposed to the bankers -- been a priority, it would have happened, and perhaps even added as a Christmas tree ornament to the ush + Reid + Pelosi + Obama + Paulson bill. It wasn't; so it wasn't.

NOTE OK, I give one point. I revise this statement as follows:

As bringiton points out, the unemployed can perfectly well wait through until the winter and the holidays for Congress to take their concerns up again in a lame duck session

I wrote in haste, and I aplogize for the error.

That said, my original point on priorities remains; the unemployed can "perfectly well wait" while the Bush + Reid + Pelosi + Obama + Paulson bill shovels billions to the bankers.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

As far as it goes. Considered literally, with Obama as President-elect I expect the unemployment benefit extension to be wrapped up and sent to Bush by November 21 while Thanksgiving is not until November 27 and the first day of winter is December 21. The statement in its entirety was wrong, but I have no wish to nitpick; your apology is accepted, thank you for that and let us speak of it no more.

Regards Obama, in this matter you remain in error. I am more than comfortable with the correction I provided, apologize not in the least for taking the time and effort to present the whole truth, Process Dodge and accusations of bloghorrea be damned, and am more than satisfied that the Readers can at this point reach their own conclusions.

Authoritarianism? To hold up the bill, hold press conferences, cajole, shame, and rail against obstructionist Republicans who are holding unemployment benefits hostage to get a "clean" (except for all the pork) Fat Cat Wall Street banker's bailout is now Authoritarianism?

Hyperboly has reached a new hyperbolic apex.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Democrats did all of those things, herb; apparently you failed to notice. Not widely covered by the press, especially in regards to the unemployment benefits package, so it would have been easy for someone not closely following to have missed them.

Here's the handout from the presser for S.3507, including statements of support by Reed, Obama, Kennedy, Baucus, Durbin, Stabenow and Whitehouse. No media coverage was given to it at all but then Republican blockage of unemployment benefits and other grass-roots economic stimulus measures is in fact just more-of-the-same news.

As the NYT article points out, both the Senate and House grass-roots based economic stimulus bills could not be passed on their own, due to Republican opposition and promised vetoes by Bush. The Trillion Dollar Rip-off Bill presented an opportunity to get the various measures enacted as amendments, and the Rip-off was in fact stalled by the House in part to give time for those negotiations to happen.

The Democrats were not about to block the Rip-off bill entirely, since they would now be getting the blame for every bad thing that is happening economically. Clever politics does not always mean good policy, but you straighten out the voters who keep electing Corporatist Republican and BlueDog hacks and then we'll talk about how Obama is the worst of the bunch.

Assume you haven't read the Rip-off bill or you would have seen that the Democrats were astoundingly successful at amending it with $150 Billion in direct economic benefits to citizens and worthy Progressive causes, including extension of the AMT exceptions for the middle-class, a mandate for mental-health parity in health insurance coverage that is wonderful all on its own and will help pave the way towards true comprehensive UHC, extension of business tax write-offs for R&D which are key to maintaining our national economic security, and billions for tax incentives supporting alternative renewable fuels R&D.

Everything but the unemployment benefits extension got packed in, and as Republican Senators refused to budge it got set aside so the rest of the deal didn't fall apart. This isn't a perfect process; getting 95% of what you want is considered a success. Your approach, employing the perfect as a weapon to destroy the good, has long been abandoned by modern Progressivism; do try to keep up.

The solution is more Democrats and fewer Republicans, especially in the White House and the Senate. If this Senate was 60D/40R, the unemployment benefits extension and a whole lot more good legislation would have been passed. Falsely accusing Obama and the Democrats for what is so clearly Republican obstructionism and heartless inhumanity will not change Republican behavior, and that is what needs to happen. You can beat on Obama all day long and it will not affect Republican conduct. What part of that is so difficult to understand?

Finally, regards the authoritarianism. What amberglow so clearly advocated was unilateral suspension of the Senate rules on debate, the so-called "nuclear option." Both parties agreed to these rules some time ago, and both are bound by them so long as honor and respect are part of the democratic process. Neither Harry Reid nor Barack Obama nor I are willing to throw honor and respect and mutual obligation to mutually agreed-upon rules out the window for a narrow objective. That some here would embrace such a foolish, self-destructive authoritarian course of action is disappointing but, sadly, not surprising.

Bringiton writes:

Neither Harry Reid nor Barack Obama nor I are willing to throw honor and respect and mutual obligation to mutually agreed-upon rules out the window for a narrow objective.

Well, except for the narrow objective of handing a trillion to Hank Paulson's golfing buddies, of course. Priorities!

Thanks for proving my point!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Dear BIO,

Re:

Assume you haven’t read the Rip-off bill or you would have seen that the Democrats were astoundingly successful at amending it with $150 Billion in direct economic benefits to citizens and worthy Progressive causes, [snip]

Your approach, employing the perfect as a weapon to destroy the good, has long been abandoned by modern Progressivism; do try to keep up.

Fuck off. Once again, when people point out something you don't like, you assume they don't know shit, and at the same time use squishy facts, reinforcing the fact that it is YOU who doesn't know shit.

I knew (and know) very well what was additionally loaded on to the bill. Some very good things indeed, in fact, since it is my business to know (and be profited by) it, I was especially pleased that they passed the billions in tax credits for wind and solar energy development not only "alternative renewable fuels R&D" which they also passed but in the millions, rather than billions. But the alt energy was going to pass previously with wide support in the energy bill that McCain killed, and the mental health provisions (the Wellstone bill) had wide bipartisan support and would have passed next year but friends of retiring Republican Jim Ramstad wanted desperately to pass it while he was still in office. Do try to keep up.

But all of that is red herring material isn't it? Because what we were talking about was unemployment compensation, another thing that if not extended causes already suffering people to suffer more and in real time. This isn't "the perfect as a weapon to destroy the good" (what a strawman that is!). They had a press conference that no one paid attention to (by design?), and though Obama had plenty of time to lobby for (and score political points on) the bill itself, he had apparently little time or inclination to fight for unemployment benefits, which quite frankly was more germaine than most of the other candy stuck on this turd.

But:
Much campaigning to do!
Can't be blamed for Bush's economic collapse (though unclear how a trillion to Wall Street will make it better, not worse), so must pass a shitty Trillion Dollar Ripoff!
Priorities!
The shitty over the less shitty!
Obama will help "do something" in January!
Past performance is not indication of....!
Welcome to your future!

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites