On June 10th, we all celebrated the defeat of the Murkowski resolution, which would have gutted the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide pollution. Why we needed to defeat Murkowski was explained well by NRDC Action Fund Executive Director, Peter Lehner, who wrote the following prior to the vote:
EPA's proactive lead in greenhouse gas regulation is a critical aspect of the effort to reduce our rampant, destabilizing, and destructive dependence on foreign and offshore oil. While the endangerment finding does not, in itself, prescribe regulations, it provides the legal basis for critical standards: EPA's proposed CAFE efficiency standard for light-duty vehicles is projected to save over 455 million barrels per year, and an anticipated standard for heavy-duty vehicles will save billions more. Stripping EPA of its authority to implement these protections would increase our nation's dependence on oil and send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas. We cannot afford this big step backward, especially as we watch more oil gush into the Gulf each day.
In the end, the Senate didn't take that "big step backward" on June 10th, as the Murkowski resolution failed by a 47-53 vote. Many of us probably figured that was the end of this issue, and that the Senate would now move on to passing comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Unfortunately, as is often the case in Washington, DC, it isn't that simple (let alone logical).
Today, clean air and public health are once again under an assault that constitutes, essentially, "Murkowski Part II." The Wall Street Journal reported on June 22:
As U.S. Senate lawmakers attempt to determine the fate of energy legislation, an influential Democrat is boosting efforts to suspend a controversial greenhouse-gas rule passed earlier this year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
After introducing a bill to impose a two-year halt on the new EPA rule, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from coal-rich West Virginia, is now working to round up supporters for his legislation.
It should go without saying that this is completely unacceptable. As we all know, the public was outraged at Senator Murkowski's Big Oil Bailout bill. They understood that this moved the country backward, not forward, and that it was exactly the wrong way to go given the energy and environmental challenges we face. Through all our efforts, our phone calls and emails (and blog posts and tweets, etc.), we helped to kill Murkowski Part I. Now, unfortunately, Sen. Jay Rockefeller is pushing Murkowski Part II, yet there's far less attention being paid to this effort than to the Murkowski's EPA Castration Resolution Part I. People have a lot of other things on their minds, and they thought this fight was over back in June. But, once they find out that this effort is baaaaack, like a monster in a cheesy horror movie, they are not going to respond positively.
Of course, why would the public - which overwhelmingly supports taking action to promote clean energy and deal with climate change - ever respond positively to a proposal aimed at throwing away one of our key tools to cut pollution and protect public health? And why would they respond positively now of all times, as oil continues to spew into the Gulf of Mexico, as record heat waves scorch the United States, and as climate science is strengthened every day that goes by? Last but not least, why would they support an effort to protect the corporate polluters and not all of us who are being hurt by that pollution?
The bottom line is simple: instead of wasting its time on legislation that will only move the country backwards - towards dirty energy forever - the Senate should be busy passing a bill that moves the country forward towards a bright future of green energy, clean tech jobs, energy security and climate protection. Once our Senators hear that message loud and clear from all of us, Rockefeller's Murkowski Part II will be rejected by the Senate, just as Murkowski Part I was before it.
Unless you are going to plant cryptic clues on album covers and in song lyrics and you're the most famous band ever, it ain't funny:
U.S. Capitol Police are investigating hoax e-mails to news outlets and blogs reporting that Sen. Frank Lautenberg and other senators had died.
Some websites reported on the deaths Tuesday of Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. The incorrect information continued to be retransimitted via Twitter late Wednesday, long after original sources had corrected it.
A San Francisco television station reported Monday that a hoax e-mail Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had died. A spokesman said a similar e-mail Tuesday described the death of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas.
Interesting that (as usual), there is the token Republican amid a slew of Democrats just to show the fairness and balancedness - so asshattery is "bipartisan".
And for the "can't you take a joke" crew of dimwits, that would require the joke in the first place. This is just stupid - and of course the comments section of the NorthJersey article show the true colors of those on the right.
Wonder what would happen if anyone on the left said or did this about Bush, Cheney or Christie.....I doubt that this wouldn't be the nonstop 24/7 story of the talking meatstick circuit.
The Record's Herb Jackson reports that U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg has been selected to replace the late Robert Byrd as chair of the Appropriation Committee's Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
In assuming the chairmanship, Lautenberg joins the ranks of the College of Cardinals, the powerful group of subcommittee heads who control spending measures in both the House and Senate. At 86, he is the oldest member of the upper house.
Both my wife and I are CPAs, and we have talked about this one particular tax loophole that she deals with in her line of work called "carried interest". Without boring you, "carried interest" relates to income earned by hedge fund or private equity fund managers for basically doing a good job of managing their funds - you know - performing services as a fund manager.
The kicker here though is that this "carried interest" - which can be a substantial amount of money - is taxed at 15% rates as a capital gain from investments instead of regular tax rates (most likely 39.6% for this type of income) that people like you and me pay on income we earn for doing our jobs.
Now, obviously there is a lot more to it, but both my wife and I agree on this being ridiculous, as does nearly everyone who knows about this, even probably including many people who benefit from this ridiculous tax loophole - even if they won't admit it. But basically, hedge fund managers are able to get extremely large bonus type payments and have them treated as if they were investment income and pay less than half the tax on it.
Closing this loophole has been attempted a number of times in the past - as recently as December 2009. The House passed the "extenders bill" with a provision eliminating this loophole, but it didn't make it through the Senate. And now, the House is poised to pass the Jobs bill with the carried interest provision in it, while the Senate is going to take up the jobs bill as soon as the next week or two.
Baucus and House Ways and Means Chairman Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) agreed in principle two weeks ago that the spending would be offset by closing the loophole. They set about working out the details, but have encountered stiff resistance from within the party. In the Senate, John Kerry (D-Mass.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) have all expressed a variety of reservations about paying for the jobs measures on the backs of fund managers. On the House side, high-ranking Democrats have spoken out in two separate closed-door caucus meetings this week against taking the vote against the hedge fund crowd.
"I have, overall, a concern about the carried interest loophole as it relates to both characterization rates and implementation period and I think that we can derive revenue that we want and should need, but I think there is a different way to do it," said Menendez on Tuesday. A Menendez aide said that he wants to ensure that the real estate market is not harmed and that businesses don't lose access to venture capital.
This could generate $20 billion - not to mention level the playing field for the middle class. A good analogy here would be for me to declare that the work I do is really "an investment" in my accounting firm, so the wages I am paid for my services aren't really wages, but an investment that I should be able to receive favorable tax treatment for.
Other than the "just think of the poor hedge fund managers" cry, with the economy in such bad shape and a class warfare act being waged right here in NJ by Governor Christie, it is somewhat baffling why someone who has been so good on so many other issues would be looking to keep a huge tax break for those who need it the least and quite frankly, don't even deserve this tax break on the merits of the income it represents.
Senator Frank Lautenberg returned to Washington following his recent health scare and is tired of hearing speculation about who will take his seat when he is no longer in it:
"There are insidious monsters who want my seat," he says jokingly of speculation about who might replace him if he died in office. A Republican is governor, so the issue has national implications. "That speculation was a little too early."
I can see the Senator isn't mincing words now that he has returned.
The focus in NJ has been on the underfunding of the pension plan by NJ not putting in the state's annual contribution. But that's not the main problem. In a comment not picked up by the main media last week, Assemblyman Greenwald said that even if all the contributions had been made, the pension fund would still be underfunded because of the poor investment returns. Now, NJ's pension fund assume an 8.25% rate of return (I believe), which it hasn't gotten. But other states with similar assumptions for the future have been revising them, which only causes a much larger deficit in the pension fund. The full story is the lead story in today's NYTimes.
"I'm real happy with the work we can do as private citizens," Crowley said, referring to himself in the plural, as Menendez often does. "I care a lot about a lot of public policy issues, especially health care, but I have no plans to run for public office." Could that change? "Maybe someday, but no time soon,"
He didn't quite close the door on a potential in public life. Crowley has a good story to tell and the financial means to assist in telling it. In addition, he will get a good deal of exposure to the voters in New Jersey as his movie hits theaters. So while I respect what he's saying, I'll believe he doesn't run for public office when I see it to be honest.
The race to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat is very close in Massachusetts. Political wire says the poll average is a dead heat and Nate Silver says the race is a tossup. Now the New Jersey Democratic State Committee is blasting supporters soliciting assistance to make a difference in Massachusetts:
You can call voters in Massachusetts and help Martha Coakley continue Senator Ted Kennedy's remarkable legacy.
As Massachusetts' first woman senator, Martha Coakley will help advance Kennedy's legacy - fighting for equal rights, a strong economy, and our families and communities. Without her vote, health care won't happen.
They're using mybarackobama.com for people to call and remind voters to get out and vote on Tuesday. Democrats never expected this race to be a contest and now they're doing everything they can to hold onto the seat in this special election. Bill Clinton was there campaigning for Coakley on Saturday and President Obama was there this afternoon. This will be viewed in the context of Bob Menendez and the DSCC as well, so no doubt he wants all the help they can get at this point. I'll put the full email from Chairman Cryan below the fold.
The news this week that North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd will not run again for re-election only complicates things for Senator Menendez in his role leading the DSCC. The Dodd news could actually prove to make the seat more secure for Democrats, but the Dorgan seat will be an uphill climb to hold. Here's what the Senator had to say about things yesterday:
DSCC chair Robert Menendez, the chief of Dem efforts to hold the Senate, acknowledged that the party faces a "challenge" next year, and declined to predict whether Dems would hold their super-majority.
But Menendez pushed back hard on the emerging media meme that the Dem retirements spell doom for the party, arguing that the GOP is defending six open Senate seats. Menendez also refused to concede that Byron Dorgan's Senate seat is a certain pickup for the GOP, as many argue, vowing a vigorous contest for it, though he conceded that Rep Earl Pomeroy, the most sought after Dem candidate, wasn't running.
Along with the Dorgan and Dodd seats for the Democrats, the Senator had more to say about the prospects for the GOP maintaining their seats:
"I would say the optics of having six Republican open seats is more significant," Menendez insisted, when asked to comment on the Dems' chances in the wake of the news about the retirements. "They have to run the table to be even at the end of the day,"
He added five of the races in those states - Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Kansas - are "very competitive," and vowed that Dems would benefit from the "bloody" GOP primaries underway in them.
They do have to run the table, but the climate may be a difficult one for Democrats to compete in. Follow me below the fold because there is plenty more to look at.
In politics, of course, 36 months is the equivalent of what scientists call "geologic time." Anything can happen between now and then. And it looks like it already has. Dobbs, sounding like every other "I voted for it before I voted against it" mush-mouth politician, declared himself in favor of an amnesty program for illegal immigrants this week - a complete reversal of his long-held public position. He also told viewers of the Spanish-speaking network Telemundo that "I am one of your greatest friends."
This from a man once described as illegal immigrants' No. 1 enemy, a man who once accused undocumented Mexican workers of bringing leprosy into the United States and who regularly railed on his program about how illegal immigrants threatened the nation's economy, security and well-being. His supporters must have whiplash this week.
They continued:
Flip-flop or not, Dobbs, who owns a horse farm in Sussex County, will have his work cut for him should he decide to run for the Senate. For one thing, he's an independent and the electoral system does not favor independent candidates. For another, a Dobbs spokesman said this week that Dobbs really wants to be president, but considers a brief stint as a U.S. senator a necessary intermediate step. His opposition researchers should have fun with that morsel of opportunism.
Flip-flopper. Opportunist.
Dobbs would fit right in with Jersey politics.
Ouch. And thats the reviews from the Asbury Park Press. With friends like that...
Assemblyman John McKeon, D-Essex, has proposed legislation that would effectively take away Gov. Chris Christie's ability to pick a new U.S. senator of his choosing, should, for instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg not complete his term.
Lautenberg will turn 86 four days after Christie's Jan. 19th inaugural, and that has raised concerns among some Democrats that he might have to step down for health reasons, or even pass away, while Republicans are holding the keys to Drumthwacket. That would give Christie the ability to appoint a U.S. senator on a temporary basis, altering the balance in Washington in the short-term and giving that appointed senator an incumbent's edge in a campaign.
A synopsis of McKeon's bill (A4271) says the appointee would have to be of the same political party as the person who vacates the office. The full text of the bill does not yet exist, and the legislation is apparently still in flux. It's not clear if a governor would have to pick a candidate off a list provided by a state political party or if a governor would have wider latitude in picking a replacement.
Here is the synopsis of McKeon's bill according to the Legislature's website:
Requires Governor to make temporary appointment when vacancy occurs in U.S. Senate; provides appointee must be of same political party as person who vacates office.
There are some people who feel a change like this should have been made long before it came to this point. Jeff Gardner expressed that sentiment when we discussed this issue on Blue Jersey radio recently. Then there is another camp that views a bill of this matter as an afront to the sitting US Senator. The timing of the bill leads people to believe this is less about the merits of a change and more about maintaining control of a seat. I haven't seen anything about a Senate counterpart to McKeon's bill being introduced yet, but we'll watch out for that. Where do you come down on this change?
Updated by Jason: I'm told the full text of the Assembly bill appear after it is introduced next Thursday.
There's a good deal of speculation regarding the next stop for Lou Dobbs after his resignation from CNN last week. The NY Post looks at the angle of him potentially challenging Senator Menendez for the US Senate seat and gets this comment from his people:
Dobbs' spokesman, Robert Dilenschneider, said: "He's in the process of evaluating things. He's been approached [about politics] but he's also been approached by other media. There are a lot of people talking to him right now."
There may be plenty of people talking to him, but there are also plenty of people talking about him. Pollsters are already salivating over the potential of a Dobbs/Menendez matchup:
"Lou Dobbs would certainly be an early front-runner" for the nomination if he ran, said Patrick Murray, a polling chief at Monmouth University in New Jersey.
But Dobbs' key issue -- his calls for strict controls on US borders and the tightening of rules for illegal aliens -- could be problematic in a state with a high immigrant population, said Murray.
"One out of five New Jerseyans were born outside of this country. That's a lot of people," said Murray.
The Senator wasn't waiting for Dobbs to decide on his future before offering comment on Dobbs past at CNN and his resignation:
Menendez, the Senate's only Hispanic member, has already taken a shot at Dobbs by calling his departure from CNN "addition by subtraction." His office did not return a call for comment yesterday.
If Dobbs did decide to run, that race would be filled with fireworks for sure. He would have to change his registration back as he switched from Republican to Independent in 2006, but his rhetoric could stay the same.
"Senator Menendez has his nose to the grindstone to help create an economic recovery for New Jersey families and will not be distracted by an election three years away," said the spokesman, Afshin Mohamadi. "I'm sure that he would relish eventually having an opponent from so far out of the mainstream and who has never done a thing for the hard-working people of New Jersey, but the senator's focus is on jobs, not Dobbs. The senator has developed a record of delivering job-creating programs and tax relief, and as he builds upon it, 2012 will in large part take care of itself."
Let me preface this conversation by stating that I supported Senator Frank Lautenberg's re-election campaign during both the primary and general elections last year, but...
1) ...after seeing him speak in public numerous times at a dramatically reduced level of performance than in the past...
...and...
2) ...after last week's gubernatorial election results...
...and...
3) ...assuming that the aspiring Governors that are currently serving in the State Senate and State Assembly are not going to be willing to rescind the power that the Governor currently has to fill vacated U.S. Senate seats, I think that Democratic Party leaders, electeds, and rank-and-file members should reach out en masse to Senator Frank Lautenberg and ask him to resign his seat.
Bob Menendez is one of our NJ Senators. Last I'd heard he was supporting the "public option" for healthcare reform. He's also the chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC). Menendez could, and should, use the power he has over party campaign funds to insist that Democratic senators who are up for reelection over the next couple of years vote for a public option.
It's not enough for the DSCC simply to elect candidates who are nominally Democrats - it should be working to elect Democrats who support Democratic ideals and the programs of the nominal leader of the party - i.e. President Obama.
Here's a link to the video of the thumping Keith Olbermann gave gutless lawmakers on both sides of the aisle this week, the one carolh refers to. Frankly, I got chills watching it. - - promoted by Rosi Efthim
Keith Olbermann last night gave a good and long needed thumping to those Congressmen and Senators who routinely accept money from Big Pharma and the Healthcare industry. As I watched, I started thinking closer to home.
These guys are probably hoping that the NJ corruption story takes over the news so folks aren't paying attention to the Quid Pro Quo going on in DC.
We won't get a single payer plan or a public option because of men and women who individually accepted literally MILLIONS of $$$$$$ for THEIR campaigns to squash real reform. The ethics problems are the same. It's just that in NJ, Mayors can get bought cheap. In, DC you need a lot more grease because the palms are bigger.
Why are we NOT as outraged by the goings on in Congress and the US Senate as we are by a Mayor selling his office for a measly $5,000 bucks?
Where is our sense of proportion??
Pay to Play is literally LEGAL in Washington too. Compared to the millions changing hands in DC though, NJ corruption is small potatoes.
Acting as a representative for the pharmaceutical industry or smalltime developer who pays for your campaign instead of those that elected you to office, is wrong no matter who does it, what letter they have after their names, and whether they sell their local elected office, or their place in Congress. It's simply a matter of scale, and the corruption in Congress is simply epic when it comes to the Health Care debate.
Where, I ask you, is the proportionate epic outrage on the part of progressives to go along with the epic scale of corruption in Washington? Where are the DC perp walks we dearly need to see real reform in this country?
The only outrage I see is mock outrage used by those with ulterior motives as a weapon to derail our town halls and any logical, rational discussion. Their goal - simply helping the corrupt officials in DC promote the agenda of THEIR campaign contributors.
Where are the voters calling on folks like Thune to resign for the good of the country? The mostly Republican Congressmen and Senators accepting millions from the Healhcare industry and voting against the wishes of the citizens of the US, are no less guilty than the three Mayors arrested in NJ recently. In fact, if the amounts involved are any indication of guilt, those in Congress taking money and fighting healthcare reform are MORE greedy, MORE unethical and MORE guilty of betraying the public's trust than any of those arrested in NJ.
Growing up in Union City, NJ, and going to public school, it never occurred to me that some of my brightest and most able classmates were in the US without legal status. It wasn't until we started applying to college that status became a real issue, and then some of those friends - who were ready, willing and able to work - found themselves trapped.
There are thousands of people who came to America as children, have spent most of their lives in the United States, but who don't have legal status and live in constant fear of deportation to a country they have never known. These people - for many of us, friends and family- would be helped by an important piece of legislation called the DREAM Act that was re-introduced on the Senate floor last week. It's a critical component of comprehensive immigration reform that will help young people who have grown up in the United States and graduated from school here (or served in the military for two years) a chance to legalize their status. Extremists talk about "the rule of law" - but are they really against allowing children-- brought to this country through no fault of their owns-- a chance to go to college, contribute to American society, and to dream the American Dream? They are. How about you? Today, please join me in taking action.
SciencesBlog is reporting that Senator Menendez is holding up 2 NOAA and science advisor appointments over some Cuban issues:
http://scienceblogs.com/author...
Although every senator gets one and only one vote, some senators are more equal than others thanks to the seniority system. This is mainly important in the committee system, so ranking in your own party may be more important than your overall ranking. Wikipedia has a complete list of Senate seniority, so I thought I would look into where our senators stand and what their prospects are.
Currently New Jersey's senior senator, Frank Lautenberg, sits at #61 overall and #36 for Democrats based on his start date of January 3, 2003. The only benefit from his years of prior service is that, in a tie-breaker worthy of the NFL, he is put ahead of the five other remaining members first elected in 2002. (If his previous service counted, he would be somewhere in the neighborhood of #13-18 and in charge of a committee instead of Joe Lieberman. By the way, I'm including Lieberman as a Democrat because his seniority counts in the caucus.)
The junior senator, Bob Menendez, sits at #74 overall and #38 for Democrats. (Yes, he's only two behind Lautenberg in the Democratic caucus: The elections of 2002 and 2004 were not good for our party.) This is actually a pretty good rise: In only three years, Senator Menendez now is ahead of a quarter of the other senators overall and a third of Democrats. That's thanks to many Republican retirements and defeats in 2006 and 2008, the triumph of the Obama-Biden ticket, and Obama's appointments of senior senators to Cabinet positions. Below the flip, we'll see how the future looks.
With a newly elected 85 year old Senator the speculation about who will be Frank Lautenberg's replacement is inevitable. With a deep bench of Democratic politicians awaiting his retirement the race for his seat is sure to be hard fought and sought after. In my opinion there are two ways the race for Lautenberg's seat will play out:
1. Lautenberg retires and the Governor appoints his replacement;
2. Lautenberg serves his 6 year term in its entirety and there is a primary
for the Democratic nomination in 2014.
There is a long list of powerful New Jersey politicians who covet Lautenberg's seat. Congressmen Rothman, Pallone, and Andrews would surely throw their hats in the ring. Whoever the Lt. Gov is (assuming Corzine wins reelection) will most likely consider a run, and in my opinion the best positioned potential candidate, Mayor Cory Booker, is widely known to have ambitions to higher office.
I didn't see this covered in any of the news stories about the debate Saturday night between Dick Zimmer and Frank Lautenberg, but Lautenberg was asked directly by Bob Ingle if he would support repealing the Patriot Act.
