 |
 |
   Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 Last year there wasn�t a single fatal airline accident in the developed world. So why is the U.S. health care system still accidently killing hundreds of thousands? The answer is a lack of transparency.
 Dan Savage, the brilliant and foul-mouthed sex columnist, has become one of the most important ethicists in America. Are we screwed?
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
|
   |
|
|
June 24, 2010
DEMS HOPE FOR ENERGY BILL MOMENTUM AFTER 'INSPIRATIONAL' CAUCUS.... With time running out, and expectations low, Senate leaders working on a energy/climate bill still hope to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and took the case to the Senate Democratic caucus room today with the hopes of firing up members. Participants left feeling encouraged.
Indeed, Kerry's office sent out a press release this afternoon, quoting the senator saying, "I just left one of the most motivating, energized, and even inspirational caucuses that I've been a part of since I've been here in the Senate for 26 years." Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), partnering with Kerry on the energy bill, added, "The Senate Democratic caucus that I just attended was absolutely thrilling. And by that I mean it was an uprising of the rank and file members of the caucus speaking with passion and purpose in favor of enacting strong comprehensive energy independence legislation this year." This sounds great, and I'm glad members are feeling energized (no pun intended), but are we any closer now to regulating carbon emissions and combating global warming than we were yesterday? Probably not. The caucus seems largely united behind the idea of doing something -- which is, to be sure, good to hear -- but the challenge of putting together a worthwhile bill, and overcoming scandalous Republican obstructionism, is still daunting to the point of dejection. A spokesperson for Harry Reid said that the final energy bill "will need broad bipartisan support" in order to come to the floor. Since exactly zero major pieces of legislation have enjoyed "broad bipartisan support" in this Congress, I'll continue to keep my expectations in check. —Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)
Comments
If we're not going to get anything, then there is a a good way to lose, just like the loss plan for Wall Street reform: force the other side to filibuster and then run on that in November. Posted by: Ben Oakland on June 24, 2010 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINKA spokesperson for Harry Reid said that the final energy bill "will need broad bipartisan support" in order to come to the floor. Crap. We're going to see a "compromise" bill that gives more tax breaks to oil companies and coal companies, that encourages more nuclear plants with a combination of tax breaks and deregulation, and about $20 for renewable energy. But there will be provisions to cut the increase in carbon emissions by 0.0001 percent. Our grandchildren are going to hate us.
Caucus-caucus-Caucus! Attack! Attack! Attack! Take this fight right into their face. Make them get loud and vociferous. Make them state in public their "principled stand". In short, out them. So the public can see them for who they really are. Posted by: JPS on June 24, 2010 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINKLieberman: "And by that I mean it was an uprising of the rank and file members of the caucus ..." What does that mean? Aren't all members of the Senate Democratic caucus rank and file? As an independent, with no seniority to speak of in the Democratic Party, is he talking about himself? Posted by: NealB on June 24, 2010 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINKI can only assume that they are feeling "motivated, energized and inspired" because the proposed legislation has already been so watered down of any real regulation and larded up with corporate welfare that they feel sure their corporate masters will be smiling and writing big checks to them for passing it. Huzzahs all around! Don't say "no pun intended", just rewrite the sentence so that the pun is removed or accept that you, in fact, actually intended a pun. Posted by: Mark Kawakami on June 24, 2010 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINKPost a comment
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly |
||||||
