The Living Room Times

The House of Representatives has joined the Senate in passing the tax cut compromise deal that extends all the Bush tax cuts for two years, extends unemployment benefits for 13 months, cuts the payroll tax by two percent next year as a temporary stimulus, and gives every American three French hens, two turtle doves, and a partridge in a pair tree (all borrowed from China, of course).

The vote was 277 to 148, with 8 not voting. Partisan breakdown: Republicans 138-36-5 in favor. Democrats 139-112-3 in favor. Hey, look, bipartisanship!

So, it looks like the signature achievement of the much-ballyhooed Runaway Democrat Lame Duck Session^TM was to… extend the Bush tax cuts. Conservative #PANIC!!!!!

P.S. Meanwhile, it appears that standalone repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell — which already passed the House, and is now publicly supported by either 60, 61 or 62 senators, depending on who’s counting — won’t be stopped by calendar concerns after all. It just has too much Joementum!

On the Senate floor just now, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the Senate will begin to vote as soon as Saturday on a bill to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That puts it ahead of the START treaty, as proponents of repeal had requested. …

So for those paying close attention, here’s the schedule of votes moving forward: DREAM, DADT repeal, short-term spending bill and, finally START treaty.

The cloture vote on DREAM is expected to fail. Assuming it does, and assuming DADT cloture succeeds, the final vote on DADT repeal would be Sunday.

Anyway, yeah, all hail Joe Lieberman, Civil Rights Hero! “Lieberman, who claims to have rounded up 62 votes in the Senate for DADT repeal, has, along with Susan Collins, been indispensable in keeping this fast-closing door ajar. What he seems to get is that this is not just some constituency measure, or some minor matter – but a moral matter. ” Indeed.

Look: either the individual mandate is constitutional, or it’s not. And I, like many ObamaCare supporters, was admittedly too sanguine about this issue when it first came up. There are, I’ve come to realize, certainly some very legitimate arguments that it’s unconstitutional. (The Volokh Conspiracy is all over this.) It’s unknowable how the Supreme Court will eventually resolve the issue, but it’s certainly possible the mandate will be struck down.

That said, the policy implications of that constitutional outcome could be GREAT NEWS!! FOR LIBERALS!! No, seriously. Ezra Klein makes the case:

The individual mandate began life as a Republican idea. Its earliest appearances in legislation were in the Republican alternatives to the Clinton health-care bill, where it was co-sponsored by such GOP stalwarts as Bob Dole, Orrin G. Hatch and Charles E. Grassley. Later on, it was the centerpiece of then-Gov. Mitt Romney’s health-reform plan in Massachusetts, and then it was included in the Wyden-Bennett bill, which many Republicans signed on to. It was only when the individual mandate appeared in President Obama’s legislation that it became so polarizing on the right. …

The individual mandate was created by conservatives who realized that it was the only way to get universal coverage into the private market. Otherwise, insurers turn away the sick, public anger rises, and, eventually, you get some kind of government-run, single-payer system, much as they did in Europe, and much as we have with Medicare.

If Republicans succeed in taking it off the table, they may sign the death warrant for private insurers in America: Eventually, rising cost pressures will force more aggressive reforms than even Obama has proposed, and if conservative judges have made the private market unfixable by removing the most effective way to deal with adverse selection problems, the only alternative will be the very constitutional, but decidedly non-conservative, single-payer path.

File this under “be careful what you wish for.”

Or perhaps we do:

Everything you need to know about the new political group No Labels is contained in its slogan: “Not Left. Not Right. Forward.” It’s smug. It sounds like an Obama campaign catchphrase. And it ignores the whole reason politics exists, which is that not everyone agrees on what “Forward” is. …

The group’s mission statement is filled with the bland pablum of political campaigns. It’s the kind of stuff that’s so obvious, no one would ever disagree. “Americans are entitled to a government and a political system that works—driven by shared purpose and common sense.” Unlike all those groups that prefer a political system that doesn’t work. “Americans want a government that empowers people with the tools for success … provided that it does so in a fiscally prudent way.” Me, I’m for spending wads of money on failure. “America must be strong and safe, ready and able to protect itself in a world of multiple dangers and uncertainties.” That is going to upset their rival group, Americans Against Strength, Safety, Readiness, and Ability To Protect Ourselves.

Heh. More:

Continue reading →