One of the late bipartisan achievements of the Bush Administration was the America COMPETES act which aimed to increase research and development funding in certain engineering and science areas, and support science education. The 10-year process of doubling this R&D funding (7% per year) requires a new authorization this year. (The same kind of increase was done successfully with National Institute of Health funding over the previous decade.)
The 2007 bill so was so bipartisan that every New Jersey Representative voted for it. Frank LoBiondo supported it. Yes, even Scott Garrett supported it. This is "mom and apple pie" stuff because we know that such government funding is paid back in economic growth. The nations we are competing with are investing heavily even as our private sector abandons basic research.
House Democrats had to scrap their only substantive bill of the week Thursday after Republicans won a procedural vote that substantively altered the legislation with an anti-porn clause....
But the Republican motion to recommit the bill -- a parliamentary tactic that gives the minority one final chance to amend legislation -- contained language prohibiting federal funds from going "to salaries to those officially disciplined for violations regarding the viewing, downloading, or exchanging of pornography, including child pornography, on a federal computer or while performing official government duties."
That provision scared dozens of Democrats into voting with Republicans to approve the motion to recommit. After it became clear the GOP motion was going to pass, dozens of additional Democrats changed their votes from "no" to "yes." In the end, 121 Democrats voted with Republicans -- only four fewer than the number of Democrats who voted with their party.
Of course the porn thing is just an attempt to sink the very bill these Republicans supported. (Why Democrats worry about this nonsense is beyond me, though to be fair many say Rahm popularized the tactic when Democrats were in the minority.) The Roll Call vote is here. The Republicans don't have an ounce of integrity and are trying to paralyze the government in a time of crisis by even destroying things they support.
ps. If you saw "scared Democrat" and thought John Adler you're right. That's what I predicted we'll see again and again. No other New Jersey Democrat voted for the Republican sham. Remember that this tactic would not work without cowardly Democrats. (Runyan, of course, would be even worse.)
The move marks the first time that regulators have taken action against a Wall Street deal that helped investors capitalize on the collapse of the housing market. Goldman itself profited by betting against the very mortgage investments that it sold to its customers.
"The product was new and complex but the deception and conflicts are old and simple," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the Division of Enforcement. "Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party."
According to the SEC's complaint, the deal closed on April 26, 2007, and Paulson & Co. paid Goldman Sachs approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS. By Oct. 24, 2007, 83 percent of the RMBS in the ABACUS portfolio had been downgraded and 17 percent were on negative watch. By Jan. 29, 2008, 99 percent of the portfolio had been downgraded.
The political power of Goldman is incredible, with literally over $30 million of donations by employees over the last two decades and ex-Goldman people throughout the government. Of course, the vast majority of these people had nothing to do with this particular 2007 deal, and I do not consider them responsible for it. The company itself, however, is now involved in a major scandal, so their PAC may be considered tainted. I think it's also likely the scandal will grow as more documents are uncovered.
"The alleged actions of Goldman Sachs are emblematic of conflicts of interest that put our economy and families at risk," Potosnak said Friday. "We need common sense reforms to hold banks accountable for the risky practices that led our economy into the gutter. My opponent, a member of the House Committee on Financial Services, has opposed nearly every effort to improve the financial services industry, to provide consumer protections, or to hold banks accountable. He takes tens of thousands of dollars in financial contributions from the financial special interests and puts aside the interests of our working families."
"Our campaign is about fighting for the interests of our families against the influence of powerful special interests. If Lance returns the money Goldman Sachs invested in him, it would not undo his record when it comes to consumer protections, but it would, at the very least, indicate that he recognizes that residents in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District do not want this kind of money dictating the actions of their elected officials."
Let me be blunt: Potosnak is 100% correct in this statement. However, once you look at the FEC list of candidates supported by The Goldman Sachs Group PAC, you'll find many other many Democrats and Republicans on their list, including New Jersey ones. We need challengers in both parties, and responsible incumbents, to reject the bipartisan cozy relationship with Wall Street. To me, the donations look all too much like kickbacks for gutting regulations.
"You cannot dance with someone if they are not willing to dance with you," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ. He called GOP complaints that the Democrats wrote a partisan bill "pretty lame, when they have made a political calculation that their path to victory is to have the president fail."
As is customary, Democrats and Republicans will genuflect before the altar of bipartisanship, which will be as enduring as an egg under the foot of an elephant.
I think the current fiscal climate coupled with the political climate will make it seem like they never even took a honeymoon at all.
I found Bill Bradley's New York Times Op-Ed through dday's marvelous take-down. It's difficult to believe a Senator could write something so foolish, until you realize that we have about a dozen Democratic senators that think like him. So maybe it's valuable after all to read the piece, and add to dday's comments.
Senator Bradley's idea is that a grand compromise is possible on health care -- after all, he says it worked for President Reagan's tax reforms. He shares his touching story of how he joked around with Reagan. Then he reveals, without noticing the irony, that Bradley and Rostenkowski made the deal because "it might serve as a model for passage of other significant legislation, like deficit reduction and health care reform."
Do you remember the 1988 balanced budget that resulted? The universal health care bill of 1987? In short, the poor man still boasts of his great deal, when he was scammed.
Dday points out that the Republicans have no reason to make the proposed deal in exchange for medical malpractice tort reform because they've already got it in most states, and because it is really a minor issue. Bradley is just reinforcing conservative propaganda in his piece. But, I'd like to be a bit simpler: What does Bradley think has been going on for the last six months? Has he read the papers? For better or for worse, no one can deny that Max Baucus has been bending over backwards to make a deal. It's only earned attacks from Republicans. That Bradley has not noticed suggests he doesn't read the newspaper he is published in.
Is too much to ask that Bradley pay attention to what has happened this year and when he was Senator before he shares his "wisdom" in the New York Times?
(Trenton) -- I wanted to share some of the flavor from today's Inaugural festivities.Kinda like the Assembly itself, our latest Vlog is a little bit country and a little bit rock and roll.Enjoy!
I had a major video crash today and lost some great footage. Apologies to Grace Spencer and Wayne DeAngelo who were so kind to say hello.
(Note to self: when it comes to video you're NOBODY unless you've had your first painful crash.)
