Category: Legislation

Dodd Says that Financial Reform Has Stalled


I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!

There is probably an element of truth to Chris Dodd’s claim that he cannot come to an agreement with Senate Republicans on financial reform:

The chairman of the Senate banking committee said Friday that efforts to reach a bipartisan consensus on sweeping legislation to overhaul the nation’s financial regulatory system had “reached an impasse,” but he said he intends to move forward even without Republican support.

For the second time since November, talks have stalled between Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said ranking Republican Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.). Both men have expressed interest in reaching a consensus on a wide-ranging bill that would revamp regulation of the financial services industry. But after months of negotiation, they have yet to overcome a key hurdle: the proposed creation of a consumer protection regulator to focus on mortgages, credit cards and other such financial products.

The part that is suspicious, and the reason that I’m inclined to believe that he has lost interest in reform now that he is no longer running for reelection, is that he is going all Claude Rains on the fact that Republicans are not negotiating in good faith.

We’ve seen this phenomenon over and over again: Republicans do not negotiate in good faith until you have something that would kill them politically to vote against.

First you jam them up, then you twist their arm, and then maybe, just maybe, they will agree to be cooperative as you move their head toward the toilet bowl.

Insert South Carolina Joke Here

No, this is not The Onion.

You have a Lt. Governor who thinks that nutritious lunches for poor children is like feeding strays, a governor who has forever ruined the idea of hiking the Appalachian trail, and is now asking for the stimulus money that he refused, and now the South Carolina lege has passed a law requiring that people who wish to overthrow the United States government pay a fee and get a license for the privilege:

Terrorists who want to overthrow the United States government must now register with South Carolina’s Secretary of State and declare their intentions — or face a $25,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.

The state’s “Subversive Activities Registration Act,” passed last year and now officially on the books, states that “every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States … shall register with the Secretary of State.”

There’s even a $5 filing fee.

By “subversive organization,” the law means “every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States [or] of this State.”

The interesting thing here is that it appears to me that this definition might very well apply to any number of the more rabid Confederate heritage groups.

The members of the South Carolina legislature had better find someone to cut their meat, because if we allow them to handle knives, it will get very ugly.

[on edit]
It appears that the definitive word on the state was made in 1860, following the vote for secession, by Congressman James Petigru, “South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum.”

A ½ Step

It looks like there is increased momentum in the Senate for raising the tax rate on big bonuses for bailed out firms

Senators Barbara Boxer and Jim Webb proposed a 50 percent tax on 2009 bonuses above $400,000 at any firm that has received more than $5 billion in government assistance.

The senators said they had not yet gathered broad support for the proposal, and neither sits on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, which would likely have to take up the bill. A 35 percent tax on bonuses at bailed-out companies was proposed last year by the leaders of the Finance Committee, Democrat Max Baucus and Republican Charles Grassley, but it has not been acted on.

I call it a half step, because in order to fix this, it needs to apply to a lot more people than that, and to apply to all income.

The marginal tax rate for people earning more than about $5 million a year should be north of 75%.

I don’t care if it’s Lloyd Blankfein, A-Rod, or Lady Gaga, let’s raise their taxes.

Don’t Give to the DNC



Contributions to the DNC Paid This Man to Sabotage Healthcare Reform

Here’s a shocker, the DNC just spent nearly ½ a million dollars for the Nebraska State Democrats to run a campaign commercial for Ben Nelson’s obstructionism:

Turns out, though, that it’s [see attached video] not a Ben Nelson campaign ad. It’s hard to read the disclaimer, but the ad was paid for by the Nebraska Democratic Party. It’s one of a series of ad touting Nelson’s “courageous” effort to bring down real health care reform. More of the ads can be seen here and here.

So, one wonders, where did the Nebraska Democratic Party get the money to pay for these TV ads?

We already know that they are doing nothing about LGBT civil rights, now we know that since Howard Dean has left the chairmanship, they oppose meaningful healthcare reform too.

Find your candidates, and donate to them. The DNC, DCCC, the DSCC, and OFA are going to spend your money on people like Ben Nelson.

OK, Count Me Disappointed

I’ve generally been supportive of Chris Dodd. I think that he has been good on civil rights, particularly in his pushing back against torture and the PATRIOT act.

Additionally, I think that he was hung out to dry by Obama and Geithner over AIG.

Further, he was remarkably refreshing about why he dropped out of the Senate race.

That being said, his behavior on the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) earlier, and now his opposition to the weak “Volker” banking reforms, has gotten me wholeheartedly agreeing with Barry Righoltz’s assesment of his behavior: “

Thus, Dodd proves that the only thing more corrupt than a congressperson whoring for a campaign donations to get re-elected congressperson not seeking re-election, whoring for a job.

See also here and here.

Why US Broadband Sucks

Click for full size


The Phone Company*

Let’s look at Maine, where the terminally incompetent telco Farpoint is aggressively lobbying against Maine accepting a $24.5 million grant from the federal government to build out broadband networks:

Last month, NTIA gave Great Works internet in Maine $24.5 million toward a fiber optic network. The grant is a classic public/private partnership for a middle mile project that includes, among others the University of Maine.

Fairpoint, Maine’s primary rural LEC, has objected to this “undue competition with the private sector.” This would be funny, given how Fairpoint has become the poster child for the failure of the private sector to deliver on its big promises to rural communities. But Fairpoint’s talking points have ended up in legislation filed by Maine State Senator Lisa Marrache (D-Waterville) and Maine State Rep. Stacey Fitts (R-Pittsfield). Despite the fact that middle mile build out will help companies like Fairpoint (while also helping their competitors), we get the usual ideologically-driven nonsense about how the public sector ought to know its place and leave the driving to the all-knowing and super-efficient firms like Fairpoint — assuming Maine’s rural residents like the prospect of waiting for a bankrupt company [Yes, literally. Farpoint went Chapter 11] to satisfy its creditors and bring them broadband.

While this money would improve access and service for everyone, it would make it easier for companies to compete against Farpoint, the incumbent, so they are fighting this tooth and nail, because their service has been so unbelievably horrible that they know that they will hemorrhage customers if anything near free and fair.

That’s what this is all about.

There is more money in locking out competitors than there is in improving service, so US broad band, driven by private interests, is slower, more expensive, less reliable, and less accountable.

Damn, sounds a lot like out healthcare system.

*The President’s Analyst, see IMDB and Wiki.

Is Joe Biden Suggesting that He Might Rule the Filibuster Unconstitutional?

He’s coming down very hard on the filibuster, and I’m wondering if he is sending a signal that, as President of the Senate, he is prepared to rule that the filibuster is unconstitutional:

“As long as I have served … I’ve never seen, as my uncle once said, the Constitution stood on its head as they’ve done. This is the first time every single solitary decisions has required 60 senators,” he said at a Florida fundraiser, according to the pool report. “No democracy has survived needing a super majority.”

The author of the story seems to think that this is an attempt to create a groundswell for using reconciliation to fix healthcare, but I think that Biden might be suggesting something even more radical.

I think (hope) that he is prepared to kill the filibuster.

The interesting thing here, is that the “Centrists” must be crapping their pants over this possibility, since their real agenda is to do nothing ever, and a change to the filibuster rules would make it much more difficult to do nothing ever.

Just Primary Her

Yes, once again, another Senate “sentrist” appears to be determined to ensure that nothing good will pass the senate:

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D[INO]-AR) will oppose Dem efforts to move health care legislation through Congress using budget reconciliation, hurting Dems’ chances for using the controversial parliamentary maneuver to pass a reform bill.

“I am opposed to and will fight against any attempts to push through changes to the Senate health insurance reform legislation by using budget reconciliation tactics that would allow the Senate to pass a package of changes to our original bill with 51 votes,” Lincoln said in a statement on Tuesday. “I have successfully fought for transparency throughout Senate deliberations on health care, and I will continue to do so.”

“I will not accept any last-minute efforts to force changes to health insurance reform issues through budget reconciliation, and neither will Arkansans. We have worked too long and too hard on this reform effort – we need to get it right,” she said.

By “We”, of xourse, she means “her”, and she does not want a process that diminishes her ability to f%$# with people’s lives, because she wants someone kissing her ass.

Matthew Yglesias is right when he calls out the Senate “centrists”, and notes that they “seem prepared to resume their customary role as the villains whose consistently egomaniacal and self-destructive behavior has badly damaged the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans.”

Oh, For Pete’s Sake!!!!

Well, I’m listening to Olbermann, and Barack Hoover, or maybe it’s Herbert Obama, I’m not sure which, is suggesting his latest bold initiative: A domestic spending freeze, which means that, with inflation, it’s a domestic spending cut.

So, is actually trying to screw up the economy and get a Republican House, Senate and White House in 2012?

Unemployment is still rising, and he’s so eager to pander to Republicans, who would hate him even if he were white, that he’s determined to play Herbert Hoover, and cut the budget in the middle of a recession.

I’m beginning to think that he’s actually Mitch McConnell’s evil twin.

[on edit]


Original Courtesy of Quentin Tarantino, with typography by mdaisey

This has been confirmed by the Washington Post, and Maddow had White House advisor Jared Bernstein on, he said that they won’t freez/cut everything, just the bad and wasteful stuff ………… During a recession……… With unemployment still climbing ……………

And they are going to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff because it works so f%$#ing well in Congress today.

Seriously, I have to evoke Samuel Jackson from pulp fiction again, because the idea that they will “only” cut the wasteful stuff projects the idea that they are trying to f%$# me like a bitch because they think that I am stupid.

Hell, it’s an insult to the intelligence of Sarah Palin.

House of Representatives to Senate: Drop Dead

House Liberals are manning up and have told Nancy Pelosi that they will not vote for the Senate bill. Period, full stop:

In a private meeting in the Capitol just now, a dozen or more House liberals bluntly told Nancy Pelosi that there was no chance that they would vote to pass the Senate bill in its current form — making it all but certain that House Dems won’t opt for this approach, a top House liberal tells me.

“We cannot support the Senate bill — period,” is the message that liberals delivered to the Speaker, Dem Rep Raul Grijalva told me in an interview just now.

Some had hoped Pelosi would push liberals to get in line behind this approach, in hopes of expediting reform, but that didn’t appear to happen in this meeting. Pelosi mostly listened, Grijalva said, adding: “We didn’t get any declarative statement from her.”

You know, coddling Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, etc. and sh%$ing on the liberals, in both the House and the Senate can only take you so far.

Notwithstanding the protestations of beltway boyz wannabees like Steve Benen, Matthew Yglesias, and Kevin Drum, it’s not the liberals who are at risk.

They have a coherent system of beliefs, and they can honestly sell their decisions, as opposed to the Blue Dog and New Dems, who keep saying how we have to protect the insurance companies, and the liberals generally come from safer districts anyway.

One of the things that people forget about 1994 is that it was the Conservadems who got voted out.

Obama Proposes a Return to Glass Steagall

Click for full size



First Photo of Volker and Obama Together in Months

Or something very much like that.

The changes proposed are very significant, or at least they appear to be significant.

Among snap shot of the provisions are:

  • Commercial banks would be prohibited from trading on their own behalf, so called proprietary trading.
  • Commercial banks would, “would no longer be allowed to engage in trading unrelated to their customers’ interests.”
  • Commercial banks would be prohibited from investing in or advising hedge funds or private-equity firms.
  • Extending the current cap of 10% of US federally insured deposits to non-insured assets.

I think that the first thing to note here is that Barack Obama has had this in his back pocket for some time, not because he wanted to do this, but because there might come a time where he needed to, and following the Coakley debacle in Massachusetts, he felt that he had to do this

A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that, “Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street.” A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.

I don’t think that until Tuesday, Obama understood how tremendously pissed off the voters are about the bank bailout, and the bonuses, so chalk one up for my hope that if Coakley lost, Obama would get a clue.

Of course, it still has to go through the banking committees, where the Republicans will be unified against it, and where many of the Blue Dog and New Dem corporatist pukes sit, because it’s a good place to raise money from.

His proposals will only work if Obama kicks ass and takes name in Congress, otherwise, they will remain in committee for a long time, or be watered down to the point on meaninglessness.

*Alas, I cannot claim credit for this bon mot, it was coined by the great Matt Taibbi, in his article on the massive criminal conspiracy investment firm, The Great American Bubble Machine.
Or perhaps leaving a loophole for the Calamari bankers is considered to be a feature, rather than a bug. Summers and Geithner still work for him after all.

Full text of statement after break:

The Obama-Volcker remarks in full:

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL REFORMS TO THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM

THE DIPLOMATIC RECEPTION ROOM, THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
11:39 A.M. EST, THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning, everybody. I just had a very productive meeting with two members of my Economic Recovery Advisory Board: Paul Volcker, who is the former chair of the Federal Reserve Board, and Bill Donaldson, previously the head of the SEC. And I deeply appreciate the counsel of these two leaders and the board, that they’ve offered as we have dealt with a broad array of very difficult economic challenges.

Now over the past two years more than 7 million Americans have lost their jobs in the deepest recession our country has known in generations. Rarely does a day go by that I don’t hear from folks who are hurting. And every day we are working to put our economy back on track and put America back to work.

But even as we dig our way out of this deep hole, it’s important that we not lose sight of what led us into this mess in the first place. This economic crisis began as a financial crisis when banks and financial institutions took huge, reckless risks in pursuit of quick profits and massive bonuses. When the dust settled and this binge of irresponsibility was over, several of the world’s oldest and largest financial institutions had collapsed or were on the verge of doing so. Markets plummeted, credit dried up, and jobs were vanishing by hundreds of thousands each month. We were on the precipice — precipice of a second Great Depression.

And to avoid this calamity, the American people, who were already struggling in their own right, were forced to rescue financial firms facing crisis largely of their own creation. And that rescue, undertaken by the previous administration, was deeply offensive, but it was a necessary thing to do, and it succeeded in stabilizing financial systems and helping to avert that depression.

Since that time, over the past year, my administration has recovered most of what the federal government provided the banks. And last week I proposed a fee to be paid by the largest financial firms in order to recover every last dime.

But that’s not all we have to do. We have to enact common-sense reforms that will protect American taxpayers and the American economy from future crises as well.

For while the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it’s still operating under the same rules that led to its near collapse.

These are rules that allowed firms to act contrary to the interests of customers, to conceal their exposure to debt through complex financial dealings, to benefit from taxpayer-insured deposits while making speculative investments, and to take on risks so vast that they posed threats to the entire system. That’s why we are seeking reforms to protect consumers.

We intend to close loopholes that allowed big financial firms to trade risky financial products, like credit-default swaps and other derivatives, without oversight; to identify system-wide risks that could cause a meltdown; to strengthen capital and liquidity requirements, to make the system more stable, and to ensure that the failure of any large firm does not take the entire economy down with it.

Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail.

Now, limits on the risks major financial firms can take are central to the reforms that I have proposed. They are central to the legislation that has passed the House, under the leadership of Chairman Barney Frank, and that we’re working to pass in the Senate, under the leadership of Chairman Chris Dodd.

As part of these efforts, today, I’m proposing two additional reforms that I believe will strengthen the financial system while preventing future crises.

First, we should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers. In recent years, too many financial firms have put taxpayer money at risk by operating hedge funds and private equity funds and making riskier investments, to reap a quick reward.

And these firms have taken these risks while benefitting from special financial privileges that are reserved only for banks. Our government provides deposit insurance and other safeguards and guarantees to firms that operate banks.

We do so because a stable and reliable banking system promotes sustained growth and because we learned how dangerous the failure of that system can be during the Great Depression. But these privileges were not created to bestow banks operating hedge funds or private equity funds with an unfair advantage.

When banks benefit from the safety net that taxpayers provide, which includes lower-cost capital, it is not appropriate for them to turn around and use that cheap money to trade for profit. And that is especially true when this kind of trading often puts banks in direct conflict with their customers’ interests.

The fact is, these kinds of trading operations can create enormous and costly risks, endangering the entire bank if things go wrong.

We simply cannot accept a system in which hedge funds or private- equity firms inside banks can place huge, risky bets that are subsidized by taxpayers and that could pose a conflict of interest. And we cannot accept a system in which shareholders make money on these operations if a bank wins, but taxpayers foot the bill if a bank loses.

It’s for these reasons that I’m proposing a simple and common- sense reform, which we’re calling the Volcker rule, after this tall guy behind me. Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest or sponsor hedge funds, private-equity funds or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers. If financial firms want to trade for profit, that’s something they’re free to do. Indeed, doing so responsibly is a good thing for the markets and the economy. But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities — funds while running a bank backed by the American people.

In addition, as part of our efforts to protect against future crises, I’m also proposing that we prevent the further consolidation of our financial system. There has long been a deposit cap in place to guard against too much risk being concentrated in a single bank. The same principle should apply to wider forms of funding employed by large financial institutions in today’s economy. The American people will not be served by a financial system that comprises just a few massive firms. That’s not good for consumers; it’s not good for the economy. And through this policy, that is an outcome we will avoid.

And my message to members of Congress of both parties is that we have to get this done. And my message to leaders of the financial industry is to work with us, and not against us, on needed reforms. I welcome constructive input from folks in the financial sector. But what we’ve seen so far in recent weeks is an army of industry lobbyists from Wall Street descending on Capitol Hill to try and block basic and common-sense rules of the road that would protect our economy and the American people.

So if these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have. And my resolve is only strengthened when I see a return to old practices in some of the very firms fighting reform; when I see soaring profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms claiming that they can’t lend more to small businesses, they can’t keep credit- card rates low, they can’t pay a fee to refund taxpayers for the bailout without passing on the cost to shareholders or customers. That’s the claims they’re making.

It’s exactly this kind of irresponsibility that makes clear reform is necessary.

Now, we’ve come through a terrible crisis. The American people have paid a very high price. We simply cannot return to business as usual. That’s why we’re going to ensure that Wall Street pays back the American people for the bailout. That’s why we’re going to rein in the excess and abuse that nearly brought down our financial system. That’s why we’re going to pass these reforms into law.

Josh Marshall is Right, and Was Right in 2004

In the aftermath of the Massachusetts debacle, a lot of people are wondering what the hell happened.

The talking heads inside the Beltway are sure that it’s because Obama is too Librul, of course, but I think that Josh Marshall talked about the core problem in August of 2004.

He was talking about the Bush-Kerry campaign, and he characterized it as follows:

Let’s call it the Republicans’ Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics.

It goes something like this.

………

Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really — a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they’re tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job.

………

One way — perhaps the best way — to demonstrate someone’s lack of toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves — thus the rough slang I used above. And that I think is a big part of what is happening here. Someone who can’t or won’t defend themselves certainly isn’t someone you can depend upon to defend you.

………

Hitting someone and not having them hit back hurts the morale of that person’s supporters, buoys the confidence of your own backers (particularly if many tend toward an authoritarian mindset) and tends to make the person who’s receiving the hits into an object of contempt (even if also possibly also one of sympathy) in the eyes of the uncommitted.

………

Only now, it isn’t the Republicans bitch slapping anyone. It’s the Democrats who bitch slap themselves.

Or as Zaid Jilani’s southern ConservaDem friend says:

And can I say this? F*ck the Democrats. They couldn’t get s%$# done with 60 seats, why the hell would I care if they have 59? F%$# them seriously we deserve to lose Congress this year. And don’t bitch and whine about it either how much has changed since we took over in 2006? Ain’t s%$# as far as I can tell. We capitulated to Bush, then capitulated to Republicans and now are just capitulating to ourselves.

F%$# it dude, I mean Republicans get whatever the f%$# they want with 50 seats and we can’t do f%$# all we deserve to lose

(“%$#” mine, “*” original)

Fundamentally, when we look at what is going on in DC, it looks like no one in the Senate or the White House is even trying to make substantive change. (Pelosi, at least, creates the appearance that she is trying to do something)

What’s more, among the DC Dems, there has been near constant bitch slapping of the Party Base, whether it’s the capitulation on the public option, the labor union insurance surtax, or the constant drum beat of how “the left” hates the Democratic Party because they want to primary DINOs (Democrat In Name Only) who have safe seats.

The central campaign platform of the Republican Party is that government can’t do anything. The Democratic Party seems to try very hard to prove them right.

A Loophole in the Bribery Statutes

So, Chris Dodd, after a disastrous run for the Presidency, and 2 banking scandals, one of which was created by Tim Geithner, acknowledged reality, and announced that he was not running for reelection.

The question would then be how would this change his positions on banking reform?

One possibility is that, no longer needing the campaign donations, he would get harder on banks, and the other would be that he would go easier on banks, because he would be looking for post-Senate employment.

Well, we have our answer, and it’s the latter.

The murmurs are that Dodd is looking at dropping an independent consumer financial protection agency entirely from the Senate banking reform bill the excuse is that he is looking for bipartisan support, but the fact is that anything that republicans will support will be completely toothless.

This isn’t just a “rearranging deck chairs” thing. If the agency is not independent, then it will be attached to another agency, most likely Treasury, which is largely an arm of the banks by design, and they will have no control over the budget and personnel requests.

So, Chris Dodd is well on his way to getting a high paying gig with a bank, or a law firm for the banks.

It’s depressing. He was my 1st or 2nd choice in the 2008 primaries, but much like Edwards, it appears that he has feet of clay.

I Have Mixed Feelings about the French Burqa Ban

The leader of the French Parliament, Jean-François Copé, has restated his intention to ban the Burqa (see pic) in France.

He plans to put forward a law to impose fines of up to €750 ($1050) for anyone who appears in public with their faces covered, and there would, “Stiffer punishments would be laid down for men who ‘forced’ their wives or daughters to wear full-body veils.”

There would be exceptions for the wearing of masks on “festive occasions,” which means, I guess that Halloween has become an institution in France too.

Interestingly enough, Nicolas “President Bling Bling” Sarkosy is trying to slow this down, though one wonders, considering his statements about having a “debate on national identity” got the ball rolling, how sincere he is.

It’s clear that the politics play into some very base feelings, but there is a legitimate question about what is, or should be appropriate public behavior in any society, even a modern Western society.

While societies should be accommodating, there does have to be a line drawn.

I believe that a head scarf (Hijab) should be allowed both in public and the workplace, I do think that the Burqa, and it’s slightly less extreme cousins the Niqab and Chador are over when used outside of a religious observance.

The politics here get really weird though:

Yesterday the veteran far-right leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, also rejected the need for new legislation against the burka, perhaps surprisingly. He said that the existing French legal code already banned masks in public places. “All they need to do is apply the law,” he said.

Le Pen opposes the Burqa ban? Le Pen?!!?!? I do not understand French politics.

I would also note that the number of people who wear the extreme coverings in France is well small, perhaps 2,000 out of a female Muslim population of 1½ million, so either it’s a problem that does not need to be addressed, or it’s one that can be nipped in the bud, depending on where you feelings lie in this matter.

As I said at the beginning, I am conflicted: I think that the Burqa is a very bad thing, but I’m still not sure if it rises to the level of a problem that requires a formal prohibition under law.

First Massachusetts Senate Special Election Poll Out

It’s Rasmussen, and they say that Democrat candidate Martha Coakley leads Republican Scott Brown by 50% to 41%.

Not particularly surprising.

Obviously special elections are rather quirky affairs, what with turnout being low, but Coakley’s turnout machine worked well in the primary, so I think that this is, absent her doing something really stupid, is in the bag.

There is an interesting point here though: If Brown were to win, the Dems would be down to 59 seats, and the Republican filibuster would hold, which might force the White House and Congress to use reconciliation, which might create a much better bill.

So, which is it, The Lady or the Tiger?

Franken Rape Amendment Becomes Law

The 2010 Defense Authorization Bill was signed into law by Barack Obama about 2 weeks ago, and the bill included Al Franken’s prohibition on defense contractors using binding arbitration to keep things like the rape of their employees by their employees out of court.

Since it’s attached to an appropriations bill, it only runs for a year, so I would suggest a stand alone bill, timed to hit the floor in the June-July time frame to permanently close the loophole.

We’ll see how many ‘Phants want to vote pro-rape a few months prior to elections, particularly given the outrage over the pro-rape Republicans over Franken Amendment in the first place.