How 'Bout No?

By Wade

By now, everyone's heard about the giant clusterfuck in the gulf known as the BP spill. You might have even heard about how BP's been manipulating Google results to bury their bad press. However, ladies and gentlemen of the American public who read my blog, hear me now: they're not done fucking us yet.

Congress is getting ready to quadruple — to 32 cents a barrel — a tax on oil used to help finance cleanups. The increase would raise nearly $11 billion over the next decade.

FANTASTIC. Hrm... There really does need to be a sarcasm font.
FANTASTIC!
Better?
You should be shaking your head at this point. Because you know what? Those taxes will be directly passed onto us at the pump, and there's no surer way to piss us off than making us pay more for gas. Alternately, questioning our sexuality. Or our guns.

See, the thing is, I'd be fine with a tax like this that went to decreasing our dependency on oil with some sort of more permanent solution. I understand that the oil companies want to make money; it's their prime directive. Make it profitable to not be an oil company. You know how we subsidize the shit out of beef and corn so that way all our chillens be fat? Do that with alternative energy and public transportation (and fruits and vegetables, but that's another rant).

Listen, I get it BP, you're sad that you made a boo-boo, and Congress is somehow very sympathetic to an oil company. Guess what, though. This is exactly the kind of shit that I point to when people get upset about homeowners defaulting on their mortgages. Own up, fix your mistake, and try not to be such a loser in the future.

"Taxpayers will not pick up the tab," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday.

BP executives told Congress last week they would pay "all legitimate claims" for damages...Money spent from the fund can later be recovered from the company responsible for the spill.

"Oh," you say, "We're gonna take care of this and all the legitimate claims. Don't you worry! You can get your money back later, sure can!"

Right, we've heard that song and dance before. Last I checked, the banks were laughing all the way to the... uh, to themselves?

And in case you're a visual person, check out these photos. They're not, y'know, happy photos. In case you were expecting bunnies. Or boobies*.


*Any boobies or bunnies in these pictures will be dying a slow petroleum death.

Only Two-thousand Or So Years Behind the Romans

By Wade
Can I say effin' finally?

"We have developed a legislative proposal for consideration by the House and Senate that puts a process in place to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' once...the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that repeal can be achieved consistent with the military's standards..." said the letter sent Monday night that was signed by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan; Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut; and Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pennsylvania.

(link)

Or perhaps I should say that is a big effin' deal?

The article goes on to vaguely discuss compromises between the White House's vision and a "working group" in the military that's reviewing the matter, but I say progress is better than nogress (first syllable like egg nog, second syllable like egress, means the opposite of progress, you owe me a dime if you use it).

Now I know you guys might be thinking, "Wait a second, I thought this blog imploded when all its contributors went back to school?"

Well, in the words of one of my favorite superheroes, "It's me, I'm here, deal with it."

A Democratic Freakout?

By Dave

That's what conservative Jon Henke sees on the horizon:

The first Democratic freak out will be an internal Congressional fight in 2010 over whether to (1) move big and fast while they still have the votes, or (2) slow down and preserve as many seats as they can. The second Democratic freak out is going to occur in 2011 and beyond, when Democrats try to figure out what the lesson of the 2010 elections really is.

• Progressives - and especially the netroots - will say the lesson is "Damn the Republicans, Full Speed Ahead", but that's what they always say.  Revolutionaries like bold action more than practical details.
• Moderates/pragmatists will say the lesson is "don't try to do too much, take smaller steps, make reasonable compromises".  But that is more effective at maintaining power than accomplishing major policy goals.

I think, except for moderates/pragmatists part, Henke's analysis is largely right. At least, it's definitely a possibility. As I've said before, I don't think 2010 will be a year of amazing legislative success. The realist (or cynic) in me says that 2010 is a mid-term election year. Historically, the party in power loses seats. Democrats are nervous. As Wade's post showed, Republicans have no idea why they lost the last two elections and their confusion makes them all the more pissed off and angry. They smell blood in the water and think now is their time to seize back power. They are going to fight with everything they have.

So this makes for a cautious legislative environment, particularly for those with fragile holds on their seats.  

But that being said, I don't think 2010 will be some sort of 'lost year.' If health care reform passes, the toughest battles will be behind Democrats. Sure, climate change regulation will be difficult but can it be as hard as health-care? I don't think so. Reid is already saying the Senate will be up for it by Spring.

My prediction: 2010 will be a year for low hanging legislative fruit, symbolic victories to rally the base, and maybe one or two big, important, but divisive issues (climate change and financial reform?).

As for the Henke's analysis of Moderates/Pragmatists, I 'd say the Obama track record shows exactly the opposite. Pragmatists have made concessions and compromises in order to accomplish major policy goals. (See: Stimulus, health care, etc.) It still is yet to be seen if this strategy will help them maintain power.