Anti-war protestors rally near White House

Hundreds of anti-war protesters rallied in front of the White House today, in what has been a very big day in Washington (health care vote, immigration rally). That the protesters chose today has more to do with today being the seventh anniversary of the beginning of the War in Iraq, not that today was when the House voted on health care. The rally featured more than twelve speakers, including Ralph Nader, and marched to the White House and the headquarters of Halliburton, the energy company once headed by Dick Cheney. Five people were arrested after they brought coffins in front of the White House and were laying by them. Another speaker was Cindy Sheehan, who asked the crowd "Is the honeymoon over with that war criminal in the Oval Office? Why are we giving him a free pass when he didn't deserve it?" Is Sheeham talking about President Obama or George W. Bush? The first question sounds directed at Obama, as he is in the Oval Office now, but the second question seems to refer to Bush (reference: past tense). If the protesters are against the War in Iraq they are a little late, as Bush is no longer in office. But with Obama escalating the conflict in Afghanistan, these protesters are most likely against that too. Regardless, they sounded a little extreme, but I guess the only way to get the media attention they are looking for is to perform crazy acts (like laying beside coffins in front of the White House). Read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/20/anti-war-protesters-rally-near-white-house-5-arrested/?hpt=Sbin&fbid=zYte_J2XDeq.

Rally planned in Washington on immigration reform

Thousands are expected to convene on Washington's National Mall this Sunday in a rally demanding reform on immigration policy. Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have recently laid out plans for a new immigration policy, which include giving illegal immigrants Social Security cards that don't allow them to obtain jobs, strengthening border security, creating a system for admitting temporary workers, and outlining a process by which illegal immigrants may become legal. The rally, which will be held on the same day that the House votes on a health care bill, involves an issue that has resurfaced since President Obama has voiced his support for Schumer and Graham's plan. In a statement, the two senators wrote, "Ending illegal immigration, however, cannot be the sole objective of reform. Developing a rational legal immigration system is essential to ensuring America's future economic prosperity." The plan by Schumer and Graham is interesting, as it seems to be more anti-immigration than pro-immigration. Preventing illegal immigrants from getting hired by giving them special cards could hurt the economy, as there will be less workers in essential but not-desirable occupations, such as agricultural workers. I'm a little surprised that Obama supported this plan, but I guess the overwhelming sentiment these days is that we need to strengthen our borders. I would expect there to be demonstrators on both sides of the immigration debate in Washington on Sunday. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/19/immigration.rally/index.html.

House to vote on health care bill Sunday

Democratic congressmen revealed the 10-year, $940 Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 today, three months after the Senate first passed the compromise bill in December. Democratic leaders have pledged to vote on the bill within 72 hours, which means that a vote in the House will most likely come Sunday. Republicans have reaffirmed their stance against the bill, and no Republican has said he/she will vote for the bill. Said House Minority Leader John Boehner, "We're going to continue to work closely together and to do everything that we can to make sure that this bill never, ever, ever passes." Additionally, according to a survey by CNN, 27 Democrats have said they will vote against the bill, including nine who supported the bill last November. This vote is so important to President Obama that he has postponed a trip to Indonesia and Australia until June in order to be in Washington this weekend. This vote will definitely be a defining moment for Obama's presidency, and it seems logical for him to postpone the trip. The majority of issues surrounding his time in office thus far have dealt with health care, and he has made health care reform the largest issue in domestic policy. If this vote fails, I don't think it would be possible to call the first year of his term a success. Unfortunately, I think the Republican opposition is too strong for this bill to be passed, as there is such a uniform consensus against it. Additionally, it's not a good sign that some House Democrats are against the bill. We'll see Sunday (or some other time in the near future), but I sense failure on the horizon. If you have a lot of extra time you could read all 153 pages of the proposed health care bill, as it can be accessed at http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/18/health.care.pdf.

White House social secretary resigns

Yesterday White House social secretary Desiree Rogers resigned from her position, 3 months after Tareq and Michaele Salahi crashed the White House state dinner. Julianna Smoot will be the new social secretary, a position that organizes the White House's social events. Rogers came under scrutiny for the breach in security that allowed the Salahis (who were uninvited) into the White House's first state dinner, although Rogers claimed that the mistake was the Secret Service's fault and not hers. In an interview after she announced her resignation, Rogers said "It has nothing to do with that, it's Secret Service's job to handle security. Not the Social Secretary's office" in response to a question about the party crashers. A statement from the President and the First Lady also neglected to mention the November event. "When she took this position, we asked Desiree to help make sure that the White House truly is the People's House," they said, "and she did that by welcoming scores of everyday Americans through its doors, from wounded warriors to local schoolchildren to NASCAR drivers." Read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/27/white-house-announces-new-social-secretary/?fbid=PRi3EP0uE8f Despite the fact that Rogers' resignation is occurring 3 months after the state dinner, I can't help but think that her resigning has something to do with the negative publicity she received from the breach in security. While it very well might not have been Rogers' fault that the Salahis made it in, she was certainly criticized by the media, which can definitely wear a person down. I didn't even know that there was such an office as the social secretary, and it's just another example of how large the government is. Question to any potential readers: does the job of White House social secretary sound fun to you?

Democrats to shortcut healthcare bill process

President Obama is expected to make an announcement next week detailing the Democrats' plans of how to move the health care bill forward. It's likely that the House and Senate will try to shortcut the process through reconciliation, in which the Senate only needs a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes for a cloture (which can end a filibuster). The plan, which was hinted at by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi earlier today, would consist of the House passing the Senate's version of the bill, sending the bill to President Obama, who would revise the bill to implement his package and send the bill back to Congress for approval. Using the reconciliation process, the Senate would only need 51 votes to pass the bill in this final stage. Pelosi called for a simple majority in the Senate, saying "a simple majority, that's what we're asking the Senate to act upon." Reconciliation was established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 so that only a majority vote in the Senate would be needed to advance bills dealing with the national budget. The idea behind the process is so that it is easier to pass deficit-reducing legislation. This seems like kind of an unfair way to pass the health care bill. I don't see how health care can be applied to reconciliation, as health care does not directly deal with the budget and will certainly not reduce the federal deficit. This is a sneaky way to sidestep a Senate filibuster, but I just don't see this working out for the Democrats. Using reconciliation will probably get a lot of negative media attention and, like always, there is probably some way in which the Republicans can counter to prevent this legislation from being approved. We shall soon find out. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/26/health.care/index.html.

Brown praised and criticized for his independence

After the Senate passed the jobs bill yesterday with a 70-28 vote, Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts has been both praised and criticized by his fellow Republicans for his independence in joining Democrats and voting in favor of the bill. In total, 13 Republicans voted for the bill and one Democrat did not (Ben Nelson of Nebraska). Brown, who won the late Ted Kennedy's seat last month in an upset over Democrat Martha Coakley, campaigned with the promise to bring an independent voice to the Senate and to value his constituents over partisanship. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell accepted Brown's vote, saying "We don't expect our members to be in lockstep on every single issue, and we're happy to have him here. I think it's made a huge, positive difference for us and for the whole legislative agenda." Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh had other thoughts though, saying "You will not find me being a giant, big-time, pedal-to-the-metal supporter of Scott Brown. We're talking about a Massachusetts Republican." I think that it's a good thing that Brown is more committed to doing what he feels is right for Massachusetts than to following his party lines. It's nice to see some Senators being more independent and reaching across the aisle for the good of the nation. But I don't really see why Brown is getting all of the attention, as there were 12 other Republicans who voted for this bill. All these other Senators should also be commended for putting their party differences beside and voting for what they believe in. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/24/scott.brown.jobs.vote/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Senate passes jobs bill

The U.S. Senate passed the $15 billion jobs bill today with a bipartisan vote of 70-28. The bill, which was approved for a vote on Monday, provides tax breaks for hiring the jobless, funding for new highway and transit programs, and extends a tax break for businesses that spend on long-term investments (such as equipment purchases). A major difference between this bill and the $154 billion bill that the House passed last year is that this scaled-down version does not contain an extension for unemployment benefits or the COBRA health insurance subsidy. Several Republicans, including Scott Brown of Massachusetts, joined with the Democrats in voting for this bill. Said Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, “Today, jobs triumphed over politics.” I'm glad that these Senators finally put aside their differences and actually passed something. This is like a breath of fresh air on a crisp spring day beside a babbling brook exposed to dappled light from the gentle encroachment of just-budding willows and wild columbines. In other words, it's the first time in a long while that we have seen the Senate work together. It is significant, however, that COBRA was not extended, as this deals with the ongoing health care debate. If these Senators were unwilling to extend COBRA, I find it unlikely that they will support a giant, comprehensive health care plan. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/24/senate.jobs.bill/index.html?hpt=Sbin. Think spring.