Pelosi no longer doing any heavy lifting for Obama

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

House Democrats Focusing on 'Easy Votes'

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already shifting into “campaign mode,” scheduling easy votes and short weeks to allow Democrats more time to campaign, according to The Hill.

The result is a schedule heavy on four-day weeks and breezy agenda items with little controversy.

“They’ll be no more tough votes,” one Democratic leadership aide told The Hill. Expect little if any tension during the April and May legislative work period.

The chief piece of legislation will be a jobs bill, a priority that many Democrats want to pass with unemployment and the economy remaining top concerns of voters. In fact, the jobs push will be a series of bills consisting of small business tax incentives and loan and access-to-capitol programs.

Other broad legislative items appear to be on hold, particularly since their success is dependent on the will of the Senate.

“If it’s not getting through the Senate, it’s not getting though the House,” said another top House aide, referring specifically to comprehensive immigration reform, another legislative priority of President Barack Obama that makes House leaders queasy at its very mention.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/house-jobs-pelosi-easy/2010/04/12/id/355424

[scandal 951]

“If it’s not getting through the Senate, it’s not getting though the House,” said another top House aide, referring specifically to comprehensive immigration reform, another legislative priority of President Barack Obama that makes House leaders queasy at its very mention.

An energy bill with cap+trade is also looking increasingly doubtful prior to Nov.

The one piece of business that Congress will need to deal with this summer regardless of the campaign cycle is the confirmation hearing for JP Stevens' replacement. At least that only requires the Senate - the House is free to romp and play all summer long.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Energy bill, immigration, surprise court replacement.... ** all that. Getting Americans back to work should be #1 priority.

So much time, so many capital letters on paper...

Edited April 12, 2010 by Nagishkaw

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Getting Americans back to work should be #1 priority.

Amen to that.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Amen to that.

To bad Washington wasted an entire year. The dems would be looking at increasing their majorities if they managed to get unemployment down to 6 or 7%. Sure they have a bad health care bill, but that is all they will get. The shift back to the rep side will be sisemic this november.

[Pooky 3,787]

2009 - 2010 An Opportunity Wasted.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Republicans wanted the healthcare bill done in small chunks. That appears the way the jobs bill is going to be done. Let's see how that works.

I am troubled that the White House has proposed an immediate necessity to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 20%, or possibly 25%. That should just about do it for the recovery, if all the short term positions are being sold in time to avoid the tax increase. The market does need to start going long, however, so I wonder which sectors will start seeing long term private capital investment, at least long enough to get past a possible Obama second term.

Government revenues will increase before the tax hike goes into effect, but will fall sharply once it does. It will be interesting to see how that gets timed, and whether, or not, the temporary improvement in numbers will be enough to keep both the House and Senate in Democratic hands.

[scandal 951]

Energy bill, immigration, surprise court replacement.... ** all that. Getting Americans back to work should be #1 priority.

So much time, so many capital letters on paper...

1. From the OP: The chief piece of legislation will be a jobs bill, a priority that many Democrats want to pass with unemployment and the economy remaining top concerns of voters. In fact, the jobs push will be a series of bills consisting of small business tax incentives and loan and access-to-capitol programs.

2. I thought all the free market critics are all about "government doesn't create jobs, only the private sector creates jobs". Now you do want to government to legislate and spend our way to employment gains? How wonderfully Keynesian of you. Welcome aboard.

3. Who's to say that an Energy bill isn't job-stimulative? I know of a bunch of market makers on the CCX who are thrilled at the thought of increased trading volumes and the clerks and traders that will be hired if c/t becomes law. Those are real honest to goodness jobs being created.

4. Since when are our expectations of government reduced to getting a single thing done at a time? Surely with 500+ House members and 100 Senators plus aides on the payroll, we can manage to get some multitasking out of DC?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

1. From the OP: The chief piece of legislation will be a jobs bill, a priority that many Democrats want to pass with unemployment and the economy remaining top concerns of voters. In fact, the jobs push will be a series of bills consisting of small business tax incentives and loan and access-to-capitol programs.

2. I thought all the free market critics are all about "government doesn't create jobs, only the private sector creates jobs". Now you do want to government to legislate and spend our way to employment gains? How wonderfully Keynesian of you. Welcome aboard.

3. Who's to say that an Energy bill isn't job-stimulative? I know of a bunch of market makers on the CCX who are thrilled at the thought of increased trading volumes and the clerks and traders that will be hired if c/t becomes law. Those are real honest to goodness jobs being created.

4. Since when are our expectations of government reduced to getting a single thing done at a time? Surely with 500+ House members and 100 Senators plus aides on the payroll, we can manage to get some multitasking out of DC?

Well stated.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

1. From the OP: The chief piece of legislation will be a jobs bill, a priority that many Democrats want to pass with unemployment and the economy remaining top concerns of voters. In fact, the jobs push will be a series of bills consisting of small business tax incentives and loan and access-to-capitol programs.

2. I thought all the free market critics are all about "government doesn't create jobs, only the private sector creates jobs". Now you do want to government to legislate and spend our way to employment gains? How wonderfully Keynesian of you. Welcome aboard.

3. Who's to say that an Energy bill isn't job-stimulative? I know of a bunch of market makers on the CCX who are thrilled at the thought of increased trading volumes and the clerks and traders that will be hired if c/t becomes law. Those are real honest to goodness jobs being created.

4. Since when are our expectations of government reduced to getting a single thing done at a time? Surely with 500+ House members and 100 Senators plus aides on the payroll, we can manage to get some multitasking out of DC?

To item #2: the only jobs the government can create are govenment jobs. They can create conditions that favor job creation through tax reduction and subsidies though. They also control the money supply which has in idirect effect on jobs. So far I have seen very little in the way of creating conditions favorible to job creation.

To item #3 The paper pushers on Wall Street may be happy but main street will not see any joy from the Energy Bill, at least not for some time to come.

To item #4: Given the performance over the last year I doubt if they can do one thing at a time, let alone multi-task.

[scandal 951]

To item #2: the only jobs the government can create are govenment jobs. They can create conditions that favor job creation through tax reduction and subsidies though. They also control the money supply which has in idirect effect on jobs. So far I have seen very little in the way of creating conditions favorible to job creation.

To item #3 The paper pushers on Wall Street may be happy but main street will not see any joy from the Energy Bill, at least not for some time to come.

To item #4: Given the performance over the last year I doubt if they can do one thing at a time, let alone multi-task.

#2 - I hear lots of words, but it seems you want it both ways. Which is it: Government should take an active role in the marketplace to foster employment, or should it stay out of the way and let the private sector do its thing? It seems like you want them to do something, but then when they do it (Stimulus bill, tax cuts, etc.) you have the usual ill defined complaints of "So far I have seen very little...". If they do much - they get attacked for being activist and "wasteful". If they do little, they "just don't care". Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Thank goodness they're not listening to you for advice.

#3. Those paper pushers as you put it are breadwinners and taxpayers and homeowners too, propping up their local economies with retail sales, property taxes, etc. (I'm one of them). America's capital markets are a key driver of our prosperity and standard of living. You can rail against Wall St. all you like, but without efficient markets this country would look like Afghanistan. Besides - I beg to differ about what an Energy bill could mean for blue collar Main St jobs. You don't have to even go to the "Green technology" jobs, if you're not into that. Obama is proposing opening up drilling off the Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico, that's potentially thousands of jobs in the neighboring states.

#4 With expectations like that, you can't help but be impressed by what your Congressman is doing for you lately. Cynicism is easy. Doing something is harder.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

#2 - I hear lots of words, but it seems you want it both ways. Which is it: Government should take an active role in the marketplace to foster employment, or should it stay out of the way and let the private sector do its thing? It seems like you want them to do something, but then when they do it (Stimulus bill, tax cuts, etc.) you have the usual ill defined complaints of "So far I have seen very little...". If they do much - they get attacked for being activist and "wasteful". If they do little, they "just don't care". Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Thank goodness they're not listening to you for advice.

#3. Those paper pushers as you put it are breadwinners and taxpayers and homeowners too, propping up their local economies with retail sales, property taxes, etc. (I'm one of them). America's capital markets are a key driver of our prosperity and standard of living. You can rail against Wall St. all you like, but without efficient markets this country would look like Afghanistan. Besides - I beg to differ about what an Energy bill could mean for blue collar Main St jobs. You don't have to even go to the "Green technology" jobs, if you're not into that. Obama is proposing opening up drilling off the Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico, that's potentially thousands of jobs in the neighboring states.

#4 With expectations like that, you can't help but be impressed by what your Congressman is doing for you lately. Cynicism is easy. Doing something is harder.

I am not a politician or an economist so if you are expecting me to come up with a better solution then you are out of luck. All I know is that real unemployment is at around 20% and every economist from both sides of the isle are saying we will have this for the long haul. It doesn't seem to me that the Kensian way of economic stimulus is working very well.

Yeah, the paper pushers need to support their families also but Wall Street had a very big hand in the mess we are in now. It will be a long time before I trust any of them again.

Expectations are made from past performance. With piss poor performance come low expectations.

[scandal 951]

I am not a politician or an economist so if you are expecting me to come up with a better solution then you are out of luck. All I know is that real unemployment is at around 20% and every economist from both sides of the isle are saying we will have this for the long haul. It doesn't seem to me that the Kensian way of economic stimulus is working very well.

Yeah, the paper pushers need to support their families also but Wall Street had a very big hand in the mess we are in now. It will be a long time before I trust any of them again.

Expectations are made from past performance. With piss poor performance come low expectations.

I'm not a politician or an economist either. I think you're right about one thing - Keynesian policies are far from ideal, and many real families throughout America are feeling the pain of joblessness as a result. Where I diverge from you, is what is the alternative? Is the alternative to do nothing (or less)? To stimulate less? To increase unemployment benefits less than we are? To provide fewer tax credits to small business? Again -- you seem to want to have government DO SOMETHING. ANYTHING. Understandable. But then when they do it, you criticize and say "It's not working. Do something different." Also understandable. The problem is - what else would you have them do? The alternative to something , at least according to the official Opposition, aka the "Party of No", is to do nothing. What we need are targeted smart stimulus programs that make efficient use of our (borrowed!) dollars to get people working. And we also need the understanding and patience of the people to understand that there are no miracle cures, and there's no way we're going to add the 8million jobs we lost in the next year or two. That's a fact, no matter which political party is in charge, or which policies they pursue. The choice is not between good and bad. It's been terrible and godawful-we-cant-even-bear-to-think-of-it. Right now, we're on track with terrible.

As to your comments regarding Wall St. and your healthy fear of it. Also very understandable. When it comes to the big banks - I completely agree. Morgan, Goldman, UBS, Citi -- they all ought to be ashamed of themselves.

As to the markets - I believe in markets. I believe in our equity markets, in our fixed income markets, and in our futures and options markets. I believe that given a chance, we can have a successful and vibrant emissions trading market too. Forty years ago if you had asked if we could electronically trade a cash-settled index futures product, very few would have said yes. Today - it's the bedrock of our capitalism. I believe in regulated, centrally-cleared markets and I think they can be an important (partial) remedy to the over-the-counter unregulated exchange in CDS derivatives that caused so much harm.

In short - when you say "Wall St." I think you mean the banks. Not the markets. There's a tendency by many to obscure the two. They're very different creatures.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I'm not a politician or an economist either. I think you're right about one thing - Keynesian policies are far from ideal, and many real families throughout America are feeling the pain of joblessness as a result. Where I diverge from you, is what is the alternative? Is the alternative to do nothing (or less)? To stimulate less? To increase unemployment benefits less than we are? To provide fewer tax credits to small business? Again -- you seem to want to have government DO SOMETHING. ANYTHING. Understandable. But then when they do it, you criticize and say "It's not working. Do something different." Also understandable. The problem is - what else would you have them do? The alternative to something , at least according to the official Opposition, aka the "Party of No", is to do nothing. What we need are targeted smart stimulus programs that make efficient use of our (borrowed!) dollars to get people working. And we also need the understanding and patience of the people to understand that there are no miracle cures, and there's no way we're going to add the 8million jobs we lost in the next year or two. That's a fact, no matter which political party is in charge, or which policies they pursue. The choice is not between good and bad. It's been terrible and godawful-we-cant-even-bear-to-think-of-it. Right now, we're on track with terrible.

As to your comments regarding Wall St. and your healthy fear of it. Also very understandable. When it comes to the big banks - I completely agree. Morgan, Goldman, UBS, Citi -- they all ought to be ashamed of themselves.

As to the markets - I believe in markets. I believe in our equity markets, in our fixed income markets, and in our futures and options markets. I believe that given a chance, we can have a successful and vibrant emissions trading market too. Forty years ago if you had asked if we could electronically trade a cash-settled index futures product, very few would have said yes. Today - it's the bedrock of our capitalism. I believe in regulated, centrally-cleared markets and I think they can be an important (partial) remedy to the over-the-counter unregulated exchange in CDS derivatives that caused so much harm.

In short - when you say "Wall St." I think you mean the banks. Not the markets. There's a tendency by many to obscure the two. They're very different creatures.

Like I said, I am no expert so all I can go by is who is getting results. I have this innate fear when we borrow and print trillions of dollars to bail out and to stimulate and after a year we are no better. Maybe nothing is better than this.At least we wouldn't have all this extra debt on top of the debt Bush gave us. It looks like it is worse than nothing, but that is just my observation.

Emissions trading, come on now. Trading the right to pollute? Making money on the transactions? Tell me that doesn't sound fishy to you? If CO2 is a pollutant then regulate it. Don't go selling credits so you can make money on someone elses polution. That seems like a huge ponzie deal to me. If the goal is to reduce CO2 then just reduce it, stop with the monkey business. This all smacks of the sin tax on cigarettes to fund childrens health care. The goal can't be to get people to quit, if they did then who will fund the health care? The goal is to make a self sustaining source of income. That sounds very hypocritical to me. I see carbon credits as the very same thing, a sin tax on energy to make income for paper pushers and the government.

[scandal 951]

Emissions trading, come on now. Trading the right to pollute? Making money on the transactions? Tell me that doesn't sound fishy to you? If CO2 is a pollutant then regulate it. Don't go selling credits so you can make money on someone elses polution. That seems like a huge ponzie deal to me. If the goal is to reduce CO2 then just reduce it, stop with the monkey business. This all smacks of the sin tax on cigarettes to fund childrens health care. The goal can't be to get people to quit, if they did then who will fund the health care? The goal is to make a self sustaining source of income. That sounds very hypocritical to me. I see carbon credits as the very same thing, a sin tax on energy to make income for paper pushers and the government.

No, it does not sound fishy to me, nor does it sound like a Ponzi scheme. It also apparently seems perfectly legitimate to themember firms of the CCX who are trading in a currently voluntary (yet legally binding) exchange . You know - some little no-name companies you've probably never heard of like Ford Motor, DuPont, Dow Corning, Sony Electronics, Cargill and Monsanto. The concept is to efficiently exchange what you want with what the other guy has, or vice versa. It's the same basic dynamic that works in any market. It works for things as diverse as interest rate spreads and index future options, and it works for emissions too. This isn't theory - this is practice. These firms are active participants along with the traders, speculators and hedgers every single day. What C/T legislation would do is to make the system mandatory rather than voluntary. That will deepen the liquidity, no doubt, but it's not needed to justify the basic concept that an emissions exchange can work.